Waste Management Master Plan
Peterborough, Ontario
This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document.
Snapshot a6862b4e455b · verified 2026-06-10 ·
original document ·
archived snapshot ·
unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.
Cambium Environmental Inc.
P.O. Box 325, 52 Hunter Street East, Peterborough, Ontario, K9H 1G5
Telephone: (705) 742.7900 (866) 217.7900
Facsimile: (705) 742.7907
www.cambium-env.com
NOTE:
The practice of this Company in issuing reports of this nature is to require the recipient not to publish the report or any part
thereof without the written consent of Cambium Environmental Inc.
WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN
CITY OF PETERBOROUGH
Cambium Reference No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page i
QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Limited Warranty
In performing work on behalf of a client, Cambium Environmental relies on its client to provide instructions on the scope of its retainer and, on
that basis, Cambium Environmental determines the precise nature of the work to be performed. Cambium Environmental undertakes all work
in accordance with applicable accepted industry practices and standards. Unless required under local laws, other than as expressly stated
herein, no other warranties or conditions, either expressed or implied, are made regarding the services, work or reports provided.
Reliance on Materials and Information
The findings and results presented in reports prepared by Cambium Environmental are based on the materials and information provided by
the client to Cambium Environmental and on the facts, conditions and circumstances encountered by Cambium Environmental during the
performance of the work requested by the client. In formulating its findings and results into a report, Cambium Environmental assumes that
the information and materials provided by the client or obtained by Cambium Environmental from the client or otherwise are factual, accurate
and represent a true depiction of the circumstances that exist. Cambium Environmental relies on its client to inform Cambium Environmental if
there are changes to any such information and materials. Cambium Environmental does not review, analyze or attempt to verify the accuracy
or completeness of the information or materials provided, or circumstances encountered, other than in accordance with applicable accepted
industry practice. Cambium Environmental will not be responsible for matters arising from incomplete, incorrect or misleading information or
from facts or circumstances that are not fully disclosed to or that are concealed from Cambium Environmental during the provision of services,
work or reports.
Facts, conditions, information and circumstances may vary with time and locations and Cambium Environmental's work is based on a review
of such matters as they existed at the particular time and location indicated in its reports. No assurance is made by Cambium Environmental
that the facts, conditions, information, circumstances or any underlying assumptions made by Cambium Environmental in connection with the
work performed will not change after the work is completed and a report is submitted. If any such changes occur or additional information is
obtained, Cambium Environmental should be advised and requested to consider if the changes or additional information affect its findings or
results.
When preparing reports, Cambium Environmental considers applicable legislation, regulations, governmental guidelines and policies to the
extent they are within its knowledge, but Cambium Environmental is not qualified to advise with respect to legal matters. The presentation of
information regarding applicable legislation, regulations, governmental guidelines and policies is for information only and is not intended to and
should not be interpreted as constituting a legal opinion concerning the work completed or conditions outlined in a report. All legal matters
should be reviewed and considered by an appropriately qualified legal practitioner.
Site Assessments
A site assessment is created using data and information collected during the investigation of a site and based on conditions encountered at
the time and particular locations at which fieldwork is conducted. The information, sample results and data collected represent the conditions
only at the specific times at which and at those specific locations from which the information, samples and data were obtained and the
information, sample results and data may vary at other locations and times. To the extent that Cambium Environmental's work or report
considers any locations or times other than those from which information, sample results and data was specifically received, the work or report
is based on a reasonable extrapolation from such information, sample results and data but the actual conditions encountered may vary from
those extrapolations.
Only conditions at the site and locations chosen for study by the client are evaluated; no adjacent or other properties are evaluated unless
specifically requested by the client. Any physical or other aspects of the site chosen for study by the client, or any other matter not specifically
addressed in a report prepared by Cambium Environmental, are beyond the scope of the work performed by Cambium Environmental and
such matters have not been investigated or addressed.
No Reliance
Cambium Environmental's services, work and reports are provided solely for the exclusive use of the client which has retained the services of
Cambium Environmental and to which its reports are addressed. Cambium Environmental is not responsible for the use of its work or reports
by any other party, or for the reliance on, or for any decision which is made by any party using the services or work performed by or a report
prepared by Cambium Environmental without Cambium Environmental's express written consent. Any party that relies on services or work
performed by Cambium Environmental or a report prepared by Cambium Environmental without Cambium Environmental's express written
consent, does so at its own risk. No report of Cambium Environmental may be disclosed or referred to in any public document without
Cambium Environmental's express prior written consent. Cambium Environmental specifically disclaims any liability or responsibility to any
such party for any loss, damage, expense, fine, penalty or other such thing which may arise or result from the use of any information,
recommendation or other matter arising from the services, work or reports provided by Cambium Environmental.
Limitation of Liability
Cambium Environmental is not responsible for any lost revenues, lost profits, cost of capital, or any special, indirect, consequential or punitive
damages suffered by the client or any other party in reliance on any Cambium Environmental work or report. Cambium Environmental's total
liability and responsibility to the client or any other person for any and all losses, costs, expenses, damages, claims, causes of action or other
liability whatsoever which do or may result or arise from or be in relation to Cambium Environmental's services, work (or failure to perform
services or work) or reports shall be limited to the invoiced charges for the work performed by Cambium Environmental.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Peterborough, like all Ontario municipalities, is responsible for the collection, processing and disposal
of the residential wastes generated within its boundaries. It has performed this service effectively over the years,
expanding its mandate from 100% disposal prior to the late-1980's, to that of providing diverse municipal
programming which encourages its residents to divert as much waste from landfill as possible. Peterborough has
enjoyed an excellent reputation amongst its municipal waste management peers for the past 20 years, showing
initiative and progressive thinking in waste diversion initiatives, the result of which has been a residential diversion
rate of 50% and greater over the past ten years.
Peterborough's last Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP) was completed in 1993. It was a joint Plan for
both the City and the County, which provided a 25-year planning tool for the Region. Many of the systems and
recommendations from that WMMP have been successfully incorporated over the past 20 years. The diversion
programs implemented over those years have matured to the point where little further increases in diversion rates
are being realized today. Now was felt to be the right time for a new WMMP. Many new opportunities and
technologies in the waste management field have emerged during the intervening decades. This WMMP
considers these opportunities and identifies where the City could feasibly incorporate them into its programs to
achieve substantially greater diversion from landfill.
This WMMP looks primarily at diversion of solid waste from residential sources, as this is the area the City has the
most direct control over. However, the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional sectors are highlighted as areas of
great potential which cannot and should not be ignored. Options for disposal/processing of the wastes still
remaining after diversion are briefly outlined; however, it is not within the scope of this WMMP to make
recommendations on disposal.
With an eye to the stated goals of increasing diversion, minimizing waste generation, and remaining fiscally
responsible, this WMMP contains a number of key recommendations for the City's Waste Management Division
to consider as it charts its course for the next 20 years.
Ambitious targets have been set so that our dependence upon landfilling or other means of disposal may be
minimized. Given the changeable nature of the waste industry and the broad expanse of time it incorporates, the
Plan should be viewed as a living document and reviewed regularly to ensure its continued relevancy to the
municipality's social, environmental, legislative and financial state dictates.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2
PLANNING AND CONSULTATION PROCESS OVERVIEW ................................................................. 4
1.3
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .......................................................................................................... 5
1.4
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN ............................................................................................ 7
1.5
PROBLEMS/OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................................. 11
2.0
RELEVANT LEGISLATION .................................................................................................................. 12
2.1
FEDERAL LEGISLATION ...................................................................................................................... 12
2.2
PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION ................................................................................................................. 12
3.0
REVIEW OF CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ............................................................... 14
3.1
SYSTEM OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 14
3.2
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM COSTS .......................................................................................... 16
3.2.1
Diversion Program Costs ....................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.2
Garbage Collection and Disposal Costs ................................................................................................ 17
3.2.3
Promotion and Education Costs ............................................................................................................ 18
3.3
CITY/COUNTY PARTNERSHIPS .......................................................................................................... 18
3.4
WASTE AUDIT/MONITORING .............................................................................................................. 18
3.5
WASTE STREAMS ................................................................................................................................ 19
3.5.1
Diversion ................................................................................................................................................ 19
3.5.1.1
Residential Blue Box ......................................................................................................................... 19
3.5.1.2
Organic Waste ................................................................................................................................... 20
3.5.1.2.1
Leaf and Yard Waste Diversion ........................................................................................................ 20
3.5.1.2.2
Source SepArated Organics Diversion ............................................................................................. 21
3.5.1.2.3
Backyard Composter Diversion ......................................................................................................... 21
3.5.1.3
Municipal Hazardous Waste ............................................................................................................. 21
3.5.1.4
Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment ...................................................................................... 21
3.5.1.5
Other Diversion ................................................................................................................................. 22
3.5.2
Disposal ................................................................................................................................................. 22
4.0
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREASING DIVERSION ............................................................................ 24
4.1
DIVERSION OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 24
5.0
OVERVIEW AND EVALUATION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPONENTS ..................... 28
5.1
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 28
5.2
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT .............................................................................................................. 29
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page iv
5.2.1
Public Information Centre ...................................................................................................................... 29
5.2.2
Online Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 30
5.3
EVALUATION OF DIVERSION OPTIONS ............................................................................................ 32
5.3.1
Promotion and Education (P&E) ............................................................................................................ 32
5.3.1.1
Enhanced P&E - General ................................................................................................................. 34
5.3.1.2
Enhanced P&E - Large Future Campaigns ...................................................................................... 34
5.3.1.3
Staff Training ..................................................................................................................................... 36
5.3.2
Enhancement of Diversion Programs .................................................................................................... 37
5.3.2.1
Establish New and Enhance Existing markets .................................................................................. 38
5.3.2.2
Waste Exchange/Reuse Centre ........................................................................................................ 41
5.3.2.3
SSO Collection .................................................................................................................................. 42
5.3.2.4
Public Space Recycling ..................................................................................................................... 45
5.3.3
System Optimization .............................................................................................................................. 46
5.3.3.1
Pick-Up Frequency and Collection Optimization ............................................................................... 47
5.3.3.2
Regular Waste Audits ........................................................................................................................ 47
5.3.4
Multi-Residential Recycling and Diversion ............................................................................................. 48
5.3.5
Policy and Enforcement ......................................................................................................................... 50
5.3.6
IC&I Waste Recycling and Diversion ..................................................................................................... 53
5.3.7
Anticipated Diversion and Associated Costs ......................................................................................... 56
5.4
DISCUSSION OF WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS ................................................................................ 57
6.0
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................... 59
6.1
MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ......................................................................... 60
6.2
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 60
6.2.1
Influence and Inform .............................................................................................................................. 61
6.2.2
Consult and Involve ............................................................................................................................... 61
6.2.3
Partner and Collaborate ......................................................................................................................... 61
6.2.4
Empower ................................................................................................................................................ 62
6.3
GREEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 62
6.3.1
Job Creation ........................................................................................................................................... 63
6.3.2
Financial Recovery From Diversion ....................................................................................................... 63
6.3.3
Energy Production.................................................................................................................................. 63
6.4
MEASURING SUCCESS ....................................................................................................................... 64
6.5
FUNDING PROGRAMS ......................................................................................................................... 64
7.0
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 66
7.1
DIVERSION ........................................................................................................................................... 66
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page v
7.2
DISPOSAL ............................................................................................................................................. 68
8.0
CLOSING ............................................................................................................................................... 69
In order following Conclusions and Recommendations
REFERENCES
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF EMBEDDED FIGURES
Figure 1
Regional Location Plan .................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2
Provincial Facilities Location Plan .................................................................................................. 44
LIST OF EMBEDDED TABLES
Table 1
City of Peterborough Waste Composition (2010) .......................................................................... 15
Table 2
2010 Waste Disposed for the Medium Urban Municipal Grouping ................................................ 23
Table 3
Residential Waste Generation Projection Rates to 2031 ............................................................... 23
Table 4
Estimate of Divertible Materials Remaining in Waste Stream ....................................................... 26
Table 5
P&E Strategies - Summary of Strengths and Challenges............................................................. 36
Table 6
Diversion Program Enhancements - Summary of Strengths and Challenges .............................. 45
Table 7
System Optimization - Summary of Strengths and Challenges .................................................... 48
Table 8
Multi-Residential Recycling - Summary of Strengths and Challenges .......................................... 50
Table 9
Anticipated Cost and Diversion Rate Increase by Diversion Option .............................................. 56
Table 10
Summary of Key Recommendations - Waste Diversion ................................................................ 67
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A
Public Consultation Process
Appendix B
Relevant Legislation
Appendix C
Waste Diversion Options
Appendix D
Supporting Reports
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Cambium Environmental Inc. (Cambium) has been retained by the Corporation of the City of Peterborough (City)
to prepare a municipal solid Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP). This WMMP will be a tool which the City
will use to develop the waste management policies, guidelines, and general best practices for both short and long
term planning.
In 1989, the County of Peterborough (County) and City established a plan for waste diversion and reduction with
an initial target of 40% and the hope of improved capture rates and participation as the programs continued to
grow and improve. This target was soon met and surpassed.
In December 1993, a waste management master plan was completed for the City and the County. The plan, titled
Peterborough County/City Waste Management Master Plan, Waste Management System Plan Report (Proctor &
Redfern, December 1993) provided a joint County/City plan over a 25-year planning period. The final preferred
system included components to assist the City and County in achieving a goal of diverting 50% of all waste
generated from landfill disposal by the year 2000. Though the 25 year period is not yet up, it was felt that the City
and County both should take a fresh look at their respective waste management systems, in light of new options
and opportunities for diversion.
Under the Municipal Act, 2001, the City has the responsibility to plan for and manage municipally-generated solid
waste within its boundaries. The focus of the WMMP will be to provide strategic direction for optimizing the
current and future residential solid waste diversion programs to best meet the sustainability needs (i.e. social,
economic, and environmental) of the City over the next 20 years.
1.1
BACKGROUND
Over the past 20 years, the City has successfully established a number of programs which have led to impressive
diversion rates, and an excellent reputation amongst municipal peers. Now that many of these programs have
matured, there is a need to investigate new and emerging technologies and opportunities such that the City's
diversion rates can continue to climb.
For the preparation of this report, only 2010 data was collected and referenced which was complete and readily
available when Cambium required the information necessary to undertake the review of the current waste
management system. The use of the 2010 allowed for consistency throughout the report.
In 2010, the City of Peterborough reported a population of approximately 79,334 persons (26,240 single-family
households and 8,675 multi-family households). It should be noted that the City of Peterborough does not include
the County but the waste management services are shared in part with the County; therefore, the City will need to
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 2
consider the County during the planning process. The City covers an area of approximately 1,283 square
kilometres and is located just over one hour northeast of Toronto in the Kawartha Lakes Region (Figure 1).
The City manages the collection of residential and small Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (IC&I) garbage.
The garbage is hauled to the Peterborough County/City Waste Management Facility (PCCWMF) on Bensfort
Road for disposal. In June 2002, the PCCWMF became the joint property of the County and City. The PCCWMF
encompasses 158 hectares and is located on Bensfort Road approximately six km south of the City on part Lot
13, 14, and 15, Concession 14, within the Township of Otonabee South Monaghan.
The City is also responsible for the curbside collection of recyclable materials, which it does through a contracted
weekly collection. Recyclables are collected on the same day as garbage and taken to the City's Materials
Recycling Facility at 390 Pido Road for processing. The County also uses this facility for processing its
recyclables.
GMH
Month, Year
1965-001
1
Figure:
Created by:
Checked by:
Date:
Project No.:
Scale:
P.O. Box 325, 52 Hunter Street East
Peterborough, Ontario, K9H 1G5
Tel: 1 (705) 742.7900
Fax: 1 (705) 742.7907
www.cambium-env.com
Source: © Queen's Printer of Ontario, 2010
(this does not constitute an endorsement by
the MNR or the Ontario Government)
KSM
Legend
Projection:
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
WASTE MANAGEMENT
MASTER PLAN
CITY OF PETERBOROUGH
500 George Street North
Peterborough, Ontario
REGIONAL LOCATION PLAN
Kingston
Oshawa
Barrie
Newmarket
Toronto
Orillia
Lindsay
Kingston
Haliburton
Huntsville
Belleville
Trenton
Bancroft
º
0
10
20
30
40
50
Kilometres
City of Peterborough
Highway
Other Road
Watercourse, Permanent
Water Body
Provincial Park
Built-Up Area
County of Peterborough
Outside of Province
1:1,500,000
CITY OF
PETERBOROUGH
L a k e O n t a r i o
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 4
1.2
PLANNING AND CONSULTATION PROCESS OVERVIEW
The planning process used to develop this long term WMMP was consistent with the Ontario Ministry of
Environment (MOE) Policy Statement on Waste Management Planning.
The Provincial Policy Statement on waste management planning sets out the following principles to be considered
in any waste management planning process:
Environmental protection is a shared responsibility.
Integrated waste management systems that reflect local circumstances are in place.
Diversion of materials from final disposal is maximized in consideration of the provincial 60% diversion target,
including the creation of incentives where appropriate.
Public and private sectors cooperate, where possible, to realize cost savings and maximize efficiencies.
Waste management choices consider economic, social, and environmental costs.
Investment in infrastructure is made to accommodate growth.
Waste is managed as close to the source of generation as possible.
Producer responsibility is incorporated into waste reduction and management.
Decision-making is open and transparent.
Informed citizens support waste management choices and participate in waste management programs.
Maximum value from waste is recovered from the waste stream.
Innovative waste management technologies and approaches are incorporated as appropriate to local
circumstances to achieve sustainable solutions.
The steps followed in developing this WMMP included:
1) Understanding and assessing the current waste management system;
2) Developing a vision and goals for future waste management initiatives;
3) Understanding and assessing the options available to the City;
4) Selecting waste management system components; and,
5) Preparing the final plan document.
The community consultation included discussions with local stakeholders for the early identification of key issues
and open houses to present the study results and recommended waste management system options. An outline
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 5
of the public consultation process, as well as the results of the consultation activities are provided in Appendix A.
Input from the public has been incorporated throughout this report.
In July 2011, the Director of Utility Services requested that a Steering Committee (SC) be established to review
and update the City's Waste Management Master Plan. The SC, comprised of three City employees and one
County representative including one City Councillor, provided strategic direction and made recommendations on
the acceptance of a new plan to City Council.
1.3
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Outlined in the Policy Statement on Waste Management Planning, each waste generating sector has roles and
responsibilities in the management of solid waste. Each sector must actively participate in trying to achieve a
more sustainable waste management system, while being environmentally responsible.
The following roles and responsibilities have been developed by the MOE as a guide for communities trying to
attain a sustainable solid waste management community.
The Province
Set and enforce environmental standards and requirements for waste diversion and disposal.
Support municipalities and the private sector by providing the necessary tools for waste diversion and the
disposal of waste.
Issue approvals to waste disposal sites and waste haulers to ensure appropriate management.
Municipalities
Plan for and provide direct waste management services to their residents, and in some cases, local
businesses, including programs for waste diversion and disposal of waste.
Plan for, site, and invest in necessary waste management infrastructure.
Comply with provincial waste management standards and requirements.
Fund and implement diversion programs under the Waste Diversion Act.
Private Sector Waste Management Industry
Provide waste services to clients of the IC&I sectors, and in some cases, through contract to
municipalities, waste services to residents.
Comply with provincial waste management standards and requirements.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 6
The IC&I Sectors
Plan for, and help reduce, the amount of waste generated by their operations.
Comply with provincial waste management standards and requirements.
Producers and Stewards
Minimize the life-cycle impacts (i.e. environmental footprint) of products and their packaging through
Design for the Environment.
Fund and implement diversion programs under the Waste Diversion Act.
The Public
Help reduce the amount of waste generated through their activities and choices.
Engage in waste management decisions and participate in waste prevention and diversion programs.
Environmental Groups
Promote the need to reduce waste and conserve our natural resources.
Raise public awareness of waste management issues.
Under the Ministry of the Environment's Policy Statement on Waste Management Planning, municipalities
are responsible for:
Planning, siting and investing in waste management infrastructure
Funding and implementing diversion programs under the Waste Diversion Act
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 7
1.4
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN
The City of Peterborough has developed a Guiding Principle that needs to be central to the establishment of the
Goals and Objectives and any deliverables that are established subsequent to the Plan. The Guiding Principle
is provided below:
Chart 1: Guiding Principle
Guiding Principle: The Peterborough County/City Waste Management Facility (PCCWMF) is a
valuable resource. The City of Peterborough needs to minimize residual waste and optimize the
use of the City's diversion and disposal facilities. The City of Peterborough needs to be a leader in
sustainability and environmental stewardship.
Targets
Objectives
Goals
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 8
Goals
The long-term WMMP is an essential step towards the provision of sustainable waste systems within the City of
Peterborough. The WMMP began with the establishment of fundamental goals that are attainable and within the
means of the residents to complete. The goals always relate back to the Guiding Principle and will help the City
be a leader in sustainability and environmental stewardship. The fundamental goals of the WMMP are as follows:
Chart 2: Goals
Goal 3: Fiscally
Responsible
Waste
Management
System
Goal 2:
Minimize
Generation
Goal 1:
Maximize
Diversion
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 9
Objectives
The fundamental goals are obtained by setting more specific achievable objectives. Through approval of Report
USWM11-004 on October 17, 2011, the City has established key objectives for each of the three goals. The
objectives are as follows:
Chart 3: Objectives
Maximize Diversion
- Maximize
accessibility to City
Waste Management
programs and
facilities
- Develop policies
surrounding waste
management and
reduction plans for
industrial,
commercial and
institutional sectors
- Establish a curbside
collection program
for food waste, to
be converted into a
high value soil
amendment
- Keep current with
emerging waste
diversion
technologies
- Develop policies and
programs for public
space recycling
Minimize Generation
- Encourage reuse
facility
development
- Establish working
groups for new
waste reduction
and reuse
programs
- Investigate
corporate green
procurement
policies
Fiscally Responsible
- Continue to
collaborate with
the County and
surrounding
municipalities on
waste management
opportunities
where viable for
the City and its
residents
- Utilize waste
management
resources
efficiently by
reviewing and
creating possible
partnerships with
other groups or
organizations
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 10
Targets
Key targets have been generated from the goals and objectives that apply to all. These targets will allow the City
to monitor their progress with the established Plan and verify deliverables. The targets will be adjustable with the
changing economic and social trends and are provided as follows:
As previously noted in the Key Targets, the fundamental Waste Management Best Practices (KPMG, 2007)
include:
1. Development and implementation of an up-to-date plan for recycling, as part of an integrated waste
management system;
2. Multi-municipal planning approach to collection and processing recyclables;
3. Establishing defined performance measures, including diversion targets, monitoring, and a continuous
improvement program;
4. Optimization of operations in collections and processing;
5. Training of key program staff in core competencies;
6. Following generally accepted principles for effective procurement and contract management;
7. Appropriately planned, designed, and funded promotion and education program; and
8. Established and enforced policies that induce waste diversion.
KEY TARGETS
Expand the number and type of education and outreach and/or partnership activities year over year from
2010 levels.
Meet all eight Waste Management Best Practices as outlined in the Blue Box Program Enhancement
and Best Practices Assessment Project Report, 2007, prepared by KPMG LLP, a Canadian advisory
services firm.
Residential diversion rate will increase from 2010 level of 50% to 75% over 20 years, with a review of
target every five years.
Capture rates for blue box materials will increase 10% from 2006 levels (79.5%) over 20 years, with a
review of target every five years.
Participation rate of 50% in year 1 of the proposed SSO program with an increase for each year of the
program.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 11
Many of these best practices are already in place with the City. The development of this report will aid in
formalizing the plans and approaches necessary to implement the best practices and seeing the programs
through to completion.
1.5
PROBLEMS/OPPORTUNITIES
Since the 1993 Waste Management Master Plan (Proctor & Redfern, December 1993), the City has looked to
pursue a more efficient solid waste management system.
There are several main issues facing the City waste management system including:
Diminishing life capacity of the PCCWMP;
Diminishing or uncertain life capacity of Materials Recycling Facility (MRF);
Limited Monitoring and Reporting program in place to verify current capture and participation rates;
No Source Separated Organics (SSO) program; and,
Limited influence/role with IC&I waste sector and waste management.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 12
2.0 RELEVANT LEGISLATION
There is federal, provincial, and municipal legislation that guides the waste management practices for every
municipality and/or private sector operation. The key federal and provincial legislation, as it relates to waste
management, is summarized below and is included in detail in Appendix B. The municipal by-laws are referenced
in Sections 3.1 and 5.3.
2.1
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
Waste management is governed federally through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The CEPA provides the legislative framework for the
establishment of pollution prevention plans, identification of toxic substances, establishment of waste
management facilities, import and export of waste, as well as to regulate the effects of government operations on
and in relation to federal lands and aboriginal lands. The CEPA established the Environmental Registry as a
means for the Canadian public to receive information on any waste management facility or system to be
established or altered which requires public input and screening.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) applies to all projects where the Government of Canada
has decision-making authority - whether as a proponent, land manager, source of funding, or regulator. All
projects receive an appropriate degree of environmental assessment which ensures that the environmental
effects of projects are carefully reviewed before federal authorities take action in connection with them so that
projects do not cause significant adverse environmental effects.
Additional information on either the CEPA or the CEAA is included in Appendix B.
2.2
PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION
Waste management is regulated by the Province under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and the Ontario
Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). The EPA provides the legislative framework for the establishment of
waste management facilities. The establishment, management, alteration, and/or expansion of waste
management facilities in the Province of Ontario requires an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA; formerly
referred to as a Provisional Certificate of Approval) under Part 5, Section 27 of the EPA. Key provincial legislation
includes:
Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 347 - General Waste Management;
O. Reg. 101/94 - Waste Diversion Act;
O. Reg. 101/07 - Waste Management Projects, under the EAA and amendments to the EPA for waste
recycling, mining, alternative fuels, as well as new/emerging technologies;
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 13
O. Reg. 103/94 - Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Source Separation Programs; and,
O. Reg. 267/03 - Nutrient Management Act, regulating nutrients and use on agricultural land.
In addition, the MOE posts Guidelines that are used in a similar way to regulations when preparing ECA
documents.
Additional information on the provincial legislation and guidelines for waste management are provided in
Appendix B for reference purposes.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 14
3.0 REVIEW OF CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
3.1
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The City provides curbside garbage (weekly), blue box (weekly), leaf and yard waste (35 weekly collections
annually), and bulky goods (twice per year) collection services to 26,240 single-family homes and 8,675 multi-
family households. Details of these services, as well as other diversion opportunities provided by the City, are
listed below.
The City enacted a by-law in February 1993 that enforces a two bag/container limit for residences, and a four
bag/container limit for businesses and lodging houses. The by-law (Chapter 594 Garbage Collection) also
defines recyclable material and stipulates that it is illegal to dispose of recyclables as solid waste. In addition, the
City developed a by-law (By-Law 09-108) that details all materials that are banned from the PCCWMF. A copy of
these by-laws are included in Appendix B for reference purposes. It is recommended that the City review and
consider updating these by-laws to reflect the current waste management planning goals and objectives within the
next one to two years.
A total of 34,683 tonnes of residential waste was generated within the City in 2010 (City of Peterborough, 2011).
Approximately 51.0% (17,823 tonnes) was diverted through programs such as blue box recycling, leaf and yard
waste composting, MHSW collections, WEEE, and backyard composting. These programs and the remaining
waste stream are discussed in more detail below.
The waste composition for the City in 2010 is included as Table 1.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 15
Table 1 City of Peterborough Waste Composition (2010)
Material
Weight (tonnes)
Percentage of Waste Stream
Diverted
Blue Box Recyclables (marketed only)
7,977
23.0%
Organics and Leaf and Yard Waste
7,011
20.2%
Other Recyclables (i.e. scrap metal, tires, etc.)
1,590
4.6%
Residential Deposit Return Program
437
1.3%
WEEE
266
0.8%
MHSW (recycled and reused)
79
0.2%
Residential Reuse
4
0.01%
Total Diverted
17,364
50.1%
Disposed
Garbage
16,191
46.7%
Processing Residue
979
2.8%
MHSW Residue
150
0.4%
Total Disposed
17,320
49.9 %
Total Generated
34,684
100.0%
Notes:
1. Source: (City of Peterborough, 2011).
2. All diverted material weights listed above represent tonnes marketed, not collected.
3.Weights noted above are rounded.
A graphical representation of the City's waste composition is included in Chart 4.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 16
Chart 4:
City of Peterborough Waste Composition (2010)
With the 2010 population of 79,334 persons, disposal quantities within the City averaged 218.3 kg per person per
year and diversion quantities averaged 225 kg per person per year (City of Peterborough, 2011).
3.2
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM COSTS
Overall, the City's waste management system services in 2010 had a net operating cost of $2,869,232. The costs
include all programs financed under the Waste Management Division, including solid waste collection and
disposal, blue box collection and processing, green waste collection and composting, the Municipal Hazardous or
Special Waste (MHSW) depot, promotion and education, salaries, and all other administrative expenses. The net
cost to provide all waste management services to City residents in 2010 was $82.18 per household. The cost per
household is based on a simple calculation and is not based in any way on the average assessment.
Garbage
Processing
Residue from
recycling
Blue Box
Deposits on
Bottles
Residential
Reuse
WEEE
Green Waste and
BYC
Other Recyclabes
MHSW
City of Peterborough Waste Composition (2010)
DIVERTED
DISPOSED
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 17
3.2.1
DIVERSION PROGRAM COSTS
City diversion programs - including blue box recycling, green waste collection, compost production and
distribution, and the household hazardous waste and electronics depot - had a net operating cost of
$1,198,352.50 in 2010. This includes all staff and administration expenses for each program, as well as all forms
of recoveries, including sale of recyclables to markets and provincial funding. It does not include recoveries or
expenses for recyclables handled at the landfill site. The net cost to provide these diversion programs to City
residents in 2010 was $34.32 per household.
3.2.2
GARBAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL COSTS
Garbage collection and disposal costs consider the weekly curbside collection of garbage from households and
small businesses, the bi-annual collection of large articles, and the handling and disposal of these items at the
PCCWMF. The City shares the costs and revenues for the PCCWMF with the County of Peterborough.
The total tonnage of waste received at the PCCWMF in 2010 was 60,248 from the City and County combined.,
and the gross cost to operate the facility was $3,101,900.15. This included all aspects of running the facility,
including revenue-sharing with the County, consultant fees, salaries, contracted services, taxes, host royalties
and much more. When recoveries are factored in, including rental property incomes, tip fees, revenue from sale
of marketable materials and provincial funding for tire recycling, the City showed a net revenue of $580,686.00 at
this facility in 2010. This does not take into account the annual payments of close to one million dollars into
reserve funds to help finance potential future overruns and post-closure costs.
Collection costs for garbage and large articles totalled $1,130,150.00, bringing the net operating cost to handle
garbage in the City to $549,464.00. When annual reserve fund costs are factored in, it brings the net cost to
provide disposal programs to City residents in 2010 to $44.38 per household or 29% more than diversion program
costs.
It should also be noted that disposal costs consider only the actual dollars paid out in a given year, and do not
take into account other costs that are more difficult to quantify (long-term post-closure costs, search and
development of new disposal options, environmental and societal costs, etc.).
A true-cost analysis of the City and County's disposal practices is highly recommended, so that valid
comparisons can be made by decision-makers between future disposal and diversion options.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 18
3.2.3
PROMOTION AND EDUCATION COSTS
As noted in the Blue Box Program Enhancement and Best Practices Report (KPMG, 2007), those communities in
the 2005 WDO Datacall with recovery rates at or exceeding 60% were generally spending between $0.83 to
$1.18 per household on the promotion of recycling. It was also suggested that there was a strong correlation
between increased promotion and education (P&E) spending and increased recovery in Ontario recycling
programs. In 2010, the City spent a total of $32,500.00, or $0.93 per household, on all waste management-
related promotions. Of that, recycling/blue box-specific P&E expenses were $13,290.00 in 2010, or $0.38 per
household, well under half of what Best Practices recommend.
3.3
CITY/COUNTY PARTNERSHIPS
An important aspect of solid waste management system planning for the City is the ongoing shared commitment
between the City and County, specifically the shared responsibility of the PCCWMF and mutual use of the MRF.
The City, in partnership with the County, owns and operates the PCCWMF which is located within the Township
of Otonabee-South Monaghan. The City intends to move forward in partnership with the County to determine the
most suitable option for waste disposal for both jurisdictions when capacity is no longer available at the
PCCWMF.
The City and County have separate long term agreements with HGC Management Inc., the operator of the MRF,
from January 17, 2008 for a period of seven years. The Pido Road MRF was constructed by the City in 1989.
The City also owns and operates the Harper Road compost facility which is currently utilized to compost leaf and
yard waste and the SSO pilot program materials from the City and the County. The MRF, if operated properly,
could have a remaining life capacity of seven to ten years. There is also a chance that Stewardship Ontario may
decide that the current operation is not sufficient for the service area and receiving stream within the next few
years, and may require the City to look at alternatives.
A review of this relationship should be undertaken to ensure absolute clarity in agreements on the future direction
of waste disposal requirements, policies and operations. The City and County need to work together to find a
compatible and sustainable solution for both parties.
3.4
WASTE AUDIT/MONITORING
The City has performed a number of waste audits over the years. The data obtained through these audits is
essential to assess waste composition; to determine the recovery performance of existing programs (capture
rates); and, to assess opportunities and priorities for recovery improvement.
The last waste audits done in the City were completed in 2006, in partnership with Stewardship Ontario. There
were four separate audits conducted over the year, one during each season. One hundred households were
selected to participate, and these same households were audited each time. Audit results indicated that the
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 19
participation rate in the garbage curbside collection program is virtually 100% with an average of 1.36 bags per
week per household being set out. The participation rate in the blue box program was determined to be 99%.
The average capture rate of blue box materials was found to be 79.5%. This is less than the blue box capture
rate target of 85% for a municipality in the Medium Urban municipal grouping, as determined by the Continuous
Improvement Fund (CIF) (Trow, 2010). It is anticipated that the capture rate may have increased to date, but
there have been no additional audits to verify this information.
An identical set of audits is planned for the City during 2012, which will show whether capture rates have
improved over the intervening years.
3.5
WASTE STREAMS
The following section provides a breakdown of the waste streams currently processed within the City. There are
two main areas of waste: the diverted waste; and the waste that is not diverted which for the purposes of this
report has been referred to as disposed waste.
3.5.1
DIVERSION
The material currently diverted by the City is discussed in further detail in this section to provide a better
understanding of the level of effort already achieved by the City and residents to keep materials out of the landfill.
3.5.1.1
RESIDENTIAL BLUE BOX
The residential blue box made its start in the 1970s with a group called the "Peterborough Environment People",
or "PEP". The City paid rent for a Quonset hut at the west end of Hawley Street, which served as a depot for
recyclables. This was open from 8 am to 12 pm on Saturdays for drop off of residents' glass and metal containers
and newspapers.
At about the same time, Scott's Plains Recycling Inc. had tried to develop a business making shipping pallets,
which employed federal prisoners on parole and living in a local half-way house. The project was not successful
so the directors of the Scott's Plains Recycling Inc. made a proposal to the City to start a curbside collection
coinciding with garbage pick-up and using the blue box. Premises were rented in an old factory building on Perry
Street. It soon became obvious that the Perry Street location was too small and a facility built specifically for
material recovery was required. Construction started in 1988 on the Pido Road facility. The weekly collection of
recyclables by blue box began in 1987.
In February of 1993, participation in the blue box program was encouraged by including a definition of "recyclable"
items in the City's Garbage by-law, and making it illegal to dispose of recyclable items in the regular garbage.
Definitions of allowable receptacles for recyclables, as well as garbage and green waste, were also included in
the by-law. A copy of this By-Law can be found in Appendix B.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 20
In January of 2008, the City moved from a five-stream system of recyclables collection, to a two-stream system.
This was done to make collections at the curb faster, more efficient, and convenient for residents. A "Fiber"
stream and a "Containers" stream are sorted and processed on two separate lines at the MRF. In 2010, the City
of Peterborough recycled 8,460 tonnes of blue box material, for a blue box diversion rate of approximately 24%.
An additional 437 tonnes are calculated to be diverted through the LCBO Deposit Return Program.
All residential blue box material collected is taken to the MRF located on Pido Road. Recyclable materials can
also be dropped off at no charge at a 24 hour depot, located at the MRF.
3.5.1.2
ORGANIC WASTE
Organic - or biodegradable - waste has both general and specific types. The terms that are generally referenced
in this Plan are as follows:
SSO - Food waste and non-recyclable paper that is separated for composting or other organic
waste processing. Some municipalities have widened the definition of SSO to include diapers,
sanitary products and pet waste. Typically has greater processing requirement than leaf and yard
waste, therefore it is identified as a separate component of organic waste.
Leaf and Yard Waste - Refers to leaves, grass, weeds, trimmings, brush, and woody materials
(twigs, branches, etc.).
Backyard Compost - Composting of residential organic materials by a household, usually in the
backyard. Typically includes only fruits, vegetables and other non-meat and non-dairy products
from the kitchen. Generally considered a method of source reduction as it is done at the home.
Please refer to the Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations at the end of this document for further clarification, if
required. A total of 7,027 tonnes of organic materials were diverted through a combination of the methods
described below. This represents 20.3% of the total residential waste stream.
3.5.1.2.1
LEAF AND YARD WASTE DIVERSION
Leaf and yard waste material is transported to the composting facility on Harper Road for processing. An open
windrow composting process is used. In 2010, a total of 4,941 tonnes of leaf and yard waste material was
collected within the City, which represents approximately 14.2% of the total residential waste stream by weight.
Of this, approximately 86% was collected by the City through the curbside program and the remaining 14% was
dropped off by residents at the depot at the PCCWMF.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 21
3.5.1.2.2
SOURCE SEPARATED ORGANICS DIVERSION
A total of 625 single-family households and three (3) restaurants are included in the City's SSO pilot program.
204.75 tonnes of SSO were collected by the City in 2010, which represents 7.1% of the total residential waste
stream by weight. The City has noted that the majority of households in the pilot neighbourhood do not
participate in this program, which began in 2001 and has lost some momentum over the years due to resident
turnover and lack of promotion. SSO materials collected through this pilot program are transported to the
composting facility on Harper Road where they are processed along with the leaf and yard waste. When
completely composted, the material is screened, analysed, and made available to City and County residents
through truckload deliveries or self-load options at Peterborough Green-Up and the PCCWMF.
3.5.1.2.3
BACKYARD COMPOSTER DIVERSION
Approximately 1882 tonnes of residential organics were assumed to be diverted through backyard composting
and other at-home reduction efforts in 2010 (including an estimated 368 tonnes which were 'grasscycled'). This is
based on the assumption that each composter diverts an estimated 100 kg/unit/year. The City had distributed
15,135 units at the end of 2010.
3.5.1.3
MUNICIPAL HAZARDOUS WASTE
The year-round MHSW Depot is located at 400 Pido Road in Peterborough and is open to all City and County
residents, free of charge. Materials such as paint, batteries, used oil, solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, old
pharmaceuticals, used syringes, propane tanks, fluorescent lights, and antifreeze are accepted at this facility from
households and small businesses. It is open four days a week, from 8 am until 4 pm.
A total of 229 tonnes of MHSW material was collected in 2010. Of the 229 tonnes collected, 150.28 tonnes were
disposed and 79.15 tonnes were recycled and reused, representing approximately 0.2% by weight of the entire
residential waste stream.
3.5.1.4
WASTE ELECTRONIC AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
The following municipal depots within the City provide waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE)
collection services and are registered collection locations with Ontario Electronics Stewardship (OES):
MRF(400 Pido Road, Peterborough)
PCCWMF (Bensfort Road, Otonabee South Monaghan)
Special single event days for the collection of WEEE materials are also held periodically by the City at select
locations. A number of commercial retailers also provide WEEE drop off depots through the Ontario Electronics
Stewardship Program for residents, if needed.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 22
A total of 333 tonnes of WEEE material was diverted by the City in 2010, which represents approximately 1.0% by
weight of the entire residential waste stream.
3.5.1.5
OTHER DIVERSION
In addition to the above noted diversion streams, the PCCWMF and MRF provided collection of various recyclable
materials:
Used Tires - 17.5 tonnes of tire material were diverted in 2010, which represents approximately 0.1% by
weight of the entire waste stream.
Scrap Metal - 190 tonnes of scrap metal material were collected in 2010, which represents approximately
0.5% by weight of the entire waste stream.
Construction, Renovation and Demolition Waste - 1,383 tonnes of construction, renovation and demolition
(CR&D) material were collected in 2010, which represents approximately 3.9% by weight of the entire
waste stream.
Drywall - 294 tonnes of drywall were diverted in 2010, which represents approximately 0.8% by weight of
the entire waste stream.
3.5.2
DISPOSAL
The City of Peterborough disposed of 17,320 tonnes of residential waste in 2010, which is calculated as 218.3 kg
per person and represents approximately 49% by weight of the entire waste stream. This consisted of: 12,134
tonnes collected from single- and multi-family households; 4,058 tonnes collected at the landfill depot; 979 tonnes
of recycling and compost processing residues; and, 150 tonnes that were disposed from the MHSW Depot
(Waste Diversion Ontario, 2011).
In comparison with other municipalities within the Medium Urban municipal grouping, the City's per capita
waste generation rate is approximately 20% lower than the average (Table 2).
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 23
Table 2 2010 Waste Disposed for the Medium Urban Municipal Grouping
Program Name
Waste Disposed (kg/capita)
City of Guelph
193.59
City of Barrie
216.89
City of Peterborough*
218.30
City of Sarnia
247.02
City of Sault Ste. Marie
298.87
City of Brantford
330.57
City of Thunder Bay
341.43
AVERAGE FOR MEDIUM URBAN GROUPING
263.48
Source: (Waste Diversion Ontario, 2010).
*2010 WDO Datacall
Households within the City are permitted to set out a maximum of two lifts of garbage per week for collection at
curbside.
The PCCWMF will continue to provide waste disposal capacity for the County and City for approximately 12 to 15
years (from January 2011). Historically an assumed annual waste disposal rate of 60,000 tonnes (including IC&I
and divertible material) and an assumed apparent waste density of 0.65 tonnes/ m3 were applied (Genivar and
Urban & Environmental Management Inc., 2011).
To determine future waste management needs, Cambium reviewed the future growth projections with the City
and consulted the City's Official Plan Review. Based on these reviews, the City has projected a population
growth of 88,000 by 2031. This projection coincides with the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) Places to Grow
Growth Plan policies. From this anticipated growth, we reviewed the tonnages and utilized the residential waste
generation rate without divertible material of 218.3kg/capita and it can be projected that the annual residential
waste disposal rate in over the next 20 years will be as follows in Table 3:
Table 3 Residential Waste Generation Projection Rates to 2031
2010
2016
2021
2026
2031
Population
79,334
81,436
83,594
85,810
88,041
Residential Waste (tonnes)
17,320
17,779
18,250
18,734
19,221
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 24
4.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREASING DIVERSION
This section summarizes the potential gaps between the City's current diversion of its various waste streams
(based on 2006 waste audit data) and the goals and objectives identified in this Plan.
The City of Peterborough is considered an urban municipality, having over 150 multi-residential and many IC&I
developments. Provincially, the City falls on the medium sized charts for comparison purposes with other cities of
similar land uses and population densities.
As previously mentioned in Section 3.4, the City conducted its most recent formal waste audit in 2006. The
findings from this audit were used in the diversion opportunity analysis, along with data from the 2010 WDO
Datacall.
4.1
DIVERSION OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS
By completing the analysis of diversion opportunity, it allows the City to review the amount of waste and recycling
collected, the composition of this material, and the manner in which the material is received (i.e. in a garbage bag
or blue box). Cambium has provided a summary of this information in tabular form for ease of understanding and
presentation, in Table 4.
From the 2010 WDO Datacall report, the total residential waste and recycling generated in the City in 2010 was
about 34,684 tonnes which includes backyard composting (BYC), the Beer Store (LCBO deposit, stewardship
returns), WEEE, Reuse, CR&D recycling, MHSW, tires, scrap metal, leaf and yard, SSO, blue box material, and
garbage. Of this total, 17,823 tonnes of the material was diverted while the remaining was disposed.
The 2006 Waste Audit indicated that organics comprised 30% of the total waste stream (City of Peterborough,
2006). A study entitled Residential Waste Composition Study (Ministry of the Environment, 1991) indicated that
organics material comprises approximately 37% of residential solid waste in Southern Ontario. The number of
37% was used to estimate the total amount of material available in the waste stream.
To determine the amount of MHSW material remaining in the waste stream, the MHSW Program Plan
(Stewardship Ontario, 2009) was used. This Plan provides for the end-of-life management of all MHSW materials
under the Stewardship Ontario Program Plan. The Plan included an analysis of all MHSW material sold, available
for collection, and reported collected and transported in Ontario over an eight-month period in 2008 and 2009.
The total MHSW material available for collection Ontario-wide was reported to be 40,612 tonnes over eight
months. This tonnage was then interpolated to determine the tonnage of MHSW material that would be available
for collection annually within the City of Peterborough only. The result was that approximately 397 tonnes of
MHSW material is available for diversion within the City annually.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 25
Normally, to determine the amount of tires remaining in the waste stream, the Used Tires Program Plan (Ontario
Tire Stewardship, 2009) would be applied. The purpose of this study is to foster the implementation of a
sustainable used tire stewardship program in Ontario. This study included an analysis of the estimated uses of
scrap tires within Ontario. The total used tires that are currently being recycled or disposed Ontario-wide was
reported to be 106,500 tonnes. In the City of Peterborough, the Used Tires Program is very successful and there
are many surrounding municipalities also participating in this program as well as local businesses. Tires are
banned from disposal at the PCCWMF. It is assumed for this reason that 100% of the waste tires generated
within the City of Peterborough are diverted from the landfill.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 26
Table 4 Estimate of Divertible Materials Remaining in Waste Stream
Material
Current Diversion1
Potential
Diverson
(Tonnes)
Tonnes
Remaining in
Waste Stream2
Potential Increase
in Diversion (%)
Tonnes
Capture
Rate (%)
%
Diverted
Blue Box
(including
unmarketed
material)
Paper
5,474
82.0%
15.8%
6,674
1,200
3.5%
Plastics
1,497
50.0%
4.3%
2,994
1,497
4.3%
Metals
491
73.4%
1.4%
669
178
0.5%
Glass
998
89.9%
2.9%
1,110
112
0.3%
Stewardship
Returns
Beverage Containers through Stewardship
programs
437
100.0%
1.3%
437
-
0.0%
Residential
Reuse
Toys, clothing, small appliances, building
materials and other household items
4
N/A
0.0%
4
-
0.0%
WEEE3
333
72.2%
1.0%
461
128
0.4%
Organics4
Leaf and Yard Waste
4,900
98.0%
14.1%
5,000
100
0.3%
SSO (food waste)
210
3.5%
0.6%
6,010
5,800
16.7%
BYC (backyard compost)
1,810
100.0%
5.2%
1,810
-
0.0%
MHSW
(recycled/reused)5
Used oil, batteries, etc.
79
19.9%
0.2%
397
318
0.9%
Other
Recyclables
Tires
18
100.0%
0.1%
18
-
0.0%
Other - carpet, mattresses, CR&D, etc.6,7
1,573
40.8%
4.5%
3,852
2,279
6.6%
Totals
17,823
-
51.4%
29,435
11,613
33.5%
Total Waste
Generated
34,683
target materials for increased diversion
Remaining Refuse
5,248
Percentage
Divertible8
85%
Notes:
1. Source: 2010 Waste Diversion Ontario Datacall for the City of Peterborough
2. Source for Remaining Blue Box: capture rates from the 2006 waste audit for the amount of blue box material remaining in the waste stream
3. Source for Remaining WEEE: 70,659 tonnes of WEEE available for collection Ontario wide in 2004 (Table 2 of WEEE Study (WDO, 2005))
4. Source for Remaining Organics: 37% of waste stream is assumed organics (Page 1-3 of Residential Waste Composition Study (MOE, January 1991))
5. Source for Remaining MHSW: 40, 612 tonnes of MHSW available for collection Ontario wide over 8 months in 2008 and 2009 (Table 4.7 of Final Consolidated MHSW Program Plan
(Stewardship Ontario, 2009))
6. Source for Remaining CR&D: 10 to 30% of waste stream is CR&D (Building for the Future: Strategies to Reduce Construction and Demolition Waste in Municipal Projects (May 11, 1998))
7. Tonnages of mattresses and carpet are unknown at this time and as such a conservative estimate was used based on information from a PCCWMF operator.
8. Assumes 100% capture rate
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 27
The potential diversion of 29,435 tonnes of material assumes that 100% capture rate is achieved and is provided
here in order to illustrate what ultimately is possible. The purpose of the analysis is to clearly identify what is
achievable for the City financially and realistically.
The analysis in Table 4 shows that the key opportunity for increasing diversion is through organics, specifically
with SSO (food waste). Approximately 17% of the remaining waste stream is comprised of food waste. An
additional 3.5% and 4.3% diversion can be achieved through capturing the available tonnes in the paper and
plastics components of the blue box program, respectively. Likewise, there is an additional 5.0 to 8.0% diversion
achievable with the removal of other recyclables such as mattresses, carpet and CR&D materials from the current
waste stream. Overall, the percentage divertible is estimated to be 85%.
The total diversion potential is estimated to be 85% (assuming 100% capture rate).
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 28
5.0 OVERVIEW AND EVALUATION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPONENTS
A set of diversion options were developed within pre-determined areas of interest in line with the already
established goals, objectives, and measurable targets approved by the City and its public stakeholders.
The main areas of interest included the following:
Goals, Targets, and Advocacy;
Collection Services;
Support and Incentive Options;
Public Engagement and Education;
Monitoring and Reporting;
IC&I Recycling and Diversion Programs; and,
Multi-Residential Recycling and Diversion Programs.
Within each of these target areas, a list of waste diversion options was identified. Each of the options was
analyzed for the suitability with the City's waste management system.
5.1
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
As previously noted, the City Steering Committee reviewed the list of waste diversion options against an
established set of criteria. The criteria used in the evaluation included:
Economic feasibility - how economically feasible is the program and how does it compare against the
others on a cost per tonne basis.
Environmental effects (including waste diversion) - what are the main environmental effects of the option
(primarily represented as waste diversion).
Social impact/acceptability - how accepted is the option, measured by feedback received or as commonly
received in other jurisdictions.
Overall impression (includes sound approach/technology and ease of implementation) - has this
approach/technology worked in other similar jurisdictions.
The preferred waste diversion system is considered to be the one with the desired balance of advantages and
disadvantages relative to the established goals and objectives. The evaluation was based on the priorities of the
City and in consideration of the technical data available to date, advice from technical experts and input received
from stakeholders (i.e. public, agencies, etc.).
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 29
5.2
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
The City solicited involvement from the community at several critical points in the development of this document.
The City hosted a public information centre (PIC) and designed an online survey to obtain information from local
stakeholders, including permanent and seasonal residents, with respect to current and future waste management.
The consultation program was designed to solicit information on current behaviours and to gain insight into the
feasibility of waste diversion options based on user preference.
Notably, there is widespread support for the following program enhancements:
maximize waste reduction;
maximize waste re-use;
maximize recycling;
continue to maximize diversion of yard wastes; and,
implement collection and processing of SSO.
5.2.1
PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE
Two PICs were held during the preparation of the Plan. The first PIC was hosted by the City at the Peterborough
Public Library on Thursday October 27, 2011 from 2 pm to 3:30 pm and 6 pm to 7:30 pm. Notice of the date,
time, and location for the PIC event was published in the Peterborough This Week and on the City website. A
copy of the online survey was made available in hard copy at the PIC for residents to complete, and written
comments could be submitted by attendees, if desired.
The first PIC was attended by City and Cambium representatives, who were available to provide information and
answer questions at the request of attendees. An open house format was used for the PIC, with a poster board
display containing pertinent information related to the development of the waste management master plan. In
total, the afternoon and evening session of the PIC were attended by 18 people, in addition to City and Cambium
representatives. Twelve copies of the survey were completed by attendees at the PIC event and were included in
the tally with the same survey completed online.
The second PIC was held at the Green Expo on October 20, 2012 from 9am to 6pm at the Lansdowne Place Mall
in Peterborough. Notice of the date, time, and location for the PIC event was published in the Peterborough This
Week and on the City website.
A booth was set up with handouts and comment sheets for members of the public to provide input. The second
PIC was attended by representatives from the City and Cambium with the ability to answer questions for the
public where necessary. The display contained pertinent information related to the development of the waste
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 30
management plan. An online survey was available for the day of the PIC and printed surveys were also available
for those that preferred the hand written option or were unable to stay to complete on the day of the PIC. Many
people that would not normally have received the information participated in the feedback process and the second
PIC was quite successful. In total, 60 surveys were completed at the time the report was issued with additional
two comments sent via email of which the suggestions have been incorporated into the report.
The general public were asked to provide input on the draft WMMP which was posted on the City website but if
they had not reviewed the document, City and Cambium staff provided a brief summary of what the WMMP
entailed and the key recommendations identified in the report. The residents were asked to identify the top three
diversion recommendations and the most preferred and least preferred disposal options such that the City may
utilize this information going forward. The findings were as follows:
The top three diversion recommendations were:
Identify recycling options for materials currently going to landfill incl. mattresses, carpet, textiles (72.7%)
Develop an organics collection program (58.2%)
Reduce garbage pickup and provide weekly recycling and organics pickup (56.4%)
The most preferred disposal options include:
Increase waste diversion (81.8%)
Use of alternative waste derived fuel technologies (42.8%)
The least preferred disposal options include:
Exporting for any reason (landfill or incineration) (51.9%)
Establishing a new landfill (29.8%)
General comments from the survey results in the second PIC are included in Appendix A for review.
5.2.2
ONLINE SURVEY
An on-line survey was available for residents to complete at the beginning of the project from July 28, 2011
through to May 9, 2012. In total, 189 people completed the survey. A summary of the survey results, including all
comments received is included in Appendix A.
Notable results from the survey included:
The age demographic with the highest response to the survey was the 19 to 35 age range (35.7%) followed
by the 36 to 50 year age range (34.6%).
Approximately 80% of respondents resided in a single family home.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 31
94% of respondents were permanent residents of the City of Peterborough.
Greater than 83% of respondents generate one bag or less of garbage per week.
Greater than 70% respondents generate two or more full blue boxes of recyclable material each week.
Approximately 62% of respondents compost at home on a year round (42.3%) or seasonal basis.
For the most part, respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the current service levels for garbage and
recycling.
Respondents were less satisfied with the current service level for green waste; approximately 30% of
respondents indicated that they were "unsatisfied" or "very unsatisfied" with the current service level.
Comments provided suggested that many residents feel that green waste services should be increased to
curbside collection of organics.
70% of respondents indicate that they use the MHSW and WEEE depots on an annual or seasonal basis,
while 26.2% stated that they don't use these facilities at all.
68% of respondents stated that they would like to see the City reach a waste diversion target of 65%, which is
5% greater than the provincial goal.
The five most preferred choices for increasing waste diversion were, in order of most to least popular:
collection of food waste at the curb; increase the items that can be recycled in the blue box; establish a
municipal reuse centre; reduce the number of bags permitted; and, mandate the use of clear bags.
Greater than 81% of respondents indicated that they would participate in a curbside food waste collection
program if it were offered by the City.
92% of respondents indicated that they would be willing to change personal behaviours to reduce waste
generation, including: buying products with less packaging; participating in curbside food waste collection;
and, using reusable shopping bags, among others.
65% of respondents would support the collection of garbage every second week (bi-weekly), if an enhanced
recycling and food waste program were implemented. Approximately 25% indicated that they would not be in
favour of this initiative.
59% of respondents were very concerned about potential impacts of landfilling waste, including; groundwater,
biological, and surface water impacts, as well as odours and air emissions.
The public identified that the top five criteria to evaluate future waste management options should be: positive
environmental effects; positive social impact and acceptability; proven technology; cost/affordability; and,
ease of implementation.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 32
Responses indicated approximately 64% of respondents would prefer waste management funding be
obtained through municipal property taxes rather than user fees.
5.3
EVALUATION OF DIVERSION OPTIONS
A summary of the evaluated and recommended diversion options selected for the City, based on the current
technology, trends, and conditions, is included in the following section. The most suitable options to increase
waste diversion in the City have been divided into six areas for discussion purposes:
Promotion and Education (P&E)
Enhancement of Diversion Programs
System Optimization
Multi-residential Recycling and Diversion
Policy and Enforcement
IC&I Waste Recycling and Diversion
In addition to the evaluation criteria discussed in Section 5.1, it is important to note that the implementation of the
waste diversion options is likely to occur over several years, with some options requiring substantial lead time for
public notification, planning, financing, and preparation. With this in mind, each option has been assigned a
timeframe with respect to implementation.
All options evaluated that are not considered to be viable at this time are available for reference in Appendix C. It
is important to note that this plan is a living document, and that this list of options should be reviewed by the City
on an ongoing basis, to ensure that the most appropriate options are implemented as conditions change and the
needs of the community bend to environmental, financial, and political fluctuations.
5.3.1
PROMOTION AND EDUCATION (P&E)
The City is committed to developing creative, efficient, and cost effective methods to promote waste diversion and
management initiatives and to educate residents and businesses about the importance of maximizing waste
diversion. A variety of factors contribute to the patterns of waste generation and disposal, including; product
choices, consumption patterns, economic influences, multi-level policies and regulations, public attitudes, and
busy lifestyles. As such, education programs for waste reduction should promote behavioural and social change,
as well as communicate the correct information to allow people to make these changes.
An effective P&E program will:
Create more awareness of the various waste issues.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 33
Achieve the eight Waste Management Best Practices established as one of the City's Key Targets. The
report that provides the complete list of Waste Management Best Practices is included in Appendix D.
Expand the number and type of education and outreach and/or partnership activities year over year, from
2010 levels.
Enhance the community's knowledge and understanding of waste issues.
Influence the community's values and attitudes.
Encourage more responsible behaviour by the community.
As with all forms of education, it is understood that people learn and are motivated in different ways; therefore,
messages to change behaviours surrounding waste generation, diversion, and disposal are most effective if they
are reinforced throughout all venues (i.e. at home, work, and/or school). To this end, the P&E program should
strive to involve business groups, residents, schools, the media, and community organizations. It is anticipated
that with effective communication and education, combined with the correct supporting programs, the community
will be motivated to take responsible action to reduce, reuse, and recycle their waste in a sustainable manner.
Several options were explored for the P&E program. The list of potentially suitable P&E options was reduced to
the following three options for further evaluation:
Promotion and Education
Objective Satisfied
Strategy Enhancement Option
1
2
3
Diversion
Potential
Ranking
Enhanced P&E Continue with current campaigns but also move into other
outreach programs, social media, at various levels such as websites,
twitter, Facebook (radio, newsprint, advertisements, signage, and prizes),
presence at local events and open houses within the community, surveys,
targeted campaigns, Sustainable Peterborough goals, IC&I recycling
programs. Aim for an increase in blue box capture rates of 10% over 20
years.
2% to 3%
1
Staff Training - Attend training and workshops, industry meetings (MWA,
SWANA etc.)
1%
1
Schools Programming Enhancement, expand and formalize
1%
2
Note: Objectives are 1) Maximize Diversion; 2) Minimize Generation; and, 3) Fiscally Responsible
As illustrated above, enhanced P&E and training were the most preferred options for the City at this time, and are
discussed in detail in the following sections. Only options that receive a ranking of 1 (most suitable) are
recommended at this time to be the City's top priorities. Each year the options will be re- assessed in light of
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 34
current conditions to ensure that the options moving forward are relevant. A summary of the strengths and
challenges for all P&E challenges is provided in Table 5.
5.3.1.1
ENHANCED P&E - GENERAL
Enhanced P&E includes the use of existing City, public, or provincial tools and resources to promote waste
diversion, with enhancements to target the particular conditions of the City to increase the diversion rate.
Examples of resources that can be used to encourage participation in waste diversion initiatives include:
Media: City website, blogs, advertisements, articles, press releases, radio spotlights, new social sites;
Educational Resources: local events and targeted campaigns; and
Promotional Materials: permanent and mobile signage, stickers/labels, calendars, supporting other City
programs including Sustainable Peterborough.
These promotional resources can be focussed toward the topic of waste diversion in general, or can be directly
related to problematic materials or particular diversion targets that are not being met (i.e. increasing the diversion
of plastics, or addressing blue box materials contamination).
Enhancing Peterborough's general P&E program will serve to increase the population's general knowledge of
waste diversion programs, and is anticipated to increase waste diversion by up to 3%. The cost to adequately
enhance the program is estimated to be approximately $80,000 per year, at a minimum.
The current budget of $60,000 per year for general P&E should be increased to $75,000 per year to allow for
more television, radio and social marketing campaigns, which will reach new and expanded audiences. Best
practices suggest $1.18 per household, which equates to over $41,000.00 for recycling promotions alone.
Additional promotional materials, entry fees, etc. for public recycling events and multi-residential working group
will require another $5,000 per year.
5.3.1.2
ENHANCED P&E - LARGE FUTURE CAMPAIGNS
In addition to the general P&E program that the City runs each year, special campaigns for new programs and
initiatives being introduced will need to be accounted for in the appropriate annual budgets. As these new
programs become a permanent part of the City's Waste Management System, additional general P&E funding to
maintain awareness and participation in them will need to be considered.
Some examples of specific P&E campaigns that may fall outside the general programming budget include:
Source Separated Organics program
Expanded schools programming
A multi-residential promotional campaign
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 35
IC&I diversion programs
The P&E program will relate to all diversion options presented in the City WMMP and, as such, these sections
may overlap in content. P&E is directly linked to all aspects of waste management be it collection, processing, or
end use and final disposal. The more informed waste management system users are, the better the waste
management system will be.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 36
5.3.1.3
STAFF TRAINING
Currently the City has a small budget for training courses, workshops and seminars for staff, to ensure that the
City is informed and up-to-date on the upcoming trends, technologies, and options available for waste
management and diversion. Ensuring that all relevant City staff are informed of these aspects is essential to the
success of waste management and for the development and implementation of a thriving P&E program. Training
also allows for networking opportunities with peer groups, which will provide valuable insight into the application
and success of P&E programs used elsewhere. It is estimated that the portion of a P&E budget assigned to staff
training should be approximately $5,000 per year in order to keep up with the latest technologies.
Table 5 P&E Strategies - Summary of Strengths and Challenges
Option
Strengths
Challenges
On-Going General P&E
Reach a broad audience
Flexible presentation
Cost effective
Support for waste diversion programs
Preparation of materials can be time
intensive
Materials may become dated quickly
Continual modification to materials is
required to maintain public interest
Future P&E Campaigns
SSO
Rejuvenate participation in existing
programs (green waste, blue box)
Measurable organic diversion
Staff time/costs
Additional waste stream
overwhelming for residents
No facility
Multi-Residential
Programs
Measurably increase diversion
Allows for open communications
Staff time/costs
Limited participation from
landlords/tenants
School Programming
Cost effective
Reach a broad audience
Work within the existing P&E programs
Staff time/costs
Providing necessary tools to maintain
feedback and interest
IC&I Programs
Measurably increase diversion
Develop a working group
Staff time/costs
Ongoing support and feedback for
new programs
Staff Training
Learn new and innovative ways to help
reduce waste
Staff out of office
Costs
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 37
5.3.2
ENHANCEMENT OF DIVERSION PROGRAMS
As with the P&E evaluation process, a number of options were reviewed to enhance diversion programs currently
used or planned for the City, which led to the selection of six main options. The identified six options were further
evaluated for suitability to the current needs and conditions of the City's residents and waste management
system. Each option was reviewed to determine which would improve upon diversion rates in the most
environmentally, socially acceptable, and financially feasible manner.
Four of the options were identified as most viable for the City at this time. Enhanced diversion options are being
established to assist with the key targets developed by the City to achieve the Goals and Objectives of the
proposed Plan and the specific targets that relate to enhanced diversion include:
1. Improving the residential diversion rate from the 2010 level of 50% such that the target of 75% over 20 years
will be an achievable goal, with a review of target every five years.
2. Improving the capture rates for blue box materials such that the rates will increase 10% from 2006 levels over
20 years, with a review of target every five years.
3. Setting the participation rate to 50% in year 1 of the proposed SSO program with an increase for each year of
the program.
A summary chart is provided below for illustration purposes.
Enhancement of Diversion Programs
Objective
Satisfied
Strategy Enhancement Option
1
2
3
Diversion
Potential
Ranking
Establish new and enhance existing markets as practical for
materials e.g. textiles, pet waste, wood waste, durable goods,
shingles, carpeting, mattresses, CR&D
5% to 8%
1
Waste Exchange/Reuse Center - Establish a waste exchange and
reuse centre with a non-profit partner to enable residents to donate
and exchange reusable goods. Common for reuse centre to be
established at landfill or transfer station.
1% to 3%
1
SSO Collection - Establish a residential curbside collection and
processing program for SSO materials.
17%
1
Public space recycling - Install recycling containers in high traffic
areas, especially where evidence of container use is pronounced.
Includes outdoor parks, trails, and public facilities. Investigate
public/private opportunities.
1% to 3%
1
Expand the list of eligible Blue Box materials
<1%
3
Special events diversion and recycling - Establish a City policy for
events which makes recycling mandatory. Make it part of the
permitting process.
<1%
3
Note: Objectives are 1) Maximize Diversion; 2) Minimize Generation; and, 3) Fiscally Responsible
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 38
Because the City already accepts as wide a range as is possible in its blue box program, expanding the list of
blue box eligible items was not considered to be relevant. Implementing a program for special events diversion
and recycling, while worthy endeavours, did not score high enough in their potential for diversion to be ranked as
#1 priorities The most suitable (Ranked #1) options are discussed in the following sections and summarized in
Table 6.
5.3.2.1
ESTABLISH NEW AND ENHANCE EXISTING MARKETS
Currently the City collects many materials for diversion through the blue box, MHSW, and WEEE, as well as other
diversion programs such as drywall and CR&D programs at the PCCWMF on Bensfort Road. However, there are
still more items that could be separated and diverted from landfill. These include but are not limited to:
textiles
asphalt shingles
pet waste
wood waste
carpeting
mattresses
durable goods
food waste (organics)
Textiles
Textile refers to clothing, curtains, linens, towels, table clothes and other fabric items. Textiles can be separated
from waste collection and, instead of disposal at the landfill, the material can be sent to various charitable
organizations for reuse and recycling for such uses as polishing cloths and pet bedding at animal shelters. The
City is currently investigating as many options as possible for removing this waste type from the disposal stream.
Participation will depend on the level of knowledge, understanding and effort by the residents (i.e. curbside
collection or drop off locations).
Asphalt Shingles
One substantial ongoing issue at the PCCWMF is that of the disposal of asphalt shingles. Asphalt shingles can
be sourced back to contractors for use in road asphalt. Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS) is a product that
contains approximately 30% asphalt cement by mass weight. Sources of RAS include trimmings from shingle
insulation and decommissioned shingle roofs. Reuse of these materials leads to financial savings through
avoidance of disposal costs, saving of air space, and reduction of the amount of virgin asphalt binder required in
hot mix asphalt.
The University of Waterloo's Centre for Pavement and Transportation Technology, CPATT, is committed to
working with public and private sector partners to develop sustainable technologies with respect to the
transportation industry. A white paper was prepared as a result of a recent study involving Miller Paving Limited,
CPATT, and Materials Manufacturing Ontario (MMO). There is more interest every day on the asphalt shingle
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 39
and the RAS end use market. The City would need to identify and work with a producer such as Miller Paving
with equipment that is able to remove the nails and grind the shingles to make them suitable for recycling.
Pet Waste
Pet waste is an issue for many municipalities. When residents walk their dogs, they tend to use plastic bags to
collect the waste and the combined package is disposed of. A conventional plastic bag mummifies the feces until
the plastic bag breaks down, which can take hundreds of years.
Cat waste presents a host of other issues, including toxoplasmosis, which is a protozoa found in cat feces that
can wash into streams, rivers, and oceans through septic systems, sewage pipes, yards, and landfills, that can
infect birds, rodents, shellfish, and sea otters, causing illness and even death in these creatures. Some residents
with cats dispose of waste by flushing it down the toilets. The excess clumping litter made of clay and/or silica
can cause impacts to the drains as it can build up over time.
The City has many options moving forward to deal with pet waste, including:
promotion of eco-friendly cat litters made of corn and free of clay or silica;
Biodegradable pet bags for collecting waste in public. These are only relevant if used in conjunction
with pet waste digesters;
Installation of pet waste composters or digesters in public areas, and/or the promotion of installing these units in
people's own yards. It should be noted that pet waste should not be placed in the BYC nor should pet waste be
included in an approved SSO program without further review, as there are pathogens that will not be readily
removed during this process. Pet waste composters and digesters are designed to specifically alter the waste
using enzymes which results in a benign residue. Should there be a program that becomes available to the City
which processes both biosolids and SSO, the City may be able to revisit the pet waste diversion for incorporation
into that program.
Wood Waste
Unlike metals and plastics, wood is renewable and represents an inexhaustible resource if properly managed. In
2004, a study was completed by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) which concluded that 875,000 tonnes of
wood waste was disposed of from CR&D projects in Canada each year (Forest Echo, 2011). As much as 20 to
30% of the wood used in new home construction ends up as waste material or, worded differently, for every new
2,500 square foot home constructed, it is estimated that there will be two metric tonnes of wood waste (Forest
Echo, 2011).
Builders and home owners can integrate reclaimed wood during their renovations such as old doors, trim and
flooring from the deconstruction of older homes. An example of a supplier for these materials is the ReStore in
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 40
Peterborough and www.legacyvintage.com out of Cobourg, Ontario. The facility in Cobourg specializes in reuse
and recycling of vintage homes and historical building components.
A program should be developed to encourage wood waste diversion by homeowners and the IC&I sector. The
diversion program should support local, existing reuse initiatives (reuse centre and charitable organizations), that
are further described in Section 5.3.2.2. The success of the program would be contingent on there being
adequate space for storage of wood waste at the reuse centre, and the hours of operation being supportive of the
CR&D industry. If these conditions are satisfied, the participation by the residents and the IC&I sector is likely to
be positive.
In addition to direct reuse, clean wood waste can be recycled for use as a bulking agent with the leaf and yard
waste compost facility, sold as mulch, animal bedding, reused for furniture or composite wood products or used to
produce biomass energy.
The City does already divert a portion of its wood waste through its CR&D recycling program. The program was
touched on in Section 3.5.1.5 and is discussed further below. Currently, CR&D waste is separated when entering
at the PCCWMF and diverted or at the source by general contractors with sorting and separation undertaken by
M&M Disposal at the recycling facility in the Township of Douro-Dummer.
Mattresses
Based on discussions with landfill staff, there is currently about 50 mattresses per day being disposed at the
PCCWMF. When reviewed with historical amounts and projected over the coming years, it can be anticipated
that the number of mattresses disposed will be 10,000 to 15,000 per year. One mattress equates to 0.75m3 of air
space and the City should look at adding this item to the list of banned materials on the by-law.
Carpet
Cambium also recommends that the City review the option of adding carpet as an item that should be banned
from landfill disposal. It is bulky and consumes a large amount of air space. There are a number of companies
that are capable of separating the carpet materials down to the original fibres for recycling and within reasonable
distances to the City.
Construction, Renovation, and Demolition Waste (CR&D)
The diversion opportunity analysis completed in Section 4.1, indicates that approximately 9.5% of all waste
generated in the City is considered to be from a CR&D source. Approximately 4.5% of CR&D (including scrap
metals) is currently diverted through existing programs. Due to the nature of CR&D waste, this waste stream is
well suited to recycling initiatives; however, the waste stream is comprised of a variety of components (i.e. wood,
metal, and interior and exterior building materials), which requires the waste to be sorted to make it suitable for
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 41
reuse. Some of the CR&D waste is not reusable or recyclable due to size, condition, or other factors, and the
only suitable option for this waste is disposal.
Several options were considered to increase the diversion of CR&D waste, which included:
Promotion of sustainable policies including zero waste principles and extended producer responsibility (EPR).
To explain further, the City would promote the use of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
construction and sustainable policies with CR&D projects, the preparation of a waste reduction plan for each
project, or sorting the waste at the site prior to disposal (e.g. drywall from wood from metals). In addition, the
City would try to promote deconstruction versus demolition thereby saving bricks, windows, doors, stair rails,
mantels, and so forth for reuse in other homes. For EPR, the City would support using manufacturers and
suppliers that are considerate of packaging and disposal requirements (e.g. use minimal recyclable
packaging, biodegradable packaging);
Including proper CR&D waste handling as a condition for construction, renovation and demolition permits.
Once again, the City could promote careful deconstruction versus demolition of buildings through the
requirement of a waste reduction plan in the building permit process;
Establish and promote a reuse centre at the PCCWMF and promote the use of local reuse centres already
established within the City; and,
Provide CR&D waste collection for small amounts of residential CR&D waste for a fee, similar to the current
large article collection system.
A program to manage CR&D should be prepared in conjunction with an overarching plan for management of
waste generated in the IC&I sector. It is anticipated that enhancements to the CR&D program could result in an
increase in the residential diversion rate of the City of 5.0%, assuming 100% capture. Implementation costs
would involve policy development through building permits and enforcement protocols, as well as promotion and
education materials, advertisements, and marketing materials. Operational costs would be staff time to enforce
and monitor (audit) the collection and diversion of this waste type.
5.3.2.2
WASTE EXCHANGE/REUSE CENTRE
An effective way to minimize waste is to encourage reuse of products and materials that have not reached the
end of their effective life. Currently, the City does offer "Reusable Exchange Weekends" on a monthly basis from
May through September. Through this initiative, residents are encouraged to place usable items that are no
longer wanted at the curb, where any passerby is able to select items for reuse, free of charge. It also
encourages reuse through a Take It Back feature on its website and through periodic articles and promotions.
None of these initiatives generate any quantitative data on the volume of material that is ultimately diverted, or at
least postponed, from landfilling.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 42
As previously mentioned, builders and home owners can integrate reclaimed wood during their renovations such
as old doors, trim and flooring from the deconstruction of older homes. While one builder or home owner may not
An example of a supplier for these materials is the ReStore in Peterborough and www.legacyvintage.com out of
Cobourg, Ontario. The facility in Cobourg specializes in reuse and recycling of vintage homes and historical
building components.
It is recommended that the City investigate the possibility of establishing a waste exchange and reuse centre at
the existing PCCWMF for residents and the IC&I community to utilize. The City could possibly work with post-
secondary institutions and/or local charitable organizations for the operation and management of the centre. Such
a facility may be used as a central location for residents, or as a transfer station that is coordinated with a local
community or not-for profit program such as Habitat for Humanity and Re-Store, the Canadian Diabetes
Association, St Vincent de Paul or the Salvation Army as well as the Lakefield Animal Shelter and other private
charity organizations. A permanent facility such as this would draw large numbers of users once people became
aware of it, and larger volumes of materials would be diverted from the tip face. It would even be possible to
quantify the amount, by having people weigh out their materials.
5.3.2.3
SSO COLLECTION
Organics typically make up about 37% of residential waste. The study entitled Residential Waste Composition
Study (Ministry of the Environment, 1991) supporting this percentage is included for reference purposes in
Appendix D. The organics waste stream is generally divided into two types: 1) leaf and yard waste and 2) food
waste. The diversion opportunity analysis indicates that virtually all leaf and yard waste generated in the City is
diverted through its Green Waste Collection program, which equates to 14.1% of all waste generated in the City.
As there is a by-law in place to enforce the Green Waste program, it is anticipated that the capture rate will
continue to be close to 100%. . It is in the area of food waste (SSO) where the City can realize the greatest
potential for gains in diversion - approximately 17%, according to the diversion opportunity analysis in Table 4.
The City currently has a small pilot area where SSO is collected for composting. Some municipalities are working
jointly with private companies such as Durham with Miller to collect and process their SSO materials. Other
municipalities such as the District of Muskoka have their own compost facilities that they operate and process the
SSO as well as leaf and yard and biosolids materials. Costs vary from municipality to municipality depending on
the feedstock to be included in the program (biosolids, fats, oils greases (FOG)), what the end product is to be,
what type of technology will be applied, the collection process, whether the residents will use green bins or bags,
and so forth. Based on a study undertaken by FCM, collection costs are estimated to be approximately
$100/tonne and processing costs range from $40 to $150/tonne depending on the complexity of the system.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 43
To accommodate the processing of food waste, the City would require significant upgrades to its existing
composting system. The use of alternate technologies, exploring public/private partnerships, or export of the
SSO to a suitable processing facility in another jurisdiction would need to be investigated.
A comprehensive review and survey of Canadian SSO and household organics facilities was completed by the
Recycling Council of Alberta (RCA) and Municipal Waste Integration Network (MWIN) in April 2006 (RCA &
MWIN, April 2006). A component of that study was to estimate capital and operating costs for typical compost
technologies. The RCA/MWIN study developed capital and operating costs based on the actual quantity of
organics that may be generated within municipalities of various populations and on real data from operational
facilities in Canada. Total costs for capital and operation of compost facilities ranged from $40 to $60 dollars per
tonne per year ($/tonne/yr) for a turned windrow process and up to $100 to $150 /tonne/yr for an anaerobic in-
vessel facility (RCA & MWIN, April 2006). These estimates exclude collection costs. Figure 2 illustrates the
locations of current composting, waste management, and MRF facilities already approved and operating within
the province in relation to the City of Peterborough.
!(
Niagara Falls
Ottawa
Oshawa
London
Guelph
Barrie
Toronto
Orillia
Lindsay
Pembroke
Kingston
Hamilton
Cornwall
North Bay
Owen Sound
Huntsville
Brockville
Belleville
Mississauga
Peterborough
Chatham-Kent
Greater Sudbury
Kitchener-Waterloo
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
34
32
31
30
29
28
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
14
13
12
11
10
15
27
33
35
!(
!(
!<(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!<(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
SNS
July 2012
1965-001
1:3,000,000
2
Figure:
Created by:
Checked by:
Date:
Project No.:
Scale:
P.O. Box 325, 52 Hunter Street East
Peterborough, Ontario, K9H 1G5
Tel: 1 (705) 742.7900
Fax: 1 (705) 742.7907
www.cambium-env.com
Source: © Queen's Printer of Ontario, 2010
(this does not constitute an endorsement by
the MNR or the Ontario Government)
KSM
Legend
0 10 20 30 40
Kilometers
!(
Available Landfill Site
!(
Composting Faciltity
!(
Energy from Waste Facility
!(
Material Recovery Facility
!<(
Landfill/Composting
Highway
Water Area
Provincial Park
County Boundary
Built-Up Area
Projection:
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
º
WASTE MANAGEMENT
MASTER PLAN
Province of Ontario
PROVINCIAL FACILITIES
LOCATION PLAN
1
Navan Landfill
19
IMS Site
2
Ottawa Landfill
20
Halton Recycling
3
Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility
21
Gravenhurst Landfill Site
4
Algonquin Power Energy From Waste
22
Stisted (Muskoka) Landfill Site
5
Durham York Energy Centre
23
Rosewarne Landfill Site
6
Nepean Landfill (Closed)
24
Kingston Area Recycling Centre
7
Norterra Organics Processing Facility
25
Quinte Waste Solutions
8
Ottawa Valley Waste Recovery Centre
26
County of Northumerland MRF
9
Trail Road Landfill
27
Peterborough MRF
10
Leaf and Yard Waste Depot
28
Manco Recycling Centre
11
Clarington Compost Facility
29
Belleville MRF
12
Pickering Compost Facility
30
Renfrew MRF
13
Miller Leaf Composting Site
31
Wesleyville Recycling and Renewable Energy Facility
14
Dufferin Transfer Station
32
Halton Recycling MRF
15
Region of Peel Integrated Waste Management Facility
33
Orenda Recycling Centre
16
Kawartha Biogas
34
Columbus Recycling Centre
17
Lindsay Ops Landfill
35
Two-Tyme Recycling
18
Community Environmental Recycling Centre
Facilities Reference List
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 45
5.3.2.4
PUBLIC SPACE RECYCLING
Consistent with the anticipated increase in diversion through continued promotion of the existing blue box
program, providing recycling opportunities in public spaces would serve to further increase that diversion. The
City has numerous parks and recreational areas that are widely used by residents and tourists alike. While some
of these locations have already been equipped with designated receptacles for waste and recyclables, the
majority of public spaces currently provide either only garbage collection or no collection at all.
Public space recycling is considered to be consistent with the best management practices target that was
established and reported at the beginning of the Plan. A public space recycling program will help the City achieve
the diversion target of 75% that it has set for the next 20 years. It also serves to reinforce the public's awareness
of the importance that the municipality places on waste management and recycling.
Table 6 Diversion Program Enhancements - Summary of Strengths and Challenges
Option
Strengths
Challenges
New Markets for Diversion
Increased landfill capacity
Increasing divertible material types will
directly affect diversion rate
Positive public perception
Create niche job opportunities for
processing and salvage
Processing infrastructure required for
some materials
Staff time
Costs for recycling
Waste Exchange / Reuse
Centre
Positive public perception
Win/win for public and City
Possibility to work with non-profit
organization to offset costs
Tracking impact of activities
Costs associated with implementing
SSO Program
Large increase in diversion possible
Converted to a beneficial end product
(compost)
Growing social acceptance
High capital and operating costs
No policy to force participation
No local processing facility
Public Space Diversion
Positive message to the public and
visitors to the area
Increased diversion
Potential for advertising on bins for other
diversion programs
Initial capital costs
Staff time
Cross contamination
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 46
5.3.3
SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION
The waste services currently provided by the City involve a number of optimization measures that make waste
collection, disposal, and diversion convenient for residents, such as:
a 24 hour recycling depot;
a weekly two stream recycling program;
a year round depot for all MHSW and WEEE; and,
weekly leaf and yard waste collection (seasonal).
A number of options were reviewed that can be expected to further optimize services for residents, to increase
participation in waste diversion initiatives, and to create cost efficiencies. Four options were chosen for further
evaluation:
System Optimization
Objective Satisfied
Strategy Enhancement Option
1
2
3
Diversion
Potential
Ranking
Pick-Up Frequency and Collection Optimization - Implement bi-weekly
pick-up of garbage once an SSO program is established (weekly collection
of organics)
3%-7%
1
Regular Waste Audits - Complete waste regular waste audits to confirm
composition, identify problem areas and to determine available material
for recovery.
N/A
1
True System Costs - Complete waste flow and full-cost accounting tools
using gap or similar analysis, to show where best savings can be found
through diversion.
<1%
3
Waste Management Utility - Explore the possibility of a waste
management utility, whereby all waste management activities are
operated and funded as a separate utility.
<1%
3
Note: Objectives are 1) Maximize Diversion; 2) Minimize Generation; and, 3) Fiscally Responsible
The full list of options that were evaluated are included in Appendix C and will be reviewed annually by the City as
environmental, financial, and political conditions change and impact the needs for different strategies.
Following the evaluation process, it was concluded that modifying the pick-up frequency and completing regular
waste audits are the most suitable options in the short term to optimize current and future waste management in
the City. A summary of the strategies is included in Table 7.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 47
5.3.3.1
PICK-UP FREQUENCY AND COLLECTION OPTIMIZATION
The current weekly collection frequency of waste is adequate for the City, based on the diversion programs that
are presently offered. If the City implements curbside collection of SSO, the collection frequency should be
reviewed and modified to optimize participation in this program. The two stream recycling collection and SSO
collection should both occur every week. These diversion programs combined should leave very little else in the
garbage stream of participating residents, thereby making bi-weekly garbage collection viable. The less-frequent
collection of garbage would further encourage participation in the diversion programs.
In most municipal waste management systems, the collection of waste and recycling is the most expensive
aspect. A 1995 study undertaken by the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) indicates that about
50% of waste management costs are incurred through collections (SWANA, 1995). Modifying the pick-up
frequency has successfully improved the level of participation in diversion programs in other municipalities and
has also reduced the costs of collection.
Some additional ways to improve and optimize collection include: routing optimization, using automated collection
equipment and possibly modifying the types of collection vehicles to accommodate different waste streams and
programs on the same truck.
5.3.3.2
REGULAR WASTE AUDITS
The City completed a full waste audit in 2006 and is undertaking an updated waste audit in 2012 to verify waste
composition and diversion data. It is recommended that the City perform waste audits on a more frequent basis
following the implementation of the options within this Plan, in order to determine if the recommended strategies
are bringing the City closer to meeting the targets identified in Section 1.4.
Audits can be used to track the performance of the diversion strategies and programs recommended in this Plan,
following their implementation. The audits highlight areas that should be targeted for increased P&E, based on
observations of divertible materials that continue to be seen in the waste stream instead of the recycle stream. In
this way, audits improve on the efficiencies of waste collection and processing by confirming that only residues
and unmarketable material are shipped to the PCCWMF. Conducting waste audits demonstrates the City's
commitment to diversion and sustainability, and a desire to improve the performance of the waste system.
It is recommended that the City maintain ongoing seasonal waste audits to track the progress of the
strategies to be implemented with the Plan.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 48
Table 7 System Optimization - Summary of Strengths and Challenges
Option
Strengths
Challenges
Pick-up Frequency
Cost savings
Increased diversion
Mixed public response to curbside
collection
Long term implementation
Regular Waste Audits
Document waste composition
Allow for accurate tailoring of P&E
programs to target key materials
Measure success
Provide valuable feedback
Staff time
Voluntary participation
cost
5.3.4
MULTI-RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING AND DIVERSION
O. Reg. 103/94 requires any owner of a building containing six or more residential units to implement a source
separation program for waste, provided that the building is located within a municipality with a population greater
than 5,000 persons. If these buildings are located in a municipally serviced curbside collection area, such as the
City of Peterborough, the municipality is responsible for the collection of the waste. Research has shown that
many building owners that are obligated to provide source separation programs are unaware of the requirements
of O. Reg 103/94 (KPMG, 2007); therefore, an effective P&E campaign directed toward multi-residential property
managers could go a long way toward increasing waste diversion rates from this sector.
Even established multi-residential recycling and waste diversion programs throughout the Province face a number
of cultural and structural challenges not experienced by curbside programs. The result is poor recycling
participation and waste diversion rates from multi-residential buildings. In general, reasons for low waste
diversion rates have been linked to language barriers, transience, lack of ownership, peer pressure/anonymity,
inconvenience, material contamination, lack of financial incentives, lack of support by building management, and
ineffective existing infrastructure (GENIVAR, May 2010).
A list of options for the multi-residential sector was reviewed, and five options were selected for further evaluation,
as identified in the table below. All other options reviewed are included in Appendix C for future consideration.
Waste management legislation, social acceptance, environmental conditions, and financial implications all
change; with these changes, the City will need to re-evaluate the Plan regularly. A summary of the strengths and
challenges is included in Table 8.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 49
Multi-Residential Recycling and Diversion
Objective Satisfied
Strategy Enhancement Option
1
2
3
Diversion
Potential
Ranking
SSO Collection - Establish a Green Cart collection for SSO in MR buildings
so service consistent with SF households (Phase 2 of SSO Program)
2% to 3%
1
Multi-Residential Working Group - Establish a Multi-Residential Working
Group with City and superintendent reps that meets on a regular basis to
discuss waste diversion challenges and strategies
<1%
2
Feedback to buildings - Provide feedback to residents on how their
particular building is doing (using graphics, etc.)
<1%
3
Designated goods diversion (e.g. Electronics, batteries, textiles) Establish
specific collection programs in multi-residential buildings to divert
designated goods for recycling/reuse
1%
3
Waste diversion info provided to new and existing tenants - Establish
protocol with building owners to provide waste diversion educational
packages to new and existing tenants on an annual basis
<1%
3
Note: Objectives are 1) Maximize Diversion; 2) Minimize Generation; and, 3) Fiscally Responsible
A single option was determined to be most suitable for implementation in the City at this time; SSO collection for
multi-residential buildings. The City should include multi-residential buildings in the development of the SSO
program such that all implications, including full financial and environmental costs and benefits, are accounted for
when establishing the program. The program would require consultation with representatives on behalf of
landlords and tenants, SSO green carts suitable for the various buildings within the City, as well as
communication efforts and targeted P&E programs specific to the multi-residential housing sector.
It is generally recommended that the City include multi-residential developments in the P&E program, with a
focus toward informing owners and property managers of obligations under O. Reg. 103/94 and outreach to
residents with a demographically appropriate information package.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 50
Table 8 Multi-Residential Recycling - Summary of Strengths and Challenges
Option
Strengths
Challenges
SSO Collection
Could be included in the phased in
development of City-wide SSO program
Large quantities of organics can be
collected in one location
Positive public perception (equal services
and requirements as single family
households)
Participation
Cross-contamination
Cost
5.3.5
POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT
The successful implementation of many of the diversion options presented in the Plan will be dependent on local,
regional or provincial policy support, and local enforcement. Adequate staffing with trained personnel is critical to
the enforcement of policies that will ensure efficiencies in procurement and contract management as well as
operations and collections. Existing policies and enforcement enable the City to have the current impressive
diversion strategies already in place; however, increased enforcement of key programs (CR&D, IC&I) will be
required to meet the goals and objectives proposed within this Plan and to achieve the aggressive but achievable
diversion targets.
Several policy based approaches were reviewed to encourage participation in the blue box program. Participation
in the blue box program is already high; however, policy approaches considered to further increase participation
included clear bags for garbage, a bag-tag system, landfill/disposal bans, and the enforcement of mandatory
recycling and source separation by-laws (materials bans). Sustainable procurement programs and policies were
also explored as options to increase the diversion rate.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 51
The policy and enforcement options evaluated are provided below.
Policy and Enforcement
Objective Satisfied
Strategy Enhancement Option
1
2
3
Diversion
Potential
Ranking
Stronger enforcement of Landfill/Disposal Bans - Designated materials
are prohibited from being disposed at the landfill or disposal facility
1% to 2%
2
Stronger Enforcement of Curbside Bans and lift limits at the curb
<1%
2
Green Procurement and Sustainable Procurement Programs within the
City - Develop a corporate policy that encourages green procurement
(work with Sustainable Peterborough policies)
<1%
2
Joint Procurement Policy with other municipalities - Wherever feasible,
consider making joint purchases with other neighbouring municipalities to
take advantage of volume discounts
<1%
2
Bag-Tag/Pay-as-you-throw - Financing strategies used to promote waste
diversion including full or partial Bag Tag systems, variable and hybrid
variable rates, pay by collection frequency, variable carts rates, weight-
based garbage collection, possibly supported by RFID technology
1%-4%
3
Note: Objectives are 1) Maximize Diversion; 2) Minimize Generation; and, 3) Fiscally Responsible
The policy and enforcement initiatives considered during this review were not ranked in the top options for
immediate action. The City already has mandatory recycling as part of its garbage collection, as well as landfill
bans for specific materials. A reduced bag limit is recommended for consideration following the successful
implementation of the SSO program. Enforcement of the bans and bag limits should be audited on a regular
basis to ensure the bans and bag limits are being enforced and the message is clear and consistent.
The Bag-Tag/Pay-As-You-Throw option scored low in our ranking, due to a perceived reluctance by the public to
accept a fee-for-service program. However, it is strongly recommended that variations on this theme be
considered by the City. A bag-tag or clear bag system has been used in other municipalities with proven success
at increasing diversion, and this is something the City may wish to explore in the future.
As previously noted in Section 3.1, the City enacted a by-law (Chapter 594 Garbage Collection) which defines
green waste and recyclable material and stipulates that it is illegal to dispose of recyclables as solid waste. The
City also developed bylaw 07-027 which clearly lists a number of materials that are banned from being disposed
of as garbage at the County/City facility. Chapter 594 excludes several other materials from the definition of
garbage. Copies of these by-laws are included in Appendix B for reference purposes.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 52
Materials banned from disposal at the PCCWMF include:
hazardous waste
blue box materials
clean wood waste
drywall
green waste (leaf and
yard materials)
scrap metal
tires
explosive
or
highly
combustible material
building materials
automobile parts
hot material
industrial waste
"Green procurement" decisions include consideration of resource sustainability, environmental impact, waste
reduction, and local production in municipal purchasing decisions. One option for green procurement is that of
extended producer responsibility (EPR) and supporting legislative changes to endorse more EPR by reducing the
amount of waste generated at source. The EPR framework assigns responsibility to producers to generate less
waste materials including packaging, disposable items, and items that are not readily recyclable or disposed of.
EPR means that product manufacturers are responsible for the full life cycle costs associated with their products
including the environmental costs of production and managing the product at the end of its life, whether that be for
reuse, for recycling, or safe disposal. Packaging bans, fees (such as for plastic bags), and levies have proven
useful in motivating producers and consumers to reduce the generation of waste at the source, or at the point of
purchase for some waste types.
Much of the waste managed by the City is produced outside the local area, and is transported into the City by
commercial establishments, businesses, and residents in the form of various consumer products and packaging.
In some jurisdictions in Ontario, political lobbying is being undertaken or considered to motivate the Government
of Ontario to impose the principles of EPR on manufacturers and producers of products to reduce the volume of
waste generated at the source of production.
Waste related impacts can be reduced through the implementation of other green procurement policies, such as
making "green" purchasing decisions. For a product to be considered "green" it should be made from recycled or
sustainable materials, have a limited amount of packaging, and be sourced as locally to the end use of the
product as possible. Green procurement policies encourage product producers to use alternative sources of raw
materials, such as recycled materials. In so doing, overall support to waste minimization and diversion measures
is generated, by providing a market for the materials being recycled.
The City should consider implementing green procurement policies at municipal facilities, which would include the
consideration for resource sustainability, environmental impact, waste reduction and local production in municipal
It is recommended that the City review and update its existing waste management bylaws.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 53
purchasing decisions. Green procurement policies can include sourcing and using environmentally friendly
products in the work place, such as natural cleaning supplies, biodegradable bags and 100% recycled paper.
To reduce the cost of these items, the City could initiate a purchasing partnership with a neighbouring municipality
such as the County, to buy green products in bulk for a lower fee or reduced shipping costs. The City already has
several joint purchasing policies in place and is seeking opportunities to increase purchasing efficiency through
new partnerships.
The City should continue to enforce and implement policies for sustainability and has adopted the Sustainable
Peterborough Plan which promotes the preparation of waste management plans and reduction policies in support
of building permits.
5.3.6
IC&I WASTE RECYCLING AND DIVERSION
Statistics Canada estimates that approximately 67% of waste generated in Canada is from non-residential
sources, which is consistent with the same statistical comparison for the Province of Ontario, where 66% of waste
is non-residential (Statistics Canada, 2010). City staff reported that 57% of the waste stream for the City was
from non-residential or IC&I in 2010. Given that such a significant percentage of all waste generated is from non-
residential sources, it is imperative that waste management planning be cognisant of opportunities to increase
waste diversion in the IC&I sector.
As noted by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM, March 2004), the majority of IC&I waste is
composed of recyclable or compostable material, with 85% of the typical composition of waste comprised of
mixed paper, corrugated cardboards, food waste, plastics, and ferrous metals. All of these materials are
divertible, with the proper infrastructure in place. Assuming a capture rate of 85% for divertible IC&I materials, the
City could expect to realize an overall diversion rate increase of 38% through waste diversion in the IC&I sector
alone.
There are several policies and programs in place in Ontario which could target IC&I waste for increased diversion.
Five regulations, referred to as the 3Rs Regulations, were made under the Environmental Protection Act in March
1994 to promote waste diversion among designated IC&I and CR&D generators:
O. Reg. 101/94: Recycling and Composting of Municipal Waste; amended by O. Reg. 251/11.
O. Reg. 102/94: Waste Audits and Waste Reduction Workplans; No amendments.
O. Reg. 103/94: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Source Separation Programs; amended by O. Reg.
230/11.
O. Reg. 104/94: Packaging Audits and Packaging Reduction Workplans; No amendments.
O. Reg. 105/94: Definitions (Amendments to Regulation 347); amended by O.Reg. 234/11.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 54
These Regulations apply to IC&I waste generators, including: hospitals, hotels and motels, office buildings,
restaurants, retail shopping establishments and complexes, educational institutions, manufacturing, and
demolition and construction projects. The Regulations prescribe source separation requirements for businesses
of different sizes and are mostly targeted toward large IC&I generators. Policies and programs should be
considered to increase waste diversion for smaller businesses that are not required to comply under the
Regulations. Some municipalities have had success in encouraging waste diversion from the IC&I sector by
implementing by-laws requiring IC&I facilities to implement recycling programs.
With this in mind, it is recognized that the current level of staffing within the City's Waste Management Division
would not be sufficient to implement, monitor or enforce IC&I diversion programs.
A short list of options were evaluated for improved diversion in the IC&I sector:
IC&I Waste Recycling and Diversion
Objective Satisfied
Strategy Enhancement Option
1
2
3
Diversion
Potential
Ranking
SSO Implementation - Implement a user-pay SSO program for IC&I sector
(Phase 3 of SSO program)
TBD
2
Build IC&I Database - Make database for use to manage and monitor solid
waste programs
3
Designated goods diversion - Specific diversion programs established small
IC&I to divert designated goods for recycling/reuse and expand to larger
IC&I gradually.
3
Note: Objectives are 1) Maximize Diversion; 2) Minimize Generation; and, 3) Fiscally Responsible
Based on the evaluation, all options were determined to be only marginally suitable for the City to pursue at this
time. This WMMP is generally based upon the residential waste stream and detailed data on IC&I waste volumes
and composition within the City is not known. It is recommended that further study of waste generated and
disposed from the IC&I sector should be undertaken to determine current disposal and diversion rates.
While SSO implementation in the IC&I sector is not feasible at this time, this program could be extended to IC&I
after it is developed and implemented for residential waste in the City. At that time, it is recommended that the
City seek local and regional partners to develop a strategy for managing and handling divertible IC&I waste to
realize some, if not all, of this potential diversion opportunity.
Some basic options that should be considered when planning for waste management related to IC&I waste
include:
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 55
Increase staffing levels;
building an IC&I database to manage and monitor solid waste programs;
enhancing the City's website with a section dedicated to IC&I waste management and diversion matters;
developing a targeted P & E strategy for IC&I that would provide support and tools to generators on how to
maximize recycling opportunities;
implementing financial penalties for poor performance or failure to meet recycling or compostables targets;
terminating waste collection and/or landfill service for failure to participate in the recycling program, or to meet
identified minimum targets for waste diversion;
promoting the diversion of designated goods (i.e. MHSW, WEEE, textiles) through the implementation of
specific collection programs for small IC&I generators to divert such goods for recycling or reuse; and,
requiring generators to complete and submit Recycling Plans to the City for review and approval.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 56
5.3.7
ANTICIPATED DIVERSION AND ASSOCIATED COSTS
There are many options available to increase waste diversion in the City and the list previously reviewed will
provide the City with some flexibility to choose the most suitable options for their area.
Several key goals should be considered as the driving force for an increase in waste diversion, including;
preserving waste disposal capacity at the PCCWMF and other active waste disposal sites;
providing up to date and accessible services for residents;
increasing the efficiency of the waste management system; and,
generating opportunities for cost savings.
Table 9 below includes a list of the preferred waste diversion options, as determined through the evaluation of all
options discussed in Section 5.3. The options have been ordered according to the projected implementation
timeline (i.e. short, and long term) and then by greatest to least potential for increased diversion within their
strategy grouping.
Table 9 Anticipated Cost and Diversion Rate Increase by Diversion Option
Strategy
Option
Increased
Diversion
Potential (%)
Annual Net
Cost Per
Household
Implementation
Timeline
Promotion and Education (P&E)
Enhanced P&E
2% to 3%
$2 to $31
S
Staff Training
1%
$0.5 to $11
S
Enhancement of Diversion
Programs
SSO Collection
17%
$20.00 2
S - M
Establish New and Enhance
Existing Markets
1% to 3%
TBD
S
Waste Exchange/Reuse Center
1% to 3%
$1.00 3
S - M
Public Space Recycling
1% to 3%
$2.23 4
S
System Optimization
Pick-Up Frequency and
Collection Optimization
3%-7%
7% savings 5
M
Regular Waste Audits
N/A
$1.796
S
Multi-residential Recycling
SSO Collection
2% to 3%
$0.67 7
M - L
Note:
S = short term (1-2 years); M = medium term (3-5 years); L = long term (>5 years); TBD = to be determined
1. Based on discussions with the City
2. (Lura Consulting Inc., August 2007)
3. (Stantec, March 2011a)
4. (Urban and Environmental Management Inc., February 2012)
5. (2cg, October 2011)
6. Based on waste audit cost data provided by the City of Peterborough.
7. (Stantec, June 2010)
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 57
5.4
DISCUSSION OF WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS
The City is currently focusing significant effort on increasing waste diversion in order to extend the life of the
current landfill and improve upon the amount of air space remaining. Notwithstanding this effort, waste continues
to be generated and the City is aware that they need to start assessing alternatives for waste disposal while
pursuing aggressive waste diversion targets.
As part of the public consultation process for this Plan, a survey was distributed to residents on the City website
and at PICs to determine the public opinion on the preferred waste disposal method for the City. The following
two notable comments on waste disposal were provided from the City's survey:
59% of respondents are very concerned about potential impacts of landfilling waste, including; groundwater,
biological, and surface water impacts, as well as odours and air emissions.
The public identified that the top five criteria to evaluate future waste management options should be: positive
environmental effects; positive social impact and acceptability; proven technology; cost/affordability; and,
ease of implementation.
The general public also indicated that they wanted to see an increase in diversion. Accordingly, the City views
diversion as the primary goal, but disposal will always be a vital and important component of the future waste
management system.
The PCCWMF will continue to provide waste disposal capacity for the County and City for approximately 12 to 15
years (from January 2011) based on an assumed annual waste disposal rate of 60,000 tonnes (City and County
combined) and an assumed apparent waste density of 0.65 tonnes/m3 (Genivar and Urban & Environmental
Management Inc., 2011). The assumed annual waste disposal rate noted above includes waste from all sources,
including residential and IC&I waste.
To prepare for filling the existing disposal capacity at the PCCWMF, the City will be required to complete an
environmental assessment (EA) under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) to gain additional disposal
capacity, or to manage residential waste in an alternative way (i.e. thermal treatment, anaerobic digestion). The
City intends to move forward with the EA process in partnership with the County to determine the most suitable
option for waste disposal for both jurisdictions into the future.
It is recommended that the City undertake a formal review of waste disposal technologies on a regular basis (i.e.
every three to five years) as part of its solid waste management planning program, which will lead into the EA
process.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 58
Some of the options and technologies that currently exist and should be investigated in the EA process include:
1. Expanding capacity at current facility;
2. Developing a new landfill;
3. Anaerobic digestion (AD); and,
4. Thermal treatment.
Most of these waste disposal options would be subject to major studies, municipal and provincial approvals and
possibly federal approvals. The intent of the studies and approvals is to make sure that the expansion or creation
of a new facility, and subsequent operation, does not have a negative impact on the environment. Components of
the environment considered in the required studies include natural, cultural, social and economic aspects.
Significant supporting studies are prepared to assess potential impacts to the components of the environment, as
presented above, which may result from each disposal option. Public and aboriginal consultation is a
fundamental component of the EA process.
The following major studies and approvals would be required, at a minimum:
An individual EA must be completed and then approved by the province under Part II of the EAA and Ontario
Regulation 101/07 Section 2(1)1; and,
Approval under the EPA and Ontario Regulation 232/98, related to landfill site investigations and design.
In the case of waste disposal site expansions and new site development, the time required to complete an EA and
obtain all of the necessary approvals is approximately five to eight years. Due to the considerable time
commitment required to complete the EA and approvals process, it is recommended that the City work with the
County to initiate the process within the next five years.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 59
6.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Key targets have been developed, which will serve to help the City reach their goals and objectives, as identified
in Section 1.4. As a review, the key targets are as follows:
The development of this Plan has included:
review of the existing waste management system;
identifying gaps in the current system, from infrastructure and operations points of view; and,
evaluation of various options and strategies to improve the waste management system and remain in line with
the key targets.
The Plan is a living document and, as such, the options and strategies should be reviewed annually with the key
targets reassessed every five years to ensure that the City remains in line with the current regulatory and social
circumstances, while meeting the needs of residents and those in the IC&I sector.
In this section, ongoing monitoring protocols are recommended to the City for the Plan to remain effective and
relevant. There is a brief discussion of proposed community engagement, possible partnerships and ongoing
collaboration, to ensure that the Plan is well received by waste system users. Suggestions on ways to review and
assess the progress and success of the implementation of the programs identified in the Plan are provided.
KEY TARGETS
Expand the number and type of education and outreach and/or partnership activities year over year from
2010 levels.
Meet all eight Waste Management Best Practices as outlined in the Blue Box Program Enhancement and
Best Practices Assessment Project Report, 2007, prepared by KPMG LLP, a Canadian advisory services
firm (as outlined in Section 1.4).
Residential diversion rate will increase from 2010 level of 50% to 75% over 20 years, with a review of
target every five years.
Capture rates for blue box materials will increase 10% from 2006 levels (79.5%) over 20 years, with a
review of target every five years.
Participation rate of 50% in year 1 of the proposed SSO program with an increase for each year of the
program.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 60
The City has identified some methods to move toward Green Economic Development, with guidance from
Peterborough Green Up initiatives and the Sustainable Peterborough Plan, and some of these ideas are
promoted through this Plan. As the provincial and federal governments take greater interest in municipal waste
management, more options may become available for the City to work with these levels of government for
additional economic development strategies.
6.1
MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
It is recommended that an annual review of the proposed diversion strategies and the list of diversion options
available to the City (as provided in Appendix C) be undertaken. Every five years, it is recommended that the City
undertake a detailed assessment of the goals, objectives and key targets as future social, environmental and
regulatory environments may or may not be applicable to the original targets established upon commencement of
the planning process.
Ongoing monitoring of the progress of this Plan is proposed as follows:
feedback from online surveys;
feedback from public events;
feedback from operations and contract staff; and
waste audits conducted regularly.
An implementation schedule should be developed by the City to ensure that the steps taken to develop and
execute the Plan are making the intended impact.
6.2
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
There are many methods that the City can adopt to involve and engage the community in the implementation of
this Plan. With the planning process that accompanied the preparation of this document, City and Cambium staff
were involved in presenting to the public via newspaper ads, radio advertisements, and online surveys and
through two public information centres. There has been an increasing trend in participation in waste management
planning among major stakeholders and public infrastructure development in recent years. The City is aware of
this increased interest, and has been looking at ways to embrace this change.
The following four steps will be used to engage the community in the adoption and implementation of this Plan.
The success of reaching the goals and objectives outlined in the Plan is contingent upon a high level of
participation from the community, including the public, municipal partners, and the IC&I sector.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 61
6.2.1
INFLUENCE AND INFORM
Some governments have been utilizing the "community engagement ladder" and with each government and
individual department, this ladder varies but generally stated this term means, "if you give a person the tools
necessary to make an effective and informed decision, they will make the legitimate choice". The City is able to
influence or inform the members of the public and affected community through the use of various tools, including:
media management,
advertising;
new social media websites;
public events; and
seminars.
The purpose of informing and influencing the stakeholders would be to provide them with the necessary
information to increase their awareness of a specific program (e.g. SSO program, enhanced diversion, or CR&D
diversion) or with general knowledge to influence their use of the system (e.g. informing residents of the issue of
blue box materials contamination).
Educational or one-way campaigns would be recommended for new enhanced diversion programs such as
adding textiles to the recycling or asphalt shingles. For large scale new programs or waste system modifications,
such as SSO or possibly the development of a new facility to manage the organics stream, the City would require
a more in-depth approach such as the consultation process discussed in the next section.
6.2.2
CONSULT AND INVOLVE
By consulting and involving major stakeholders, and/or residents and members of the public, the City is able to
fully appreciate and understand the issues, concerns and values presented. The consultation approach is
normally practiced when there are issues that may involve perceived uncertainties or gaps in truth that need to be
clarified by City staff, or in instances involving technical information that needs to be presented to the public and
stakeholders in layman's terms. Areas of concern and stakeholder values and questions are constructively
discussed between the City and respective parties through workshops, public information centres, surveys and
committee meetings.
6.2.3
PARTNER AND COLLABORATE
In some large projects, municipalities have selected to use a collaborative approach which involves cooperation
between major stakeholders, operations staff, senior management and consultants. This approach, which is
referred to as "value engineering", is a worthwhile tool that enables the City to meet with interested parties to find
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 62
common ground at various stages of a project. By partnering and collaborating with the community on larger
projects and possibly establishing a committee to achieve this, all parties are represented and it becomes a
consensus decision making process.
As previously noted in Section 1.1, the City shares waste management services with the County and, as such,
should consider partnership and collaboration with the County with any future waste management planning
strategies. Currently, the City has an ongoing relationship with the County through the ongoing management of
the PCCWMF, use of the MRF, and provision and promotion of diversion programs. It is recommended that the
City continue with the current relationship and look for opportunities to collaborate with the County on other waste
management strategies in the future.
Community partnerships and collaboration are also possible. An example of a community based partnership is to
encourage and facilitate diversion and reuse among the large student population in the City. It is recommended
that the City work with the post-secondary institutions by establishing a working group to find efficient and
economical solutions to reuse and recycle the items that are currently tagged and disposed of. It should be noted
that there are funding opportunities that may exist for collaboration of this type, which are further discussed in
Section 6.5.
6.2.4
EMPOWER
Through a community engagement and consultation process, the City ultimately provides the residents and
community with the tools necessary to act responsibly and decide through their actions what the future of waste
management will be and how they can impact decisions in the years to come. The residents need to be involved
and actively participate today in order to minimize costs, financially and environmentally, for the years to follow.
The City can influence and inform, consult and involve, partner and collaborate, but the residents have the
ultimate power to make the changes necessary.
6.3
GREEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
As recently seen and heard in the newspapers and on television reports, the Province of Ontario is proposing to
move towards a zero waste future. Initiatives will be introduced to aid in the reduction of solid waste, increase
diversion and to build a more green and sustainable economy through the Green Energy Act. The
recommendations made in this Plan are consistent with these initiatives, and support moving toward a zero waste
future.
The City can use this Plan, and the recommendations proposed within, as a starting point to build their economic
development plan. The green and sustainable options selected through the development of this Plan will create
jobs, reduce disposal costs, and will possibly have a positive payback for the community turning what typically
would be deemed a liability into an asset.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 63
6.3.1
JOB CREATION
With the proposed waste diversion and management options outlined in this Plan, several new job opportunities
will be created. For example, the proposed facility for organics processing, reuse centre and possible option for
increased diversion of CR&D materials will create a minimum of one position for each option discussed, be it
through policy and enforcement, promotion and education staffing, or directly at the new facilities in operations. A
recent report completed by Lura Consulting (2010) indicates that the biggest source of job creation and further
economic spin-off for the community would be realized by supporting provincial EPR programs and the reduction
and recycling of CR&D materials.
6.3.2
FINANCIAL RECOVERY FROM DIVERSION
From a financial outlook, by diverting more materials as proposed in Section 5.3.2, the City will be maintaining the
waste disposal capacity available at the PCCWMF for disposal of non-recyclable, non-reusable or non-divertible
material. The increased diversion will save the City funds over the long term by postponing the capital investment
required to obtain approvals for a new waste disposal option before the capacity at the existing facility is depleted.
The potential sale of reuse material and the new markets identified for sale of divertible materials (e.g.
recyclables, CR&D) may also provide additional financial support to the City. Funding opportunities for the
development of a reuse centre may exist with the federal or provincial government. While no financial gain is
necessarily implied, there could also be green economic benefit by collaborating with the post-secondary
institutions in the City for reuse strategies.
In addition, cost savings could be realized through the development and implementation of a new facility for
organics processing, be it composting, anaerobic digestion or thermal treatment, from which energy could be
generated and used internally or sold, as discussed in the following section.
6.3.3
ENERGY PRODUCTION
Some composting systems have been adapted to collect heat from the organic material during the composting
and curing process as a source of renewable energy. Heat capture is achieved through glycol, air or water and
can be used to generate energy from compost. Captured heat could be used for direct heating of on-site
buildings or for generation of electricity for other uses. This type of system should be considered when SSO
collection begins.
Advancements in composting mixed materials have been made in recent years, and studies are currently being
done on processes that involve the combination of SSO; leaf and yard waste; fats, oils and greases (FOGS) from
IC&I; as well as biosolids and septage. Due to the recent advancements in this area, this system is an available
option for processing organics for the City.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 64
Other technologies such as anaerobic digestion (AD)and thermal treatment of waste are also options to be
considered. Establishing an AD facility directly at the wastewater treatment facility is an option that could be
explored, such that the biosolids haulage is eliminated from the financial statements, saving the City a
tremendous amount in operating costs. A facility of this type is able to process SSO including pet waste as well
as FOG. A new AD facility would be a large capital expenditure but would also create new jobs that would be
sustained into the future.
The various forms of thermal treatment available are changing rapidly and the technology is improving each and
every day. The ability for a municipality to financially justify constructing a thermal treatment facility is getting
better with changes to government funding and legislation. Depending on the thermal treatment method selected,
the City could process all organic waste and create many new jobs as well.
Both AD and thermal treatment would create energy which would off-set the capital and operating costs of these
facilities and provide the City with a return on investment. The provincial government is highly supportive of green
energy, as promoted through the Green Energy Act and feed-in-tariff (FIT) program.
6.4
MEASURING SUCCESS
At the present time, the City does not have dedicated staff to monitor and measure the performance of each
aspect of the waste management system. Ideally, the City would be able to designate a staff member to review
all waste audit information, complete the WDO datacall reports, and review and track waste disposal and
diversion reports submitted by the collection and processing contractors; all of which would indicate how the
programs are performing. The program's effectiveness can be measured by reviewing the following:
Waste diversion rate which is to increase from 50 to 75% over 20 years (by 2030);
Capture rate for blue box material which is to increase by 10% from 2006 values;
Disposal tonnage actually received at the PCCWMF; and
Per capita waste generation rate (residential).
It is recommended that the City consider conducting a review of staffing requirements to accommodate the
monitoring and tracking of the proposed strategies and options as outlined in the Plan.
6.5
FUNDING PROGRAMS
There are several opportunities available to municipalities for funding, and each opportunity or initiative has
specific deadlines and requirements. Some of these initiatives may not be directly relevant to the City at this time;
however, one or more of these programs may be applicable and relevant for collaborating with a post-secondary
institution or establishing a public/private business partnership.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 65
FCM Green Municipal Fund: Offers a range of resources and services that specifically address the sustainable
community development needs of municipal governments. The Fund provides financing and knowledge to
support the development of communities that are more environmentally, socially and economically sustainable.
Building Canada Fund: The Building Canada Fund in Ontario is a result of the Building Canada Infrastructure
Framework Agreement signed between the governments of Canada and Ontario on July 24, 2008. This
agreement represents more than $6 billion in joint federal and provincial funding to help address infrastructure
needs and priorities across the province. The priority funding categories for the Fund are Core National Highway
System (NHS) routes, drinking water, wastewater, public transit and green energy. Other eligible investment
priority areas include environmental projects (solid waste management), projects that support economic growth
and development (short-line rail and short-sea shipping, connectivity and broadband, tourism and regional and
local airports), as well as projects that contribute to the ongoing development of safe and strong communities
(disaster mitigation, culture, sport, local roads and bridges, and brownfield redevelopment). Funding is used to
support public infrastructure owned by provincial, territorial and municipal governments and entities, as well as
private industry, in certain cases.
Eastern Ontario Development Program: Promotes socio-economic development in Eastern Ontario by
creating, building and developing the necessary conditions to increase business and employment opportunities in
the region.
Investing in Business Innovation: Boosts private sector investment in start-up businesses to accelerate the
development of new products, processes and practices and to bring them to market. Funding is also available for
angel investor networks and their associations to attract new investment and support the growth of angel
investment funds.
Technology Development Program: Supports research and innovation organizations, the private sector, post-
secondary institutions and not-for-profit organizations to work together to accelerate the development of large-
scale, advanced technologies that will result in new market opportunities for southern Ontario businesses.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 66
7.0 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
The City currently has a very successful waste management diversion program in place with the achievement of
over 50% diversion. This Plan was commissioned to proactively investigate additional options and strategies to
move toward improving the diversion from 50% to 75% over the next 20 years. This target is very aggressive, yet
the review of waste composition and the potential gains from program enhancements completed in the
development of this Plan have shown 75% to be an achievable target for the City.
It is important to note that the WMMP is a living document and the key recommendations and strategies are
meant to be reviewed and adjusted according to current trends in governance and social behaviours. It is
recommended that the City completes a review of the goals, objectives and targets every five years to ensure that
they are still representative of the current needs of the City and its residents.
The following list details the key recommendations and findings as supported throughout the report.
7.1
DIVERSION
The top nine diversion options listed in the following Table 10 were identified through this study, as explained in
Section 5.3. These are felt to be the best options to implement at this time, in terms of diversion potential,
economic viability, and social acceptance. These recommendations are provided in the order of most diversion
potential to least diversion potential.
In addition to the nine key recommendations in Table 10, the City would be well advised to consider these
additional recommendations as noted throughout the plan:
Develop a working group with landlords and tenants to assist with P&E and aid in the development of SSO
programs and other programs currently in place for multi-residential recycling (see Section 5.3.4);
Review and update the current waste management by-laws (see Section 5.3.5);
Review staffing requirements to accommodate diversion programs for the development, monitoring and
enforcement in the IC&I sector given that the City could expect to realize an overall diversion rate increase of
38% through waste diversion in the IC&I sector alone (see Section 5.3.6);
Continue to investigate joint initiatives with surrounding municipalities and other organizations (see Section
6.2.3);
Review staffing requirements for the waste management division (see Section 6.4); and
Investigate and review opportunities available to the City that may align with certain new and existing funding
programs for municipalities (see Section 6.5).
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 67
Table 10 Summary of Key Recommendations - Waste Diversion
Item
#
Recommendation
Brief Summary
Increased
Diversion
Potential (%)
Timeline
1
SSO Collection and
Processing - Enhanced
Diversion
Implement the SSO Program for approx.
$20.00/hh
17%
Short - Medium
term
2
Establish New and Expand
Existing Markets
New markets for: textiles, bulky items, asphalt
shingles, pet waste, CR&D, and wood waste.
5% to 8%
Short term
3
Pickup Frequency and
Collection Optimization
With new software and routing, the City could
realize 7% savings annually.
3% to 7%
Medium term
4
SSO Collection and
Processing - Multi-
residential
Implement the collection of SSO to the current
program for $0.67/hh.
2% to 3%
Medium - Long
term
5
Enhanced Promotion and
Education
Increase the P&E budget to enhance programs
by $2.00 to 3.00/hh.
2% to 3%
Short term
6
Waste Exchange/Reuse
Center
Consider establishing at the existing PCCWMF
for $1.00/hh
1% to 3%
Short - Medium
term
7
Public Space Recycling
Public space recycling to assist with enhanced
diversion for $2.23/hh
1% to 3%
Short term
8
Staff Training
Increase training budget for training of staff for
$0.50 to $1.00/hh.
1%
Short term
9
Regular Waste Audits
Measure the success of the City's waste
diversion system for $1.79/hh.
N/A
Short term
Note: Costs referenced in Table 9.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 68
7.2
DISPOSAL
The following Key Recommendations will bring the City closer to identifying the most suitable means of waste
disposal once capacity is no longer available at the PCCWMF.
Conduct a true cost analysis of the landfill operations at the PCCWMF (see section 3.2.2)
Investigate Suitable Options for Future Landfill Capacity
o
Monitor existing landfill capacity, landfill expansions and potential greenfield locations over time to
allow the widest selection of suitable options.
Undertake a Formal Review of Waste Management Technologies (see Section 5.4)
o
The City should monitor the progress of alternative technologies such as thermal treatment, AD
facilities, and other established technologies. The review should be focussed toward technologies
that have been proven to be both cost effective and reliable in North American municipalities that are
of a similar size as Peterborough.
o
Reviews should be completed on a regular basis (every 3 to 5 years).
Commence an EA Process (see Section 5.4)
o
The EA process should be initiated in cooperation with the County in order to identify the most
suitable solution for waste disposal.
o
It is recommended that the City initiate the EA process a minimum of 8 years prior to reaching
capacity at the PCCWMF, to ensure that sufficient time is allocated for necessary supporting studies.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 69
8.0 CLOSING
Please note that this report is governed by the attached Qualifications and Limitations. If you have questions or
comments regarding this document, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (705) 742-7900 ext. 226.
CAMBIUM ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
Kelly Murphy, P.Eng.
Senior Project Manager
Andrea Zavitz-Coppins, B.A. Hon., Dipl.
Project Specialist
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 70
REFERENCES
2cg. (October 2011). City of St. Thomas Integrated Waste Management Master Plan .
2cg Waste Management Consulting Sevices. (2011). A Waste Recycling Strategy for the City of Peterborough.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. (2011, 05 10). Retrieved 08 15, 2011, from http://www.ceaa-
acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=5BDC800F-1.
City of Peterborough. (2006). City of Peterborough Waste Audit Report.
City of Peterborough. (2011). 2010 Waste Diversion Ontario Municipal Datacall.
FCM. (March 2004). Solid Waste as a Resource Guide for Sustainable Communities. Ottawa: Federation of
Canadian Municipalities.
Forest Echo. (2011). Utilizing Wood Waste From CR&D and Urban Forestry. Ottawa: Forst Echo.
Genivar and Urban & Environmental Management Inc. (2010). 2009 Annual Monitoring Report, Peterborough
County/City Waste Management Facility.
Genivar and Urban & Environmental Management Inc. (2011). 2010 Annual Monioriong Report, Peterborough
County/City Waste Management Facility.
GENIVAR. (May 2010). Maximizing Residential Waste Diversion in Connection with the Mayor's Tower Renewal
Pilot Feasibility Study. City of Toronto.
KPMG. (2007). Blue Box Program Enhancement and Best Practices Assessment Project Final Report.
Lura Consulting. (2010). Identifying Opportunity in the Green Economy - Waste Industry.
Lura Consulting Inc. (August 2007). Owen Sound: Planning for Sustainability Long-term Waste Management Plan
2007-2031.
Ministry of the Environment. (1991). Residential Waste Composition Study.
Ontario Electronic Stewardship. (n.d.). Recycle Your Electronics. Retrieved August 23, 2011, from Recycle Your
Electronics: http://www.recycleyourelectronics.ca
Ontario Tire Stewardship. (2009). Used Tires Program Plan.
OTS. (2009). Ontario Tire Stewardship. Retrieved February 10, 2012, from https://www.ontariots.ca/?q=home
Plasco Energy Group. (2011). A Partnership for a Zero Waste Ottawa. Retrieved April 24, 2012, from
http://www.zerowasteottawa.com
Proctor & Redfern. (December 1993). Peterborough County/City Waste Management Master Plan.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 71
RCA & MWIN. (April 2006). Municipal Solid Waste Options: Integrating Organics Management and Residual
Treatment/Disposal. Recycling Council of Alberta and Municipal Waste Integration Network.
Region of Durham and Region of York. (2012). Durham York Energy Centre. Retrieved April 24, 2012, from
http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/
REIC Perth. (2000, November). Waste Composition Studies 2000 City of Peterborough. Ontario, CA.
Stantec. (June 2010). Solid Waste Management Strategy - County of Simcoe.
Stantec. (March 2011a). City of Cornwall Solid Waste Management Master Plan.
Statistics Canada. (2010, December 22). Waste Disposal by Source, Province and Territory. Retrieved April 27,
2012, from New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-
tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/envir25b-eng.htm
Stewardship Ontario. (2009). Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste Program Plan.
SWANA. (1995). Integrated Solid Waste Management: Six Case Studies of System, Cost and Energy Use:
Summary Report.
Trow. (2010). Guidebook for Creating a Municipal Waste Recycling Strategy.
Urban and Environmental Management Inc. (February 2012). City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management
Strategy and Municipal Master Plan Project.
Waste Diversion Ontario. (2005). Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Study.
Waste Diversion Ontario. (2010, September 11). Waste Diversion Ontario. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from
2009 Blue Box Data by Municipal Group: http://www.wdo.ca/content/?path=page82+item35932
Waste Diversion Ontario. (2011). 2010 Waste Diversion Ontario Municipal Datacall - County of Peterborough.
Waste Diversion Ontario. (2011, September 11). Waste Diversion Ontario. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from
2010 Blue Box Data by Municipal Group: http://www.wdo.ca/content/?path=page82+item35932
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 72
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Adverse effect
One or more of the following:
(a) impairment of the quality, quantity, value or use of the natural
environment;
(b) injury or damage to plant or animal life, any person or property;
(c) impairment of the health, safety or well-being of any person
(d) rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for human use; and
(e) loss or changes to costs, revenues or economic opportunities for
businesses and communities.
Agricultural waste
Waste, other than sewage, resulting from farm operations, including animal
husbandry and where a farm operation is carried on in respect of food packing, food
preserving, animal slaughtering or meat packing.
Air
Open air not enclosed in a building, structure, machine, chimney, stack or flue.
Alternative method
Alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking are technically feasible and
economically viable conceptual designs by which the undertaking could be
implemented.
Alternative waste
treatment
The processing of waste to recover resources and/or reduce its environmental
impact.
Anaerobic digestion
A biological process using microbes to break down organic material in the absence of
oxygen. Digestion takes place in an enclosed chamber, where critical environmental
conditions (e.g., moisture content, temperature and pH levels) can be controlled to
maximize microbe generation, gas generation, and waste decomposition rates.
Approval
Permission granted by an authorized individual or organization for an undertaking to
proceed. This may be in the form of program approval, Certificate of Approval or
Provisional Certificate of Approval.
Approved site or
facility
A landfill site or waste management facility with a current valid Certificate of Approval.
Approved site or
facility
A landfill site or waste management facility with a current and valid Certificate of
Approval.
Aquifer
A geologic formation that is saturated with water.
Asbestos waste
A non-hazardous waste in solid or liquid form, originating from the removal of
asbestos-containing construction or insulation materials (ACMs) or the manufacture
of asbestos-containing products.
Ash
The non-combustible, solid by-product of incineration or other combustion process.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 73
"At-source"
A waste minimization or management activity occurring at the source of waste
generation.
Attenuate
To weaken, to lessen, to make smaller (e.g. to lower the concentration of a
contaminant in ground water).
Background
concentration
The amount of a chemical in the soil, groundwater, air or sediment in the environment
that would be considered representative or typical of conditions in a given area or
locality.
Backyard compost
(BYC)
Composting of residential organic materials by a household, usually in the backyard.
Generally considered a method of source reduction.
Bag tag
A clearly identifiable sticker approved for sale by resolution of the Council of the
Municipality and used to indicate that a fee has been paid.
Baling
The process of compacting and binding mixed solid wastes to form a compressed
block or bale.
Berm
In a landfilling site/facility, a narrow elevated earthen mound which surrounds the
waste deposit area.
Best practices
Waste system practices that affect Blue Box and other recycling programs and that
result in the attainment of provincial and municipal Blue Box and other material
diversion goals in the most cost-effective way possible.
Bi-weekly collection
The collection of material set out at curbside one day every two weeks.
Biodegradation
A natural process of breaking down materials by decomposition/decay by the action
of organisms.
Biogas
Gas formed during the anaerobic decomposition of organic material, mainly
consisting of methane and carbon dioxide.
Biological treatment
A treatment technology that uses bacteria to process organic waste.
Biomass
Plant material, vegetation, or agricultural waste used as a fuel or as an energy
source.
Bio-medical waste
(BMW)
Waste products produced from healthcare premises such as hospitals, dispensaries
etc. It is also known as Health Care, Medical or Clinical Waste.
Blue box
A plastic container, often blue in colour, for conveying acceptable recyclable
materials. Also refers to a municipal curbside recycling program.
Bog
Wet spongy ground, a poorly drained usually acid area rich in accumulated plant
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 74
material, frequently surrounding a body of open water, and having a characteristic
flora (as of sedges, heaths, and sphagnum).
Borehole
A hole drilled or pounded into the earth that is used to determine soil, rock, and/or
groundwater characteristics. A borehole can be used as a potable drinking water
well, or as a groundwater observation/monitoring well.
Buffer area
The part of a landfilling site that is not a waste fill area.
Buy-back
A staffed facility that usually purchases post-consumer recyclable containers and
materials, such as aluminum cans, glass, and newspapers from the public. May
consist of mobile units. They seldom perform materials processing.
Canadian Council of
Ministers of the
Environment (CCME)
A council made up of environmental ministers from provincial and federal levels of
government that proposed nationally consistent environmental standards and
objectives to achieve high levels of environmental quality for waste management, air
pollution and toxic chemicals across Canada.
Candidate site
A property identified as suitable for consideration as a potential site for a waste
management facility.
Capture rate
The amount of materials recovered from the waste stream for recycling, typically
measured in tonnes per person per year.
Cell
In respect of a landfilling site, means an area of a landfill that has been organized to
receive waste and where to waste will be compacted and sealed by cover material so
that the waste is not exposed to the atmosphere.
Centralized
composting
A process using a central facility within a defined area to compost organic material.
Certificate of
Approval (C of A)
A license or permit issued by the Ministry of the Environment for the operation of a
waste management site/facility.
"Clean" recyclable
or compostable
material
Material collected in a source-separated program, where contamination is minimal.
Cleanfill
Clay, gravel, sand and soil that is not mixed with any waste or organic material and
has been excavated from areas that are not contaminated with manufactured
chemicals. This material is sometimes referred to as virgin excavated natural
material.
Co-collection
The collection of recyclables and organics together with municipal garbage in one
truck; separated later for recycling and composting/digestion or disposal.
Coefficient of
variation
A statistical measure which permits a comparison of the amount of variation within
sets of sample results which have different means. It is calculated by expressing the
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 75
sample standard deviation as a percent of the sample mean.
Collection
The process of picking up waste, recyclables, or compostable material from a
household or business.
Commingled
Recycling programs where a number of different materials are mixed together, not
collected separately.
Commingled
recyclables
Materials recovered from the waste stream for recycling which are dry (e.g. paper,
cardboard, plastic, glass)
Commercial waste
Waste originating from commercial businesses, and includes asbestos waste.
Commingled
containers
Mixed food and beverage containers, usually plastic, metal and glass.
Community recycling
centre (CRC)
A waste management facility that offers waste management services to small
businesses and residents. A CRC is a place to drop off items such as electronics,
white goods, household hazardous waste, leaf and yard waste, and blue box
recyclable items.
Compactor vehicle
A collection vehicle using high-power mechanical or hydraulic equipment to reduce
the volume of solid waste.
Composite liner
A liner system for a landfill consisting of an engineered soil layer and a synthetic
sheet of material.
Composting
The controlled microbial decomposition of organic matter, such as food and yard
wastes, in the presence of oxygen, into humus, a soil-like material. Humus can be
used in vegetable and flower gardens, hedges, etc.
Composting
facility/site
A facility/site licensed to process organic (i.e. plants) waste to produce compost
Construction,
renovation &
demolition waste
(CR&D)
Solid waste produced in the course of residential, commercial, industrial, or
institutional building construction, demolition or renovation (e.g. lumber, concrete,
brick, plaster, glass, stone, drywall, wire, paint, etc.)
Contaminant
Any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, radiation or combination of any of
these, resulting directly or indirectly from human activities that may cause an adverse
effect.
Contaminant
attenuation zone
A portion of land that is located adjacent to a landfilling site, and is in the subsurface
or extends into the subsurface. An attenuation zone is used to or is intended to
attenuate contaminants from the landfilling site.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 76
Contamination
A chemical which is present in soil, water, air, sediment, or other material at a
concentration greater than background, or which is not naturally occurring in the soil,
water, air, sediment or other material.
Control order
A direction by the Ministry of the Environment requiring a person/organization to
change an existing operation to minimize adverse effect.
Controlled dump
A planned landfill that incorporates, to some extent, some of the features of a sanitary
landfill: siting with respect to hydro-geological suitability, grading, compaction in some
cases, leachate control, partial gas management, regular (not usually daily) cover,
access control, basic recordkeeping, and controlled scavenging.
Corporations
supporting recycling
(CSR)
A Canadian, not-for-profit, private sector organization that works in municipalities and
industries to aid in developing sustainable municipal recycling and waste diversion
systems.
Cover material
Material used in sealing waste cells in landfilling operations.
Criteria
Numerical values for the concentrations of chemical substances in soil, water, air,
and sediments that relate to the suitability of a site, for specific uses and land-use
categories.
Curbside recycling
A program whereby individual residents separate recyclable materials from general
wastes, and place them at the curb in bundles or designated containers for collection
and further processing.
Decommissioning
The activities associated with closing all or part of a facility (e.g. the removal of
process equipment, buildings and accessory structures, and the remediation of the
surface).
Digestion
The biochemical decomposition of organic matter.
Deposit/refund
system
Systems to collect fees on items when sold; fees are reimbursed when the used
product is returned.
Design and
operation (D&O)
A document (plan/report), required for obtaining a Certificate of Approval, which
describes in detail the function, elements or features of a landfill site/facility, and how
a landfill site/facility would function including its monitoring, and control/management
systems.
Design capacity
The total volume of waste that has been calculated as having the potential to be
disposed of at a landfill site for a particular landfill engineering design. This is
typically measured in cubic metres.
Discharge
A volume of groundwater, surface water or leachate flowing past a given point over a
time period. This is typically measured in cubic metres per second.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 77
Disposal
Final placement or destruction of wastes. Disposal is typically accomplished through
use of approved sanitary landfills or incineration with or without energy recovery.
Disposal bans
Regulation prohibiting disposal of materials or products (e.g., yard waste, or lead-acid
batteries) in landfills and/or incinerators; typically targets items that contribute
substantial volume or toxicity to the solid waste stream.
Disposal facilities
Facilities for disposing of solid waste, including landfills and incinerators, intended for
permanent containment or destruction of waste materials.
Diversion rate
A measure of the effectiveness/efficiency of a program aimed at diverting materials in
the waste stream from disposal. This is typically measured in tonnes of waste
diverted per person per year.
Drivers
Considerations such as legislation, regulations, policies and other influencing factors.
Drop-off/depot
Facilities (staffed or unstaffed) where the public brings recyclable materials, organics,
or garbage for management by the municipality. Separate drop boxes may be
available for different materials, such as newspaper, glass, or metal.
Dump
A waste disposal site where waste is deposited without cover material being applied
at regular intervals (i.e. A site not approved to accept waste).
Ecological receptor
A plant or wildlife species that may be affected due to exposure to a contaminant.
Ecological/
environmental risk
assessment (ERA)
A scientific method used to examine the nature and magnitude of risks from the
exposure of plants and animals to contaminants in the environment.
Effluent
A liquid discharged into a surface water body, onto the surface of the land, or into the
local sewer system.
Engineered facility
Anything man made that is intended to be a functional element or feature of a
landfilling site for more than five years. The following things are examples of
common elements or features of engineered facilities:
berms,
drainage ditches,
liners,
covers,
pumps,
facilities to detect, monitor, control, collect, redirect or treat leachate,
surface water or ground water, and
facilities to detect, monitor, control, collect, redirect, treat, utilize or vent
landfill gas.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 78
End use
The use of the landfill after reaching its capacity. Determination of the ultimate end
use of the Site will be addressed in consultation with the public and other
stakeholders.
Energy recovery
The process of using wastes to generate energy, and can include capturing of
methane gas from a landfill site.
Environment
As defined by the Environmental Assessment Act, environment means:
(a) air, land or water,
(b) plant and animal life, including human life,
(c) the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans
or a community,
(d) any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans,
(e) any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration or radiation resulting
directly or indirectly from human activities, or
(f) any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between
any two or more of them.
Environmental
assessment (EA)
A systematic planning process that is conducted in accordance with applicable laws
or regulations aimed at assessing the effects of a proposed undertaking on the
environment. Includes evaluation of need, alternatives, impacts, and mitigative,
remedial, monitoring and/or compensatory measures.
Environmental audit
A systematic process of objectively evaluating the degree to which an activity or
undertaking is consistent with established criteria. These criteria are typically derived
from a company's policies, procedures, and practices put into place to safeguard the
environment. May also include health & safety practices, training, waste
management, and transportation factors.
Environmental
impact assessment
(EIA)
An evaluation designed to identify and predict the impact of an action or a project on
the environment, human health and wellbeing. It can include risk assessment as a
component, along with economic and land use assessment.
Environmental site
assessment (ESA)
A systematic process of determining whether a specific property is or may be subject
to actual or potential contamination.
Evaluation criteria
Evaluation criteria are considerations or factors taken into account in assessing the
advantages and disadvantages of various alternatives being considered.
Exports
In solid waste programs, municipal solid waste and recyclables transported outside
the municipal jurisdiction or locality where they originated.
Exposure
Contact between a contaminant and an individual or population. The exposure may
occur through pathways such as ingestion, dermal absorption (through the skin), or
inhalation.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 79
Extended producer
responsibility (EPR)
A policy to shift the responsibility of a product's life cycle away from the municipality
to the producers and to provide incentives for producers to consider the
environmental impacts into the selection of materials and the design of the product.
Feedstock
The input material to be processed at a waste management facility.
Ferrous metals
Metals derived from iron or steel; products made from ferrous metals include
appliances, furniture, containers, and packaging like steel drums and barrels.
Recycled products include processing tin/steel cans, strapping, and metals from
appliances into new products.
Fibre
Paper materials, such as cardboard, newsprint, and mixed papers.
Fill
Earth, sand, gravel, construction rubble, waste or any other material, originating on-
site or off-site.
Fill area
In a landfill site, area receiving waste.
Flaring
The burning of landfill gas/methane captured and emitted from collection pipes at a
landfill.
Flow control
Legislation that limits free market access to specific wastes and ensures their
disposal at a particular processing or ultimate disposal facility.
Fluidized-bed
incinerator
A type of incinerator in which the stoker grate is replaced by a bed of limestone or
sand that can withstand high temperatures. The heating of the bed and the high air
velocities used, cause the bed to bubble, which gives rise to the term "fluidized".
Fly ash
A highly toxic particulate matter captured from the flue gas of an incinerator by the air
pollution control system.
Food waste
collection
The collection of household organic waste such as food scraps and non-recyclable
paper (tissues, paper toweling, etc.). It does not include yard waste. Food waste
requires greater processing requirements than yard waste, so it is identified as a
separate collection component.
Full cost accounting
Assigning all known waste management costs to the waste management program,
including those shared with other operations or programs. May also be applied to
landfills.
Garbage
Black/green bag or reusable container of waste set at the curb for disposal in the
landfill. It has no practical or feasible further use; it cannot be recycled or biologically
treated.
Grasscycling
Leaving grass clippings on the lawn and allowing them to decompose naturally
instead of collecting them for composting, digestion, or disposal.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 80
Green bin program
Diversion of organic wastes including food waste, non-recyclable paper and
sometimes including diapers, sanitary products and pet waste. Term often used
interchangeably with SSO.
Groundwater
Water beneath the earth's surface that fills underground pockets (known as aquifers),
supplying wells and springs.
Half life
The time required for the concentration of a contaminant to diminish to half its original
value.
Haul route
Public/private roadway(s) used by vehicles transporting waste to and from a landfill
site.
Hazard
The adverse impact on health or property which results from the presence of, or
exposure to, a contaminant.
Hazardous waste
Any residual hazardous materials which by their nature are potentially hazardous to
human health and/or the environment, as well as any materials, wastes or objects
assimilated to a hazardous material. Hazardous waste is defined by Ontario
Regulation 347 and may be explosive, gaseous, flammable, toxic, radioactive,
corrosive, combustive or leachable.
Heavy Metals
Metals of high atomic weight and density that are toxic to living organisms, such as
mercury, lead, and cadmium.
Hierarchy (for waste)
A hierarchical method of solid waste management. The following practices are
ranked in order of preference: source reduction; reuse; recycling; energy and material
recovery; and landfill disposal.
High density
polyethylene (HDPE)
A material used to make plastic rigid containers, milk and juice jugs, margarine tubs
and detergent bottles. The plastic is translucent or opaque and does not crack when
bent. Referred to as No. 2 Plastic.
Household
hazardous waste
Substances labelled as corrosive, flammable, poisonous, or explosive originating
from household use, which requires special handling for disposal.
Household waste (or
domestic waste)
Solid waste composed of garbage and rubbish, which normally originates in a private
home or apartment house.
IC & I waste
Waste originating from the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors.
Imports
Municipal solid waste and recyclables that have been transported to a jurisdiction or
locality for processing or final disposition (but did not originate in that jurisdiction or
locality).
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 81
Incineration
The use of solid waste as a fuel in a combustion process with the aim of reducing the
volume of waste.
Industrial waste
Waste generated at an industrial operation; may be liquid, sludge, solid or hazardous
waste.
Inert waste
Waste that is non-toxic, non-putrescible waste such as dirt, glass and wood that will
not undergo any significant physical, biological or chemical changes once it is
landfilled.
Inspection
Includes an audit, examination, survey, test and inquiry.
Institutional waste
Waste generated at institutions such as schools, libraries, hospitals, prisons, etc.
Integrated solid
waste management
(ISWM)
A strategic initiative for the sustained management of solid waste through the use of a
comprehensive integrated format generated through sustained preventive &
consultative approach to the complementary use of a variety of practices to handle
solid waste in a safe and effective manner.
Integrated waste
management system
Waste composed of material other than plant or animal matter, such as sand, dust,
glass, and many synthetics.
In-vessel
composting
Composting involving a closed tank or unit with physical controls.
Lagg
The perimeter of the Mer Bleu bog
Land
Surface land, including all subsoil, which is not enclosed in a building or covered by
water.
Landfill gas
The gases produced from the wastes disposed in a landfill; the main constituents are
typically carbon dioxide and methane, with small amounts of other organic and odour-
causing compounds.
Landfill mining
Materials are recovered from a landfill by excavation. Organic matter may be reused
as a daily cover, and material, such as wood, metal, brick, plastics and glass, may be
recovered and recycled.
Landfill site
An approved, engineered site/facility used for the long-term or permanent disposal of
waste. See also "approved site or facility" and "engineered facility".
Landspreading
A procedure whereby organic material is applied directly to land (usually agricultural)
to improve the physical and chemical properties of soil.
Leachate
Liquid that drains from solid waste in a landfill and which contains dissolved,
suspended and/or microbial contaminants from the breakdown of this waste.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 82
Leachate pond
A pond or tank constructed at a landfill to receive the leachate from the area. Usually
the pond is designed to provide some treatment of the leachate, by allowing
settlement of solids or by aeration to promote biological processes.
Leaching
The process by which contaminants in the soil or wastes are dissolved and/or
removed by water percolating or filtering through the soil.
Leaf & yard waste
Refers to leaves, grass, weeds, trimmings, brush, and woody materials (twigs,
branches, etc.).
Liner
A protective layer, made of soil and/or synthetic materials, installed along the bottom
and sides of a landfill to prevent or reduce the flow of leachate into the environment.
Litter
Any material left or abandoned in a place other than a receptacle or place intended
for receiving such material.
Magnetic separation
The use of magnets to separate ferrous materials from mixed municipal waste stream
or mixed recyclables stream.
Mandatory
separation
A regulation requiring waste generators to separate designated recyclable or
compostable materials from the waste stream for recycling.
Manual landfill
A landfill in which most operations are carried out without the use of mechanized
equipment.
Manual separation
At a materials recovery facility, the separation or sorting of different materials in the
waste stream by hand. Also referred to as hand sorting.
Markets
Persons, corporations, organizations or partnerships willing to purchase or accept in
exchange for a fee, recyclable material processed through or at a recycling facility.
Market development
Policies or measures used by organizations or governments to stimulate demand for
secondary materials (i.e., procurement policies, regulations, or mandated recycled
content).
Massburn incinerator
A type of incinerator in which solid waste is burned without prior sorting or
processing.
Materials recovery
(or recycling) facility
(MRF)
A facility where recyclable materials are processed through shredding, baling,
pulverizing, separating, sorting, or otherwise treated or altered to facilitate further
transfer, processing, utilization or disposal.
Maximum waste
loading
For a landfilling site, the total waste disposal volume divided by the area of the waste
fill area.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 83
Mechanical
separation
The physical separation of wastes by material type, size or density using trommels,
cyclones, and various screens.
Methane gas
An odourless, colourless, highly-combustible gas often produced by the
decomposition of waste in a landfill site. Methane is explosive in concentrations
ranging from 5% to 15% by volume in air.
Microorganism
Any living organism that can only be seen with the aid of a microscope.
Mining
In a landfill, the excavation of previously buried waste to recover recyclable materials
or soil for reuse.
Mixed MSW
A residual waste stream from the residential sector after some recyclables have been
source separated. In some Canadian locations this stream is composted.
Mixed waste
Unsorted materials that have been discarded into the waste stream.
Mixed-waste
processing
Through manual or mechanical means, some recyclable material is removed from
waste. The remaining fraction may be used to make a fuel product, be composted, or
both.
Modular incinerator
A relatively small type of pre-fabricated solid waste combustion unit.
Monitoring
A scientifically designed system of continued or periodic measurements or
observations of environmental or operating conditions.
Monofill
A landfill intended for one type of waste only.
Multi residential
buildings (MR)
Buildings which contain multiple self-contained residential dwelling units (typically
greater than 6 units).
Municipal hazardous
or special waste
(MHSW)
Includes the following materials that are considered hazardous waste materials
generated from the municipal sector (paints, solvents, adhesives, pesticides,
acids/bases, aerosols, fuels and batteries). Also sometimes referred to as Household
Hazardous Waste (HHW).
Municipal solid
waste (MSW)
A waste type that predominantly includes household waste (domestic waste), except
industrial and agricultural wastes, with sometimes the addition of commercial wastes
collected by a municipality within a given area. The C & D debris and special wastes
like hazardous wastes - usually not categorized under MSW - may also enter the
municipal waste stream to an extent. It is sometimes also defined to mean all solid
wastes that a city authority accepts responsibility for managing in some way.
Municipal solid
The controlled decomposition of municipal solid waste, including some form of
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 84
waste composting
preprocess to remove non-compostable material.
Natural environment
The air, land and water, or any combination or part thereof, of the Province of
Ontario.
Non-ferrous metals
Non-magnetic metals such as aluminum, lead, and copper. Products made all, or in
part, from such metals include containers, packaging, appliances, furniture, electronic
equipment, and aluminum foil.
Non-hazardous
waste
Non-hazardous wastes include all solid waste that does not meet the definition of
hazardous waste and includes designated wastes such as asbestos waste.
Old corrugated
cardboard
Bulky cardboard that is typically found in boxes used for shipping and packaging. It is
made from two (2) strips of cardboard with a wavy, or "corrugated," strip running
through the centre.
Ombrotrophic bog
A bog that receives most of its water and nutrients in the form of atmospheric
precipitation.
On-site composting
Composting conducted at or near the (generation) source of the organic material.
Ontario electric
stewardship (OES)
The Industry Funding Organization (IFO) for Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment. Companies that are designated as stewards for Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment can discharge their legal obligations under the Waste Diversion
Act by registering, reporting and paying fees to OES.
Ontario tire
stewardship (OTS)
The Industry Funding Organization established to develop a diversion program for
Used Tires. Companies that are designated as stewards for Used Tires can
discharge their legal obligations under the Waste Diversion Act by registering,
reporting and paying fees to OTS.
Open dump
An unplanned "landfill" that incorporates few, if any, of the characteristics of a
controlled landfill. There is typically no leachate control, no access control, no cover,
no management, and many scavengers.
Operator
The person in occupation or having the charge, management, or control of a waste
management system or a waste disposal site.
Organic waste
The organic fraction of the waste stream, consisting of material that is biodegradable,
typically food, yard waste, and paper.
Overburden
The surface of the land which rests on bedrock, which consists of unconsolidated soil
material.
Owner
Includes:
(a) a person that is responsible for the establishment or operation of a
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 85
waste management system or waste disposal site, or
(b) the person that owns the land in or on which a waste disposal site is
located.
Packer truck
Vehicle used for waste collection which compacts waste towards the rear of the truck.
Pay as you
throw/User pay
A program in which every individual unit, bag or container set out for collection is paid
for directly by the resident, commonly by the purchase of bag tags. Other examples
of user pay systems would be the utility based system and the subscription based
system.
Peripheral area
The area controlled by the site owner/operator between the property boundary of the
waste disposal site and the actual fill area. This area may contain the buffer areas
(as required). Together, the peripheral area and the fill area make up the waste
disposal site.
Pest
Any injurious or noxious insect, fungus, bacterial organism, virus, weed, rodent or
other troublesome plant or animal.
Pesticide
Anything that is designed to control, destroy, attract or repel a pest, typically in the
form or a chemical, organism or device.
Pollutant
A contaminant other than heat, sound, vibration or radiation, and includes any
substance from which a pollutant is derived.
Polyethylene
terephthalate (PET)
A type of plastic that is clear or coloured transparent with high gloss. It is used for
carbonated beverage bottles, peanut butter jars, and some household cleanser
cleaners. Bottles have a raised dot on the base. PET is referred to as No. 1 Plastic.
Post-consumer
materials
Materials that a consumer has finished using, and which may be sold, given away, or
be discarded as wastes.
Practicable
Any action or activity that can be accomplished. Consideration is often given to the
technical, physical and financial resources that are or can reasonably be made
available.
Primary leachate
collection system
A leachate collection system located below the waste fill zone.
Primary liner
The uppermost liner below the waste fill zone.
Private/self-haul
The waste generator (residence or business) can take garbage and recyclables to the
waste facility directly or pay a private contractor to collect their waste materials.
Promotion and
Education materials
Materials prepared and distributed by a municipality to help promote the proper
participation in waste management and waste diversion programs.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 86
Property value
protection plan
Plan that addresses the potential effect of the landfill expansion on local property
values.
Processing
Preparation of solid waste for sale to markets through such activities as hand sorting,
magnetic and/or mechanical separation or shredding, composting, or digestion.
Procurement
The purchase of goods or services, usually by an organization or government.
Procurement policies or regulations may establish requirements for purchasing goods
that contain a minimum level of recycled content and/or are recyclable.
Putrescible waste
Waste containing readily degradable matter such as food or animal matter, including
dead animals or animal parts, or unstable or untreated biosolids.
Pyolysis
The chemical decomposition of a substance by heat in the absence of oxygen,
resulting in the production of various hydrocarbon gases and carbon-like residue.
Radiosonde
A miniature radio transmitter that is carried aloft (as by an unmanned balloon) with
instruments for sensing and broadcasting atmospheric conditions.
Ramsar convention
Program which designates wetlands of international importance.
Receptor
The person, plant or wildlife species that may be affected due to exposure to a
contaminant.
Recovery rate
Proportion of material recovered from the total waste stream.
Recyclables
Any material destined for recycling. In a curbside recycling program, includes
materials such as: glass, metal food and beverage cans, aluminum foil, rigid shell
plastic containers, newspaper, cardboard, fine paper, boxboard.
Recycling depot
A designated location within a municipality where recyclable material (Blue Box,
organics, scrap metal, clean lumber, etc.) can be dropped off into segregated bins.
Release
Restoration of the land surface to a state appropriate for future use. Act of
remediating may include: stabilization, contouring, conditioning, reconstruction and
revegetation of the land surface.
Rendering
Processing of animal wastes at high temperatures to produce oil, fats, or animal feed.
Residential/Single
family (SF) waste
Waste generated from single family households, considered a demographic group of
residents spatially delimited physical structure.
Residual waste
Waste which cannot be reduced, reused or recycled further. It is also referred to as
garbage, which must ultimately be disposed in a landfill site.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 87
Restore the natural
environment
When used with reference to a spill of a pollutant, means restored all forms of life,
physical conditions, the natural environment and things existing immediately before
the spill of the pollutant that are affected or that may reasonably be expected to be
affected by the pollutant, and "restoration of the natural environment", when used with
reference to a spill of a pollutant, has a corresponding meaning.
Reuse
The use of a product, such as a refillable beverage bottle, more than once, possibly
with slight modification.
Risk management
The implementation of a strategy or measure(s) to control or reduce the level of risk
that has been estimated by a risk assessment.
Rock
An aggregation of one or more naturally occurring minerals, typically two millimetres
or larger in size.
Sanitary landfill
An engineered method of disposing off solid waste on land, in a manner that meets
most of the standard specifications, including sound siting, extensive site preparation,
proper leachate and gas management and monitoring, compaction, daily and final
cover, complete access control, and recordkeeping.
Scrubber
An emission control device in an incinerator, used primarily to control acid gases, but
also to remove some heavy metals.
Secondary leachate
collection system
A leachate collection system located below the primary leachate collection system,
intended as a back-up system.
Secondary liner
A liner located below the primary liner, intended as a back-up system.
Service area
The area from which a landfill site is allowed to accept waste materials for disposal or
processing.
Service life
The period of time during which a properly maintained engineered facility will function
and perform as designed.
Site life
The period of time during which the landfill can continue to accept wastes.
Site remediation
The treatment of a contaminated site by removing the contaminated solids/liquids or
treating them onsite.
Site specific risk
assessment (SSRA)
A scientific method used to examine the nature and magnitude of risks from the
exposure of humans, plants and animals to contaminants in the environment at a
specific site.
Soil
Unconsolidated particles smaller than 2 millimetres in size resulting from the
breakdown of rock or organic matter by physical, chemical or biological processes,
and includes foundry sand, and includes a mixture of soil and rock where fifty percent
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 88
or more by volume of the mixture is soil.
Source of
contaminant
Anything that discharges a contaminant into the natural environment.
Source reduction
(also waste
reduction at source)
The conservation of materials and energy by preventing the formation of wastes such
that no treatment, reuse, or disposal is required of excess or discarded materials.
Source reduction is a subset of waste reduction.
Source separation
The separation of materials suitable for recycling or composting from solid waste at
the source of generation (e.g., households, businesses).
Source separated
organics (SSO)
This includes residential organic waste such as food waste and non-recyclable paper
that is segregated for composting or other organic waste processing. Some
municipalities have widened the definition of SSO to include diapers, sanitary
products and pet waste.
Source separated
recyclables (SSR)
A system whereby residents store recyclable parts of the waste stream in a separate
bag, box or bin at home, so that it is relatively uncontaminated when dropped off at
the recycling centre or picked up at the curb.
Special wastes
Wastes that are ideally considered to be outside the MSW stream, but sometimes
enter it and must often be dealt with by municipal authorities. These include
household hazardous waste, medical waste, construction, renovation and demolition
debris, war and earthquake debris, tires, oils, wet batteries, sewage sludge, human
excreta, stoichiometric condition slaughterhouse waste, and industrial waste.
Stakeholders
Individuals or groups with a key involvement and other interested parties.
Stewards
Businesses that produce or import products that are sold to consumers that include
packaging and/or end of product life wastes.
Stewardship Ontario
The Industry Funding Organization (IFO) established to develop diversion programs
for both the Blue Box and MHSW Programs.
Substance
Any solid, liquid or gas, or any combination of any of them.
Teratogenicity
The ability of a chemical to cause a change in the normal development process of an
unborn organism, resulting in permanent alterations in the biochemical, physiological
or anatomical functions of the organism.
Thermal treatment
Technologies that process waste using high temperatures to reduce the quantity of
material requiring disposal, stabilize the material requiring disposal, and recover
energy and potentially material resources.
Threshold
The concentration or dose of a chemical above which an adverse impact can be
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 89
expected to occur.
Total waste disposal
volume
For a landfilling site, the maximum volume of waste, including the volume of any daily
or intermediate cover materials, to be deposited at the site in the fill area.
Toxicity
The ability of a chemical to cause injury to humans or the environment. Acute toxicity
occurs soon after exposure, while chronic reactions are experienced long after the
exposure.
Transfer station
Facility where material is transferred from collection vehicles to larger trucks or rail
cars for longer distance transport.
Trommel
A rotary cylindrical screen, typically at a downward angle, that separates the
materials of different physical size. Trommel screens are used to separate mixed
recyclables, municipal solid waste components, or to screen finished compost from
window and aerated static pile systems.
Vectors and vermin
Disease-carrying organisms such as insects, rodents, birds (especially gulls and
crows) and other harmful or nuisance species (e.g. bears).
Vermicomposting
Worms digest organic wastes.
Virgin materials
Any basic material for industrial processes that has not previously been used, for
example, wood pulp trees, iron ore, crude oil, and bauxite.
Volatilization
The process by which a chemical converts from a liquid or solid phase into a gaseous
phase and disperses into the air.
Waste
Includes ashes, garbage, refuse, domestic waste, industrial waste, or municipal
refuse and such other materials as are designated in the regulations.
Waste audit
Exercise of determining the quantity and composition of waste which is disposed.
Waste composition
The various component materials of the waste stream, typically described as a
percentage of the entire waste stream by weight.
Waste disposal site
Includes:
(a) any land upon, into, in or through which, or building or structure in
which, waste is deposited, disposed of, handled, stored, transferred,
treated or processed, and
(b) any operation carried out or machinery or equipment used in
connection with the depositing, disposal, handling, storage, transfer,
treatment or processing referred to in clause (a).
Waste diversion
The redirection of generated wastes away from disposal through reuse, recycling, or
recovery. It does not include source reduction.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 90
Waste diversion
credits
Financial incentive provided by municipalities to encourage or to reward waste
diversion based on tonnage diverted from the waste stream.
Waste Diversion
Ontario (WDO)
A non-crown corporation created under the Waste Diversion Act (WDA) on June 27,
2002. WDO was established to develop, implement and operate waste diversion
programs for a wide range of materials (Blue Box Waste, Used Tires, Used Oil
Material, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Municipal Hazardous or
Special Waste) under the WDA.
Waste diversion rate
Waste diversion rate is the percentage of waste diverted from landfill through means
of diversion programs (Blue Box, composting, etc). Waste diversion rate is
determined by dividing the total quantity of waste diverted by the total amount
diverted and disposed.
Waste electrical and
electronics
equipment
Any broken or unwanted electrical or electronic appliances including computers,
phones and other items that have reached the end of their usable life.
Waste exchange
System for transferring waste material from one company to another that can use it.
For example, packaging foam received by one company can be transferred to a
stuffed toy manufacturer for use as stuffing.
Waste fill area
In a landfill site, area receiving waste.
Waste fill zone
The three-dimensional zone receiving waste.
Waste generation
rate
The amount waste generated by a person(s) on a daily basis, typically measured in
tonnes per person per year.
Waste generator
The person, business, institutional facility or industry which created the waste.
Waste management
system
Any facilities or equipment used in, and any operations carried out for, the
management of waste including the collection, handling, transportation, storage,
processing or disposal of waste, and may include one or more waste disposal sites.
Waste minimization
Measures or techniques, including plans and directives, that reduce the amount of
wastes for disposal to the greatest degree practical. (Getting as close to zero waste
as practical.) Methods to achieve minimization include source reduction, reuse,
environmentally sound recycling, and recovery.
Waste recycling
strategy
A Best Practice initiated by Waste Diversion Ontario and funded through the CIF to
optimize Blue Box programs. It includes forecasting waste and recyclable material
generation, planning how to optimize recycling of identified materials and
implementing and monitoring a plan to improve overall Blue Box capture rates and
performance.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 91
Waste reduction
The decreasing to some extent of the waste stream, requiring disposal through
source reduction, reuse, recycling, or recovery. It is often confused with the more
limited "source reduction," which deals with policies and approaches only from the
curbside on, not further upstream.
Waste stream
The waste output of a community, region, or facility. Total waste can be categorized
into different waste stream components (e.g., wet organic waste, construction waste,
household hazardous waste, or white goods).
Waste-to-energy
(WTE) plant
A facility that uses solid waste materials (processed or raw) to produce energy. WTE
plants include incinerators that produce steam (for district heating or industrial use),
or generate electricity and also include facilities that convert landfill gas to electricity.
Waste transfer
station/facility
A facility where waste is transferred from small collection trucks into larger waste
hauling vehicles for transportation to a waste diversion, processing or disposal site.
Water
Surface water and ground water, or either of them.
Water surplus
The water surplus provides an estimate of the volume of water available from
precipitation to infiltrate into the site and for surface runoff during a 12 month period.
Water table
A level below the earth's surface at which the ground becomes saturated with water.
Wet/Dry
The wet stream contains organics plus other wet materials that are typically sent to a
composting facility. Dry contains all recyclables plus other dry materials. MRF
facilities are designed to separate dry recyclables from residual materials which
cannot be recycled or for which there are no or limited markets.
Wet/Dry collection
The separation of residential solid waste into at least two components for collection:
wet wastes, which are organic and collected for composting; and dry wastes, which
are sorted at a central facility where the recyclables are removed for further
processing.
White goods
Refers to household appliances such as refrigerators, stoves, freezers, washers,
dryers, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, water tanks, air-conditioning units, heat pumps.
Windrow composting
Composting process whereby piled organic material is placed in a series of rows,
usually two metres deep. The rows are turned periodically for natural aeration.
Yard waste
collection
The collection of leaves, brush, grass and other yard waste for composting.
Zero waste
The philosophy of taking a cradle-to-cradle approach to managing waste where
"industry has to redesign products and processes to reduce waste before it is made,
as well as designing products for greater reuse."
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 92
ABBREVIATIONS
AAQC
Ambient Air Quality Criteria
AD
Anaerobic Digestion
AHP
Analytical Hierarchy Process
AMO
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
AMRC
Ontario's Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators
ANSI
Area of Natural Scientific Interest
ASL
Automated Side Loader
APC
Air Pollution Control
AWT
Alternative Waste Treatment
BEST
Businesses for an Environmentally Sustainable Tomorrow
BEI CHP &RS
The bei cellulose hydrolysis process and reactor system
BMT
Biological and Mechanical Treatment
BMW
Bio-Medical Waste
BNQ
Le Bureau de normalisation du Québec
BOD
Biological Oxygen Demand
BOT
Build-Operate-Transfer
BRBA
Buy Recycled Business Alliance in the U.S.
CR&D
Construction, Renovation and Demolition
CBSM
Community-Based Social Marketing
CCF
Central Composting Facility
CCI
Canada Compost Inc.
CCME
Council of Ministers of the Environment
CDM
Clean Development Mechanism
CEC
Community Environmental Centre
CFCs
Chlorofluorocarbons
CIF
Continuous Improvement Fund
CNG
Compressed Natural Gas
CO2
Carbon Dioxide
COSEWIC
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
COSSARO
Committee of the Status of Species at Risk in Canada
CRT
Cathode Ray Tube
CV
Calorific Value
DfE
Design for the Environment
E&E Fund
Effectiveness and Efficiency Fund
EA
Environmental Assessment
EAA
Environmental Assessment Act
EAB
Environmental Approvals Branch
EASR
Environmental Assessment Study Report
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 93
EBR
Environmental Bill of Rights
ECO2
Equivalent Carbon Dioxide
ECS
Eddy Current Separator
E-E
Eco-Emballages
EFW
Energy From Waste plant
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
EMC
Environmental Management Centre
ENGOS
Environmental Non-profit Organizations
EPA
Environmental Protection Act
EPP
Environmentally Preferable Procurement
EPR
Extended Producer Responsibility
ERA
Environmental Risk Assessment
ESTs
Environmentally Sound Technologies
FCM
Federation of Canadian Municipalities
H2S
Hydrogen Sulphide
GAP
Generally Accepted Practices (or Principles)
GERT
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Trading
GFNCR
Greening of Facilities National Capital Region
GHG
Greenhouse Gas
GIS
Geographic Information System
GIPPER
Governments Incorporating Procurement Policies to Eliminate Refuse
GMF
Green Municipal Funds
HDPE
High Density Polyethylene (Plastic bottles and jugs commonly used for containing
detergents)
HHW
Household Hazardous Waste (Also referred to as Municipal Hazardous or Special
Waste (MHSW))
hshold or hhld
Household
IC&I
Industrial Commercial and Institutional
IFO
Industry Funding Organization
ISWM (P)
Integrated Solid Waste Management (Plan)
IWM (M) (P)
Integrated Waste Management (Master) (Plan)
JMC
Joint Management Committee
LFG
Landfill Gas
LGA
Local Government Area
MBG
Mixed Broken Glass
MC
Moisture Content
MF
Multi-Family residence
MGB
Mobile Garbage Bin
MNR
Ministry of Natural Resources
MOE
Ministry of the Environment
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 94
MR
Multi-Residential buildings
MRC
Materials Recycling Centre
MRF
Materials Recycling Facility
MSW
Municipal Solid Waste
MTCE
Metric Tonnes of Carbon Equivalent
NaPP
National Packaging Protocol
NCC
National Capital Commission
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
NIR
Near Infrared
NOX
Oxides of Nitrogen
NORA
Northern Ontario Recycling Association
NPRI
National Pollutant Release Inventory
NRC
National Recycling Coalition
O&M
Operations and Maintenance
OBB
Old Boxboard (post-consumer)
OCC
Old Corrugated Cardboard (post-consumer)
ODWQS
Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards
OES
Ontario Electric Stewardship
OMG
Old Magazines
ONP
Old Newspaper
OTS
Ontario Tire Stewardship
OUOMA
Ontario Used Oil Management Association
P&E
Promotion and Education
PAYT
Pay As You Throw
PDO
Public Drop-Off
PET
Polyethylene terephthalate.
PM
Particulate Matter
PM10
Airborne Particulate matter with a mass median diameter less than 10 um
PP
Polypropylene
PROs
Producer Responsibility Organizations
PS
Polystyrene
PS (P)
Private Sector (Participation)
PSA
Public Service Announcement
PVC
Polyvinyl chloride
PVPP
Property Value Protection Plan
RDF
Refuse Derived Fuel
REIC
Renewable Energy Institute of Canada
RMDZ
Recycling Market Development Zones
RMOC
Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Page 95
ROW
Right-of-way
SF
Single Family
SUBBOR
Super Blue Box Recycling Corporation
SO
Stewardship Ontario
SOx
Sulphur Oxides
SPM
Suspended Particulate Matter
SSO
Source Separated Organics
TC
Trigger Concentration
ToR
Terms of Reference
tpy
Tonnes per year
TSD
Technical Supporting Documents
UOMPP
Used Oil Material Program Plan
UTPP
Used Tire Program Plan
VENM
Virgin Excavated Natural Material
VOCs
Volatile Organic Compounds
WCV
Waste Collection Vehicle
WDA
Waste Diversion Act
WDO
Waste Diversion Ontario
WEEE
Waste Electrical and Electronics Equipment
WMF
Waste Management Facility
WMMP
Waste Management Master Plan
WRAC
Ontario Waste Reduction Advisory Committee
WRIC
Waste Resource Innovation Centre
WSI
Waste Services (CA) Inc.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Appendices
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Appendix A
Public Consultation Process
THE STUDY
The City of Peterborough, through their consultant Cambium Environmental Inc. (Cambium), has initiated a
study to prepare a Waste Management Master Plan. The current Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP)
was completed in 1993 as a joint City/County of Peterborough plan. Considering the age of the current plan
and that the County of Peterborough (County) has initiated a County-focused WMMP, the City of
Peterborough (City) is seeking the development of a City-focused WMMP, which will have a progressive and
cooperative approach for a sustainable system providing service over a long-term planning period.
The Study will review the current waste management system including the infrastructure, collections, and
processing. The Study will identify the areas of the waste management system that are working, the areas
that need improvement, and the areas that need to be added to or removed from the City's current operation.
The Study is heavily dependent on public input and will require assistance from the residents to move
forward. Any and all recommendations stemming from the Study will be presented to the public during open
house meetings and all input will be incorporated to develop the capital and operating budget for waste
management over the next twenty year period.
As previously stated, public consultation is key to the preparation process. Upon confirmation of the meeting
dates, locations and times, notices will be posted.
The City of Peterborough website:
http://www.peterborough.ca/living/city_services/waste_management
will be updated frequently to provide information on the current status of the Study.
COMMENTS
You are encouraged to provide comments on the Study. All comments received will be included in the Study.
An online survey will be available through the City website for your immediate participation. Comments and
information provided by you will assist the Project Team in finding solutions for the City and the waste
management options available.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions, comments or wish to be added to the project
mailing list.
Virginia A. Swinson, B. Sc.,
Kelly Murphy, P. Eng.
Waste Reduction Programs Coordinator
Senior Project Manager
City of Peterborough
Cambium Environmental Inc.
500 George Street North,
52 Hunter Street East
Peterborough, Ontario, K9H 3R9
Peterborough, Ontario K9H 1G5
Phone: (705) 742-7777 ext. 1725
Phone: (705) 742-7900 ext. 226
Fax: (705) 876-4621
Fax: (705) 742-7907
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT
TO PREPARE A WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER
PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PETERBOROUGH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE
FOR A WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN STUDY
FOR THE CITY OF PETERBOROUGH
The City of Peterborough has initiated a study to prepare a Waste Management Master
Plan. The Study is reviewing the current waste management system, including the
infrastructure, collections, and processing. It will identify the areas of the waste
management system that are working, the areas that need improvement, and the areas
that need to be added to or removed from the City's current operations.
Public Information Centre #1
Public Library Auditorium - 345 Aylmer St. N.
Date: Thursday October 27th
Times:
2:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.
6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
Members of the Cambium Environmental Project Team and City Staff will be available
to answer any questions and accept comments. Light refreshments will be provided.
An online survey is available through the City website, and attendees at the Public
Information Centre may fill out a paper survey. All comments provided will be
considered by the Project Team when evaluating options for the City's future waste
management system.
Go to http://www.peterborough.ca/wmstudy to complete the on-line survey at any time
during the study. This site will also be updated regularly to provide information on the
status of the Study.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions, comments or wish to be
added to the project mailing list.
Virginia A. Swinson, B. Sc.,
Kelly Murphy, P. Eng.
Waste Reduction Programs Coordinator
Senior Project Manager
City of Peterborough
Cambium Environmental Inc.
500 George Street North,
52 Hunter Street East
Peterborough, Ontario, K9H 3R9
Peterborough, Ontario K9H 1G5
Phone: (705) 742-7777 ext. 1725
Phone: (705) 742-7900 ext. 226
Fax: (705) 876-4621
Fax: (705) 742-7907
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
10/28/2011
1
Welcome
City of Peterborough
Waste Management
Master Plan
Public Meeting No. 1
Please:
- Sign in
- Feel free to ask questions
- Fill out a questionnaire
- Help yourself to refreshments
10/28/2011
2
Waste Management
Master Plan (WMMP)
- Provide overall
direction for the
waste management
system
- Address diversion
and disposal needs
for the next 20 years
- Identify
opportunities to
improve the current
system
- Identify
opportunities to
reduce the amount
of waste needing
disposal
The WMMP will:
10/28/2011
3
WMMP
Schedule
The WMMP will take approximately 13 months to complete.
A final document is anticipated by August 2012.
Step 1: Understanding and Assessing the Current Waste
Management System
-
Review of existing facilities & services
Step 2: Establish Goals and Objectives
-
Based on provincial and municipal priorities,
objectives, and targets
-
Public Information Centre No. 1
-
Survey /Questionnaire
Step 3: Identify and Assess Options
-
Evaluate alternative methods
-
Determine options and their potential contribution towards
sustainable waste management
-
Develop criteria; assess options
-
Discussion of 3 broader categories for discussion with the
public
-
Maximize Diversion
-
Minimize Generation
-
Cost Effectiveness/Affordability (Fiscal Responsibility)
Step 4: Develop the WMMP Document
-
Public Information Centre No. 2
-
Survey/Questionnaire
-
The WMMP document will:
-
Include results of analysis
-
Identify the existing system
-
Present a framework for future waste management
YOU ARE
HERE
10/28/2011
4
Waste Management Context
Description of Waste Generation
-
Population of 79,334
-
Unaccounted for student increase
(September to May)
-
Area of 1,283 km²
-
26,240 single family households
-
8,675 multi-family households
-
Waste tonnage reported in 2010:
- 34,683 tonnes of residential waste
generated by City
- 17,364 tonnes of this waste was
diverted through diversion programs
- 60,248 tonnes of waste entering the
landfill (City and County combined)
-
City waste diversion rate of 50%
Waste Management Facilities
-
1 active landfill (City / County)
-
Household Hazardous Waste Facility
-
Materials Recovery Facility
-
Composting Facility
10/28/2011
5
Key
WMMP
Considerations
-
Decreasing remaining disposal capacity at
Peterborough County/City Waste
Management Facility (PCCWMF) landfill site
-
Limited Monitoring and Reporting program in
place to verify current capture and
participation rates;
-
There is currently no Source Separated
Organics (SSO) program in place;
-
Diminishing life capacity at the Material
Recovery Facility (MRF) on Pido Road; and
-
Limited influence/role with IC&I waste sector
and waste management.
10/28/2011
6
Guiding Principle of the Plan
The long-term Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP) is an
essential step towards the provision of sustainable waste systems
within the City of Peterborough.
The WMMP begins with the
establishment of a Guiding Principle, from which fundamental goals
can be identified. Specific, achievable objectives are then set out,
which will steer the City towards its intended targets.
The
initial
Guiding
Principle
of
Peterborough's
Waste
Management Master Plan is as follows:
10/28/2011
7
Goals and Objectives
GOALS
The City's WMMP Steering Committee focused on three main areas for
this WMMP, and set out three corresponding goals: to maximize the
amount of residual material that we are able to divert from the landfill; to
minimize the amount of residual material that is generated in the first
place by the residents; and to operate and manage all of the City's
required waste management systems in a fiscally responsible manner.
The fundamental goals of the WMMP are as follows:
10/28/2011
8
OBJECTIVES
The fundamental goals will be achieved by setting more specific and
measurable objectives. The City has established key objectives for
each of these three goals:
Goals and Objectives
10/28/2011
9
Targets
Key TARGETS have been generated from the goals and objectives
that apply to all. These targets will allow the City to monitor their
progress with the established Plan and verify deliverables. The
targets will be adjustable with the changing economic and social
trends and are provided as follows:
1.Expand the number and type of education and
outreach and/or partnership activities year over
year from 2010 levels.
2.Meet all 8 Waste Management Best Practices as
outlined
in
the
KPMG
Blue
Box
Program
Enhancement and Best Practices Assessment
Project Report, 2007.
3.Residential diversion rate will increase from
2010 level of 50% to 75% over 20 years, with a
review of target every five years.
4.Capture rates for blue box materials and green
waste will increase 20% from 2006 levels over 20
years, with a review of target every five years.
5.Participate and continue to support producer
responsibility awareness.
10/28/2011
10
City Residential Waste
Composition
A total of 34,683 tonnes of residential waste
was generated within the City limits in 2010
-
Approximately 17,364 tonnes was diverted
from landfill through programs such as blue
box recycling, leaf and yard waste composting,
MHSW collections, and backyard composting
10/28/2011
11
Waste Diversion
- Provincial target is 60%
- Current diversion rate 50%
- Diversion target of 75% by 2030 (to be
reviewed every 5 years)
- Current diversion programs:
- Weekly curbside blue box collection from
26,240 households
- Seasonal curbside collection of leaf and yard
waste
- Bi-annual curbside collection of bulky items
- Municipal Hazardous and Special Waste
(MHSW)
- Waste Electronics and Electrical Equipment
(WEEE) or "used electronics"
- Other (scrap metal, tires, appliances)
- SSO Pilot Study
-
625 single family households and 3 restaurants
10/28/2011
12
Materials Recycling Facility (MRF)
-
MRF was constructed by the City in 1989
-
Located at 390 Pido Road
-
Accepts all blue box materials from the City and
the County
-
Free disposal of blue box materials available
24/7
-
The City and the County have separate long
term agreements with the operator of the MRF
(HGC Management Inc.)
- Agreements expire December 31, 2014
City Composting Facility
- Owned and operated by the City at Harper Road
- Accepts all leaf and yard waste collected in the
City as well as SSO from Pilot Study
- ~20% of residential waste by weight in 2010
- Offers compost for sale throughout Peterborough
County
- Open windrow system mixes compost with wood
chips
10/28/2011
13
How Does the City of
Peterborough Stack
Up?
A waste audit was completed for the City in
2006, which illustrated the following:
-
Participation rates:
- Curbside garbage collection: 79% (2 bags per
household)
- Blue box program: 74%
-
Average capture rate of blue box materials was
79.5%
- Less than average of 85% for similarly sized
municipalities
-
The blue box program is better than average
in cost efficiency (2010 Datacall)
- ~$147.75/tonne compared with ~$222/tonne
average
-
The City disposes of slightly less waste than
the average (2010 Datacall)
- City residents dispose ~219 kg/capita compared
with a ~268 kg/capita average
10/28/2011
14
Options for Waste Reduction
- Increase blue box items allowed
- Collect food waste at curbside
- User pay system
- Reduce bag allowance
- Clear garbage bags and contents
monitoring
- City reuse centre
- Alter consumer choices to reduce
packaging
- Increase Household Hazardous Waste
Depot hours of operation
Reducing the amount
of waste generated
will help to conserve
landfill capacity at the
PCCWMF...
10/28/2011
15
Options for Future Waste
Management
The PCCWMF landfill has an estimated
12 to 15 years of capacity remaining
Options for future waste disposal include:
-
Increase waste reduction (extend site life)
- Accomplished through waste diversion initiatives
and changes in consumer behaviour
-
Landfill expansion or search for new site
-
Export of waste
- Waste could potentially be landfilled or treated
thermally by others
-
Thermal Treatment with potential for energy
generation
- An advanced technology that would allow energy
to be recuperated from waste
-
Other ideas? Tell us your thoughts.
10/28/2011
16
Open House Session
-
Please help yourself to refreshments
-
Please take a moment to complete a
questionnaire (or take one home)
-
Questionnaire's can also be completed on the City
website
-
Please ask questions or provide your comments
to meeting organizers
Thank you for attending and participating in the City of
Peterborough Waste Management Master Plan
Public Meeting No. 1.
Keep Informed
Further information can be obtained on the City
Waste Management Webpage:
City of Peterborough
Contact: Virginia Swinson, B. Sc.
Waste Reduction Programs Coordinator
[email protected]
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Contact: Kelly Murphy, P. Eng.
Senior Project Manager
[email protected]
http://www.peterborough.ca/Living/City_Services/Waste_Management.htm
Or contact the City or its Consultant directly:
1 of 15
WMMP 2011
1. Do you currently live in the City of Peterborough?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes
89.5%
188
No
10.5%
22
answered question
210
skipped question
2
2. What is your age?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
19-35
35.7%
66
36-50
34.6%
64
51-65
24.9%
46
65+
4.9%
9
answered question
185
skipped question
27
2 of 15
3. What type of dwelling do you reside in?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Single-family home
79.3%
146
Multi-family dwelling (apartment,
condominium, townhouses)
20.7%
38
answered question
184
skipped question
28
4. Indicate your residency in the city of Peterborough.
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Permanent
94.0%
173
Student
6.0%
11
answered question
184
skipped question
28
3 of 15
5. How many people normally live in your household?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
1
9.8%
18
2
40.8%
75
3
16.3%
30
4
21.2%
39
5
7.6%
14
More than 5
4.3%
8
answered question
184
skipped question
28
6. What day is your waste, recycling and green waste collected?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Tuesday
33.2%
61
Wednesday
15.8%
29
Thursday
17.9%
33
Friday
28.3%
52
Not sure
2.2%
4
Not applicable (reside in an
apartment)
2.7%
5
answered question
184
skipped question
28
4 of 15
7. On average, how many FULL cans/bags of garbage does your household generate each
week?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
less than 1
41.8%
76
1
41.8%
76
2
13.7%
25
3 or more
2.7%
5
answered question
182
skipped question
30
8. On average, how many FULL blue boxes does your household fill each week?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
less than 1
11.5%
21
1
17.6%
32
2
53.3%
97
3
14.3%
26
more than 3
3.3%
6
answered question
182
skipped question
30
5 of 15
9. When your blue boxes are full, how do you deal with extra recyclables?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Take extra to the drop-off depot on
Pido Road
14.9%
27
Set to curb in a separate
receptacle (non-blue box)
36.5%
66
Store until next collection day
29.8%
54
Throw them in the garbage
1.7%
3
My blue boxes are never too full
17.1%
31
answered question
181
skipped question
31
10. Would you prefer larger blue boxes?
Yes
No
Response
Count
For your Containers
59.1% (107)
40.9% (74)
181
For your Fibers
49.7% (84)
50.3% (85)
169
answered question
182
skipped question
30
6 of 15
11. Do you compost at home?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes, year-round
42.3%
77
Yes, seasonally
19.2%
35
No
38.5%
70
answered question
182
skipped question
30
12. If Yes, what do you typically put in your composter?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Food scraps
28.1%
32
Yard wastes
8.8%
10
Both
63.2%
72
answered question
114
skipped question
98
13. How satisfied are you with the current service levels for garbage, green waste and
recycling? "1" being Very Unsatisfied, and "5" being Very Satisfied:
1
2
3
4
5
Response
Count
Garbage
1.7% (3)
4.4% (8)
6.7% (12)
28.9% (52)
58.3% (105)
180
Recycling
1.1% (2)
4.0% (7)
15.3% (27)
32.8% (58)
46.9% (83)
177
Green waste
17.5% (30)
12.9% (22)
12.3% (21)
19.3% (33)
38.0% (65)
171
answered question
180
skipped question
32
7 of 15
14. If you chose "1" or "2" for any of the services in Question 13, please comment further
on the reasons for your dissatisfaction.
Response
Count
67
answered question
67
skipped question
145
15. How do you normally find information about the City's solid waste management
services?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Waste Reduction Calendar
50.0%
87
Waste Management Brochures
18.4%
32
Newspaper ads
30.5%
53
Through friends and neighbours
18.4%
32
City website
48.3%
84
City council meetings
2.3%
4
Other (please specify)
20
answered question
174
skipped question
38
8 of 15
16. Please indicate how often you use the City's existing waste management facilities, with
"0" being Never, "1" being Annually, "2" being Seasonally, "3" being Monthly, "4" being
Weekly, and "5" being Daily.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Response
Count
Landfill Site (Bensfort Road)
37.5%
(66)
31.3%
(55)
25.0%
(44)
5.1% (9)
0.6% (1)
0.6% (1)
176
Household Hazardous Waste and
Electronics Depot (Pido Road)
26.2%
(45)
40.7%
(70)
29.7%
(51)
2.3% (4)
0.6% (1)
0.6% (1)
172
24-hour Recycling Drop-Off Depot
(Pido Road)
44.1%
(75)
21.8%
(37)
25.3%
(43)
7.1% (12)
1.2% (2)
0.6% (1)
170
answered question
176
skipped question
36
17. Please provide any comments you have on the current waste management services
provided by the CIty today(garbage, green waste, blue box collections, Household
Hazardous Waste and Electronics Depot, Landfill site).
Response
Count
76
answered question
76
skipped question
136
9 of 15
18. The City's current rate of waste diversion (residential) is 50%. The provincial goal is
60%. What level of waste diversion would you like to see the CIty set as a goal?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Current level of 50%
6.0%
8
55%
6.0%
8
60%
20.3%
27
65%
67.7%
90
Other (please specify)
49
answered question
133
skipped question
79
10 of 15
19. Please rate each of the following waste diversion options according to your preference,
with "1" being highest preference and "5" being lowest preference.
1
2
3
4
5
Response
Count
Increase the items you can recycle
in the blue box
50.3% (86)
22.8% (39)
10.5% (18)
5.8% (10)
10.5% (18)
171
Collect food waste at the curb for
composting
57.5% (100)
8.6% (15)
7.5% (13)
5.2% (9)
21.3% (37)
174
Implement a User-Pay system for
garbage
18.0% (30)
15.0% (25)
12.6% (21)
13.2% (22)
41.3% (69)
167
Mandate the use of clear bags for
garbage
20.2% (34)
6.0% (10)
23.8% (40)
13.1% (22)
36.9% (62)
168
Reduce the number of bags of
garbage permitted
24.8% (41)
15.2% (25)
15.8% (26)
10.3% (17)
33.9% (56)
165
Increase the Household Hazardous
Waste Depot hours of operation
13.1% (21)
18.1% (29)
33.8% (54)
13.8% (22)
21.3% (34)
160
Municipal Reuse Centres
27.3% (44)
24.2% (39)
25.5% (41)
11.8% (19)
11.2% (18)
161
Increase the cost of landfilling
11.7% (19)
16.0% (26)
24.7% (40)
20.4% (33)
27.2% (44)
162
answered question
175
skipped question
37
11 of 15
20. What would you be willing to do personally to reduce your garbage generation?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
No change
8.0%
14
Buy products with less packaging
70.7%
123
Only buy products in packages I
can recycle
50.0%
87
Compost at home
48.9%
85
Participate in a curbside food
waste collection
73.6%
128
Use reusables shopping bags
72.4%
126
Other (please specify)
28
answered question
174
skipped question
38
21. Would you participate in a curbside food waste collection if it were offered in the City?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes
81.7%
143
No
10.9%
19
Not sure
7.4%
13
answered question
175
skipped question
37
12 of 15
22. Would you be in favour of biweekly garbage collection, if an enhanced recycling
program and a new weekly food waste collection were implemented?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes
65.5%
114
No
24.7%
43
Not Sure
9.8%
17
answered question
174
skipped question
38
23. How would you describe your level of concern for the potential environmental impacts
associated with landfilling garbage?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Very concerned
59.4%
104
Somewhat concerned
36.6%
64
No concerned at all
4.0%
7
answered question
175
skipped question
37
13 of 15
24. If you indicated a concern, which things concern you the most? Choose as many as
apply.
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Groundwater impacts
88.2%
142
Surface waste impacts
61.5%
99
Biological impacts
73.9%
119
Traffic impacts
8.7%
14
Litter and Debris
40.4%
65
Odours, air emissions
47.8%
77
Public Safety
25.5%
41
Other (please specify)
23
answered question
161
skipped question
51
14 of 15
25. Please rate the following criteria for evaluating future waste management options from
1 to 7 (with "1" being the highest importance, "7" the lowest):
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Response
Count
Postive social impact and
acceptibility
9.0%
(12)
27.6%
(37)
12.7%
(17)
14.2%
(19)
11.2%
(15)
5.2%
(7)
20.1%
(27)
134
Positive environmental effects
64.5%
(91)
10.6%
(15)
7.8%
(11)
3.5%
(5)
5.7%
(8)
2.8%
(4)
5.0%
(7)
141
Proven technology
3.9%
(5)
23.4%
(30)
18.8%
(24)
15.6%
(20)
20.3%
(26)
10.9%
(14)
7.0%
(9)
128
Cost/Affordability
10.8%
(15)
19.4%
(27)
24.5%
(34)
17.3%
(24)
10.1%
(14)
7.9%
(11)
10.1%
(14)
139
Ease of implementation
4.3%
(6)
8.7%
(12)
16.7%
(23)
19.6%
(27)
19.6%
(27)
21.7%
(30)
9.4%
(13)
138
Extent of local control
5.7%
(8)
11.3%
(16)
7.8%
(11)
14.2%
(20)
16.3%
(23)
25.5%
(36)
19.1%
(27)
141
Scalability - can be expanded over
time
10.4%
(16)
8.4%
(13)
16.2%
(25)
14.3%
(22)
13.6%
(21)
16.9%
(26)
20.1%
(31)
154
answered question
167
skipped question
45
26. How would you prefer to have waste management programs and services funded
locally?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Municipal property taxes
64.4%
96
User fees
35.6%
53
Other (please specify)
30
answered question
149
skipped question
63
15 of 15
27. Any more general comments?
Response
Count
50
answered question
50
skipped question
162
NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
THE STUDY
The City of Peterborough, through their consultant Cambium
Environmental Inc. (Cambium), has completed a draft of their 20-year
Waste Management Master Plan (The Plan).
The Plan reviews the current waste management system, including
waste
infrastructure,
collections,
and
processing,
and
makes
recommendations on how to improve areas of the waste management
system that focus on diversion.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Development of the Plan is heavily dependent on public input. Before
the Plan is finalized, the City is seeking comments from residents of the
City. Recommendations in the Plan will be presented during one final
public presentation, and input received from members of the public will
be incorporated into the final version of the Plan.
The final Public Information Centre (PIC) will be held in conjunction with
the Green Expo Event, taking place at the Lansdowne Place Mall on
Saturday October 20th from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Residents are
encouraged to visit the City/Cambium booth, review the materials on
display, and provide comments.
A copy of the draft Plan can be found on the City website. Comments
may be sent at any time to one or both of the undersigned until Monday
October 22nd, 2012.
http://www.peterborough.ca/wmstudy
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or
comments.
Kelly Murphy, P.Eng
Senior Project Manager
Cambium Environmental Inc.
52 Hunter St. East,
Peterborough, ON
Tel: (705) 742-7900 ext. 226
Fax:(705) 742-7907
kelly.murphy@cambium-
env.com
Virginia Swinson, B.Sc.
Waste Diversion Section Manager
City of Peterborough
500 George Street North
Peterborough, ON K9H 3R9
Tel: (705) 742-7777 ext. 1725
Fax: (705) 876-4621
[email protected]
www.peterborough.ca
10/24/2012
1
Welcome
City of Peterborough
Waste Management
Master Plan
Public Meeting No. 2
Please:
- Feel free to ask questions
- Fill out a questionnaire
- Help yourself to refreshments
Waste Management
Master Plan (WMMP)
- Provide overall
direction for the
waste management
system
- Address diversion
and disposal needs
for the next 20 years
- Identify
opportunities to
improve the current
system
- Identify
opportunities to
reduce the amount
of waste needing
disposal
The WMMP will:
10/24/2012
2
WMMP
Schedule
The final document is anticipated by November 2012.
Step 1: Understanding and Assessing the Current Waste
Management System
-
Review of existing facilities & services
Step 2: Establish Goals and Objectives
-
Based on provincial and municipal priorities,
objectives, and targets
-
Public Information Centre No. 1
-
Survey /Questionnaire
Step 3: Identify and Assess Options
-
Evaluate alternative methods
-
Determine options and their potential contribution towards
sustainable waste management
-
Develop criteria; assess options
-
Discussion of 3 broader categories for discussion with the
public
-
Maximize Diversion
-
Minimize Generation
-
Cost Effectiveness/Affordability (Fiscal Responsibility)
Step 4: Develop the WMMP Document
-
Public Information Centre No. 2
-
Survey/Questionnaire
-
The WMMP document will:
-
Include results of analysis
-
Identify the existing system
-
Present a framework for future waste management
YOU ARE
HERE
Waste Management Context
Description of Waste Generation
-
Population of 79,334
-
Unaccounted for student increase
(September to May)
-
Area of 1,283 km²
-
26,240 single family households
-
8,675 multi-family households
-
Waste tonnage reported in 2010:
- 34,683 tonnes of residential waste
generated by City
- 17,364 tonnes of this waste was
diverted through diversion programs
- 60,248 tonnes of waste entering the
landfill (City and County combined)
-
City waste diversion rate of 50%
Waste Management Facilities
-
1 active landfill (City / County)
-
Household Hazardous Waste Facility
-
Materials Recovery Facility
-
Composting Facility
10/24/2012
3
Key
WMMP
Considerations
-
Decreasing remaining disposal capacity at
Peterborough County/City Waste
Management Facility (PCCWMF) landfill site
-
Limited Monitoring and Reporting program in
place to verify current capture and
participation rates;
-
There is currently no Source Separated
Organics (SSO) program in place;
-
Diminishing life capacity at the Material
Recovery Facility (MRF) on Pido Road; and
-
Limited influence/role with IC&I waste sector
and waste management.
Guiding Principle of the Plan
The long-term Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP) is an
essential step towards the provision of sustainable waste systems
within the City of Peterborough.
The WMMP begins with the
establishment of a Guiding Principle, from which fundamental goals
can be identified. Specific, achievable objectives are then set out,
which will steer the City towards its intended targets.
The
initial
Guiding
Principle
of
Peterborough's
Waste
Management Master Plan is as follows:
10/24/2012
4
Goals and Objectives
GOALS
The City's WMMP Steering Committee focused on three main areas for
this WMMP, and set out three corresponding goals: to maximize the
amount of residual material that we are able to divert from the landfill; to
minimize the amount of residual material that is generated in the first
place by the residents; and to operate and manage all of the City's
required waste management systems in a fiscally responsible manner.
The fundamental goals of the WMMP are as follows:
OBJECTIVES
The fundamental goals will be achieved by setting more specific and
measurable objectives. The City has established key objectives for
each of these three goals:
Goals and Objectives
10/24/2012
5
Targets
Key TARGETS have been generated from the goals and objectives
that apply to all.
These targets will allow the City to monitor their
progress with the established Plan and verify deliverables.
The
targets will be adjustable with the changing economic and social
trends and are provided as follows:
1.Expand
the
number
and
type
of
education
and
outreach and/or partnership activities year over year
from 2010 levels.
2.Meet all 8 Waste Management Best Practices as
outlined in the KPMG Blue Box Program Enhancement
and Best Practices Assessment Project Report, 2007.
3.Residential diversion rate will increase from 2010 level
of 50% to 75% over 20 years, with a review of target
every five years.
4.Capture rates for blue box materials will increase 10%
from 2006 levels (79.5%) over 20 years, with a review
of target every five years.
5.Participation rate of 50% in year 1 of the proposed
SSO program with an increase for each year of the
program.
City Residential Waste
Composition
A total of 34,683 tonnes of residential waste
was generated within the City limits in 2010
-
Approximately 17,364 tonnes was diverted
from landfill through programs such as blue
box recycling, leaf and yard waste composting,
MHSW collections, and backyard composting
10/24/2012
6
Waste Diversion
- Provincial target is 60%
- Current diversion rate 50%
- Diversion target of 75% by 2030 (to be
reviewed every 5 years)
- Current diversion programs:
- Weekly curbside blue box collection from
26,240 households
- Seasonal curbside collection of leaf and yard
waste
- Bi-annual curbside collection of bulky items
- Municipal Hazardous and Special Waste
(MHSW)
- Waste Electronics and Electrical Equipment
(WEEE) or "used electronics"
- Other (scrap metal, tires, appliances)
- SSO Pilot Study
-
625 single family households and 3 restaurants
Materials Recycling Facility (MRF)
-
MRF was constructed by the City in 1989
-
Located at 390 Pido Road
-
Accepts all blue box materials from the City and
the County
-
Free disposal of blue box materials available
24/7
-
The City and the County have separate long
term agreements with the operator of the MRF
(HGC Management Inc.)
- Agreements expire December 31, 2014
City Composting Facility
- Owned and operated by the City at Harper Road
- Accepts all leaf and yard waste collected in the
City as well as SSO from Pilot Study
- ~20% of residential waste by weight in 2010
- Offers compost for sale throughout Peterborough
County
- Open windrow system mixes compost with wood
chips
10/24/2012
7
How Does the City of
Peterborough Stack
Up?
A waste audit was completed for the City in
2006, which illustrated the following:
-
Participation rates:
- Curbside garbage collection: 79% (2 bags per
household)
- Blue box program: 74%
-
Average capture rate of blue box materials was
79.5%
- Less than average of 85% for similarly sized
municipalities
-
The blue box program is better than average
in cost efficiency (2010 Datacall)
- ~$147.75/tonne compared with ~$222/tonne
average
-
The City disposes of slightly less waste than
the average (2010 Datacall)
- City residents dispose ~219 kg/capita compared
with a ~268 kg/capita average
Key Diversion Recommendations
1. Develop an organics collection program for
residential and apartment buildings.
2. If an organics collection program is implemented,
reduce garbage pickup frequency to every two
weeks and provide weekly recycling and organics
pickup to reduce collection costs and encourage
diversion.
3. Enhance Promotion and Education programs to
keep residents informed about what they can and
cannot recycle, reuse and compost.
4. Enhance City staff training to ensure they are
aware of current regulations, technologies and
market trends.
5. Establish recycling options for materials currently
going to landfill including carpets, mattresses,
textiles (clothes, linens).
6. Establish a Waste Exchange/Reuse Centre at the
landfill.
7. Develop an enhanced Public Space Recycling
Program to provide recycling opportunities in
parks and City facilities.
8. Optimize routing with new software and GPS
tracking to reduce collection costs.
9. Undertake regular waste audits to ensure
residents are understanding and participating in
the recycling and organics programs.
10/24/2012
8
Key Disposal Recommendations
The PCCWMF landfill has an estimated
12 to 15 years of capacity remaining
- Investigate Suitable Options for Future
Landfill Capacity
- Monitor existing landfill capacity, landfill
expansions and potential greenfield locations
over time to allow the widest selection of suitable
options.
- Undertake a Formal Review of Waste
Management Technologies
- The City should monitor the progress of
alternative technologies such as thermal
treatment and AD facilities. The review should be
focussed toward technologies that have been
proven effective in the North American context.
- Reviews should be completed on a regular basis
(every 3 to 5 years).
- Commence an EA Process
-
Other ideas? Tell us your thoughts.
Open House Session
-
Please help yourself to refreshments
-
Please take a moment to complete a
questionnaire
-
Please ask questions or provide your comments
Thank you for attending and participating in the City of
Peterborough Waste Management Master Plan
Public Meeting No. 2.
Keep Informed
Further information can be obtained on the City
Waste Management Webpage:
City of Peterborough
Contact: Virginia Swinson, B. Sc.
Waste Reduction Programs Coordinator
[email protected]
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Contact: Kelly Murphy, P. Eng.
Senior Project Manager
[email protected]
http://www.peterborough.ca/Living/City_Services/Waste_Management.htm
Or contact the City or its Consultant directly:
City of Peterborough Waste Management Master Plan
Public Consultation Survey No. 2
1
The City of Peterborough is currently undergoing the development of a Waste Management Master Plan
(WMMP) to review existing waste services and systems, and to develop plans for the next 20 years. The
City appreciates any and all input residents will have into this process. Please complete and return this
questionnaire using the contact information provided at the end of the survey. Comments must be
returned by October 22, 2012.
The City has finalized and posted the Draft version of the WMMP for all to review on the website
and copies are available at this public meeting for review. The WMMP developed key
recommendations to reduce, reuse, and recycle and divert materials away from landfill.
1. The following are the Key Recommendations from the City's Waste Management Plan to
enhance diversion from landfill. Please choose three that you believe to be the most
important.
Develop an organics collection program for residential and apartment buildings.
___
If an organics collection program is implemented, reduce garbage pickup frequency to every
two weeks and provide weekly recycling and organic pickup to reduce collection costs and
encourage diversion.
___
Enhance Promotion and Education programs to keep residents informed about what they can
and cannot recycle, reuse and compost.
___
Enhance City staff training to ensure they are aware of current regulations, technologies and
market trends.
___
Establish recycling options for materials currently going to landfill including carpets,
mattresses, textiles (clothing, linens)
___
Establish a Waste Exchange/Reuse Centre at the landfill.
___
Develop enhanced Public Space Recycling Program to provide recycling opportunities in
parks and City facilities.
___
Undertake regular waste audits to ensure residents are understanding and participating in the
recycling and organics programs.
___
The County/City has approximately 12-15 years of landfill capacity remaining. The more material
we can divert from our landfill, the longer its lifespan will be. However, a new home for our
remaining garbage will eventually be needed. The key recommendation from the WMMP was to
continue to investigate and explore the City's options in cooperation with the County and move
forward with an Environmental Assessment (EA).
City of Peterborough Waste Management Master Plan
Public Consultation Survey No. 2
2
2. Please rank the following future waste disposal options by checking the box you feel is most
appropriate for each (1 being most preferred; 7 being the least preferred).
Most preferred
Least Preferred
Waste Disposal Options
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Increase amount of waste diversion - Reduce, Reuse,
Recycle (and extend the life of existing landfill)
Expansion of existing landfill on Bensfort Road (if
approved)
Establish a new landfill facility within the City/County
Export waste outside City/County boundaries (landfill or
incinerate)
Use of Alternative Waste Derived Fuel Technologies
(using waste for energy generation incl. incineration,
gasification)
Other general comments:
____________________________________________________________________________________
If you would like further information, please provide your details below:
Name:_______________________________________________________________
Address: ______________________________________________________________________
Phone Number:_________________________ E-mail :__________________________________
City of Peterborough Waste Management Master Plan
Public Consultation Survey No. 2
3
If you have any questions regarding the Waste Management Master Plan, please contact:
City of Peterborough
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Virginia Swinson, B. Sc.
Kelly Murphy, P. Eng.
Waste Diversion Section Manager
Senior Project Manager
500 George Street North,
52 Hunter Street North
Peterborough, Ontario, K9H 3R9
Peterborough, Ontario K9H 1G5
Phone: (705) 742-7777 ext. 1725
Phone: (705) 742-7900 ext.226
Fax: (705) 876-4621
Fax: (705) 742-7907
[email protected]
[email protected]
Working together, we can make a difference.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Appendix B
Relevant Legislation
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
Waste management is governed federally through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The CEPA provides the legislative framework for the
establishment of pollution prevention plans, identification of toxic substances, establishment of waste
management facilities, import and export of waste, as well as to regulate the effects of government operations on
and in relation to federal lands and aboriginal lands. The CEPA established the Environmental Registry as a
means for the Canadian public to receive information on any waste management facility or system to be
established or altered which requires public input and screening.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) applies to all projects where the Government of Canada
has decision-making authority - whether as a proponent, land manager, source of funding, or regulator. All
projects receive an appropriate degree of environmental assessment which ensures that the environmental
effects of projects are carefully reviewed before federal authorities take action in connection with them so that
projects do not cause significant adverse environmental effects.
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
The CEPA declaration is as follows:
"It is hereby declared that the protection of the environment is essential to the well-being of Canadians and that
the primary purpose of this Act is to contribute to sustainable development through pollution prevention."
The CEPA provides the government of Canada with some, but not necessarily all, of the following duties:
o
facilitate the protection of the environment by the people of Canada;
o
establish nationally consistent standards of environmental quality;
o
provide information to the people of Canada on the state of the Canadian environment;
o
apply knowledge, including traditional aboriginal knowledge, science and technology, to identify and resolve
environmental problems;
o
protect the environment, including its biological diversity, and human health, from the risk of any adverse
effects of the use and release of toxic substances, pollutants and wastes;
o
protect the environment, including its biological diversity, and human health, by ensuring the safe and
effective use of biotechnology;
o
endeavour to act expeditiously and diligently to assess whether existing substances or those new to Canada
are toxic or capable of becoming toxic and assess the risk that such substances pose to the environment and
human life and health;
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
o
endeavour to act with regard to the intent of intergovernmental agreements and arrangements entered into for
the purpose of achieving the highest level of environmental quality throughout Canada; and
o
ensure, to the extent that is reasonably possible, that all areas of federal regulation for the protection of the
environment and human health are addressed in a complementary manner in order to avoid duplication and
to provide effective and comprehensive protection.
The CEPA established the Environmental Registry as a means for the Canadian public to receive information on
any waste management facility or system to be established or altered which requires public input and screening.
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) applies to projects where the Government of Canada has
decision-making authority - whether as a proponent, land manager, source of funding or regulator. All projects
receive an appropriate degree of environmental assessment which ensures that the environmental effects of
projects are carefully reviewed before federal authorities take action in connection with them so that projects do
not cause significant adverse environmental effects.
The degree of assessment depends largely on the scale and complexity of the likely effects of the project. The
assessment ensures that development in Canada or on federal lands does not cause significant adverse
environmental effects in areas surrounding the project and the assessment is also used to ensure that there is an
opportunity for public participation in the environmental assessment process.
After nation-wide consultations, in June 1992 the CEAA was passed and the Act provided four (4) types of
environmental assessments: screening (including class screenings), comprehensive study, mediation, and
assessments by a review panel.
Through a screening, a responsible authority documents the environmental effects of a proposed project and
determines ways to eliminate or minimize (mitigate) harmful effects through modifications to the project plan.
Projects with known effects that can be easily mitigated may be assessed through a class screening. There are
two types of class screenings: models used to streamline a screening; or replacement class screenings that are
used instead of a project-specific assessment.
Large-scale and environmentally sensitive projects usually undergo a more intensive assessment called a
comprehensive study, which includes mandatory opportunities for public participation. Mediation is a process in
which the Minister of the Environment appoints an impartial mediator to assess a project and help interested
parties resolve issues. This approach may be used when interested parties agree, are few in number, and
consensus appears possible.
Assessments by a review panel appointed by the Minister of the Environment may be required when the
environmental effects of a proposed project are uncertain or likely to be significant or when warranted by public
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
concerns. Review panels offer individuals and groups, with different points of view, a chance to present
information and express concerns.
Projects undergoing a comprehensive study, a mediation or review panel, must include a consideration of
alternative means of carrying out the project, as well as the project's purpose and effects on the sustainability of
renewable resources. (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2011)
PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION
O. REG. 347 (GENERAL - WASTE MANAGEMENT)
O. Reg. 347 under the EPA is the primary regulation for controlling the handling, disposal, and management of
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes within the Province of Ontario. Under Regulation 347, wastes are
classified into categories that direct handing requirements and specify control measures for disposal facilities.
Standards for the location, maintenance, and operation of landfill sites are detailed in Section 11 of O. Reg. 347.
Section 9 of the Regulation additionally states that the terms and conditions of the Certificate of Approval can, on
a site specific basis, override the standards of the Regulation.
O. REG. 101/94 (WASTE DIVERSION ACT)
O. Reg. 101/94 outlines municipal responsibilities with respect to blue box recycling systems in Ontario. These
requirements pertain to collection methods/frequency, materials being recycled, promotion, and reporting.
The Waste Diversion Act (WDA) was passed into law on June 27, 2002. The purpose of the WDA is to promote
the reduction, reuse, and recycling of waste in Ontario and to provide for the development, implementation, and
operation of waste diversion programs. Under the WDA, programs have been established for blue box waste
(under Ont. Reg. 273/02), tires, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), and Municipal Household or
Special Waste (MHSW).
In June 2004, the MOE released "Ontario's 60% Waste Diversion Goal - A Discussion Paper". The Discussion
Paper outlines achieving a target of 60% waste diversion from disposal by 2008. The MOE identified seventeen
(17) potential action items that would assist the Province in achieving 60% diversion, if implemented. These
options were subsequently discussed through a province-wide consultation process and an assessment of the
costs and environmental impacts of each option considered. While the results of the consultation and
assessment processes were never released publicly, it was the Province's intention that the discussion paper and
its action items form the basis of policy decisions regarding Ontario's future waste management system.
No steps were taken by the Province to formally establish the 60% waste diversion target or any other mandatory
diversion target for municipalities. However, many of the larger Ontario municipalities and those with leading
waste diversion programs have moved to adopt the 60% diversion target for the residential waste stream that they
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
manage. While no municipalities have identified that they have successfully achieved this diversion target,
several are proactively implementing diversion programs in order to meet this goal.
On June 12, 2007, the MOE released a proposed "Policy Statement on Waste Management Planning". The MOE
posted the Policy Statement on the Environmental Registry for a 45 day public review and comment period. This
Policy Statement outlines the requirement for municipalities with a population of less than 100,000 (i.e., City of
Peterborough), to develop a municipal waste plan. A key aspect of the Policy Statement includes the requirement
for municipalities to maximize diversion of materials from disposal, including a commitment to meet the provincial
target of 60% diversion from waste disposal.
O. Reg. 101/94 makes it mandatory for municipalities with over 5,000 people to implement and operate a curbside
recycling program (i.e., Blue Box program). The Blue Box program must allow for the source separation and
collection of a core suite of materials for recycling and includes newsprint, paper, cardboard, steel, glass,
aluminum, and PET food and beverage containers. This regulation also requires municipalities to provide a
backyard composter program and leaf and yard waste collection and composting. The City currently provides
these programs consistent with the regulation.
The City is currently meeting legislative requirements regarding diversion programming (i.e., blue box materials
and recycling; tire, WEEE, MHSW diversion programs).
There are several proposed changes to waste management legislation that could potentially impact the City. In
October 2008 the MOE began a review of the WDA. The purpose of the review was to investigate issues
affecting waste diversion and to contemplate using the principles of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as
the basis for Ontario's waste diversion framework.
The potential impacts to the City can be described as follows and particularly as they relate to the possibility that
producers could become fully responsible for waste diversion in the residential and IC&I sectors:
potential loss of control of the recycling program;
impact on infrastructure;
disposal bans;
disposal levies; and,
program costs.
In April 2009, Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) released a report entitled --Blue Box Program Plan Review Report
and Recommendations. This review was requested by the Minister of the Environment on October 16, 2008. The
Minister directed WDO to undertake the Blue Box Program Plan (BBPP) review using the principles of extended
producer responsibility to form the review framework. The review resulted in 20 recommendations under each of
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
the ten (10) issues that were identified by the Minister of the Environment. Overall the review implications for the
BBPP and Regulation 273/02 could affect the City's Blue Box program by requiring a change in the quantity,
number, and type of materials accepted, requiring higher diversion targets, and ensuring environmentally
responsible end-market destinations for recyclable materials. There may be the potential for increase funding
which may offset any cost associated with implementing these changes. These potential legislative changes
have been considered in the development of the City's WMMP.
Leaf & Yard Waste Management
O. Reg. 101/94 (Recycling and Composting of Municipal Waste) requires that municipalities that have a
population of 5,000 shall establish, operate, and maintain a leaf and yard waste system. This system includes
'the provision of home composters to residents by the municipality at cost or less, the provision of information to
residents, publicizing the availability of home composters, explaining the proper installation and use of home
composters and the use of compost, and encouraging home composting.'
Municipalities with populations greater than 50,000 are also required to provide a leaf and yard waste collection
system that is reasonably convenient to the generators of leaf and yard waste and that the waste must be either
applied directly to land, transported to be applied directly to land, composted, or transported to be composted.
Burning of clean wood and brush is allowed at some member municipality landfills under conditions specified in
their Certificates of Approval (C of A) in accordance with Ministry of the Environment Guideline C-7 (Burning at
Landfill Sites - April 1994).
Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Wastes
There are currently two pieces of legislation which are applicable to IC&I waste. The first is O. Reg. 102/94 which
requires certain IC&I facilities to conduct Waste Audits and produce Waste Reduction Work Plans. O. Reg.
103/94, Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Source Separation Programs, requires owners of the IC&I
facilities identified in Reg. 102/94 to have source separation programs in place for certain wastes.
Source Separated Organics (SSO) Composting
Organic waste makes up approximately one-third of Ontario's waste stream and consists of:
Leaf and yard waste;
Household "green bin" waste;
Food from restaurants, hotels, schools and hospitals;
Residue from food processing operations and supermarkets; and
Spoiled food;
Sewage biosolids and septage; and
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Pulp and paper mill biosolids.
Currently there is no Provincial legislation banning food waste from landfill, or making composting of food waste
mandatory and most organic waste in Ontario is sent for disposal in landfills or is land applied.
If a municipality chooses to implement curbside collection of Source Separated Organics (SSO), the central
composting facility and testing of feedstock and resulting compost are currently regulated by the MOE's Interim
Guidelines for the Production and use of Aerobic Compost in Ontario, November 2004.
The MOE is proposing to update the Interim Guidelines for the Production and Use of Aerobic Compost in Ontario
(2004) to include the most up-to-date best management practices and standards. The MOE issued a proposed
Guideline for Composting Facilities and Compost Use in Ontario dated November 2009 for consultation until
January 2010.
The updated document will provide guidance on facility siting, design, equipment use and operating procedures,
including feedstock control and odour prevention, would help minimize environmental impacts, such as odours, as
well as improve the quality of finished compost.
It also introduces higher allowable feedstock metal levels and three categories of compost (Categories AA, A, and
B). As mentioned in the Biosolids Management section, this proposed guideline creates an opportunity to co-
compost food waste with biosolids if desired.
At the date of completion of this WMMP, a final decision or approval on the proposed Guideline had not been
finalized by the MOE.
O. REG. 101/07 (WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS)
In March 2007, the MOE announced the enactment of O. Reg. 101/07 (Waste Management Projects) under the
EAA and amendments to the EPA for waste recycling, mining, alternative fuels, and new/emerging technologies.
The regulatory changes were created for the purpose of reducing the time and resources required under select
circumstances for the approval of continued operations of small rural landfills through capacity expansions or
landfill mining.
The new regulation establishes three classes of waste management projects. Those projects, both public and
private, with the highest impact are designated for the full EAA process and include:
A new Environmental Screening process applies to projects with predictable effects that can be "readily
mitigated."
Projects classified as having minimal impacts, such as landfill expansions to less than 40,000 cubic metres,
do not require approval under the EAA and are not designated as subject to the requirements of the EAA.
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Recycling facilities of any size will not have to go through the EA process provided that less 1,000 tonnes per
day of waste is disposed.
Proponents can pilot new waste technologies without having to undergo an EA providing they are small and
can meet the MOE's air emission standards. It may make it easier to recycle certain wastes that currently do
not meet existing exemptions criteria such as waste paint, crumb rubber batteries, and electronics.
Converting certain wastes into alternative fuels will no longer require waste management approvals but must
still meet the MOE's air emission standards.
O. REG. 267/03 (NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ACT)
The Nutrient Management Act (NMA) and O. Reg. 267/03 (O. Reg. 267/03) made under that act, will impact
waste management activities within the City because this legislation regulates nutrient use on agricultural land
within the province. Some wastes (typically sewage sludge) that are routinely landfilled can also be land-applied
as a nutrient source or soil amendment, subject to the conditions of the NMA and its Regulations. Similarly, some
organic processing by-products from composting may be land-applied subject to regulation under the NMA.
Any nutrient containing materials of non-agricultural origin, including sewage biosolids that are spread on
agricultural land are referred to as non-agricultural source materials (NASM). NASM land application standards
and requirements are enforceable under the NMA and if an adverse effect occurs or may occur, the EPA or the
Ontario Water Resources Act may also apply.
O. Reg. 267/03, which regulates NASM application to agricultural land, was updated September 18, 2009.
Generators of NASM, such as wastewater treatment plants and food processing facilities, are regulated under the
Environmental Protection Act and Regulation 347 until the nutrient material arrives at the farmer's gate where it
becomes subject to the Nutrient Management Act, 2002 and O. Reg. 267/03.
Since land application of sewage biosolids and other NASMs to agricultural land is controlled provincially, it is
possible for biosolids from one municipality to be spread on approved land in another municipality.
GUIDELINES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF AEROBIC COMPOST IN ONTARIO, 1991
Requirements for composting are listed in the Ministry of the Environment's Interim Guidelines for the Production
and use of Aerobic Compost in Ontario, dated 1991. Under these guidelines, the inclusion of biosolids has been
difficult for municipalities to meet due to very restrictive metal levels for the compost feedstock. Any resulting
compost including biosolids would be controlled just as strictly as the original biosolids.
The MOE issued a proposed Guideline for Composting Facilities and Compost Use in Ontario dated November
2009 for consultation until January 2010 which includes less stringent allowable feedstock metal levels and three
categories of finished compost (Categories AA, A, and B). If this Guideline is finalized without changes, there is a
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
greater probability of co-composting biosolids if desired. Material characterization would be required to determine
the acceptable level of dilution with low-metal feedstocks. Compost produced with biosolids has the potential of
meeting the requirements of the middle category of compost, Category A, involving some labeling and usage
restrictions. If the compost falls into Category B, its use would be controlled just as strictly as the original
biosolids.
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PETERBOROUGH
BY-LAW NUMBER 07-027
AS AMENDED BY BY-LAW 09-108
(note: all amendments are in bold and underlined)
BEING A BYLAW FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING THE DISPOSAL
OF WASTE, INCLUDING ESTABLISHING OF TIPPING FEES FOR THE
PETERBOROUGH COUNTY-CITY WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
WHEREAS Council of the City of Peterborough wishes to enact a By-law for the
purposes of regulating the disposal of waste;
AND WHEREAS Section 391 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that a municipality
may pass by-laws imposing fees or charges;
AND WHEREAS solid waste tipping fees will be included in the By-law;
AND WHEREAS the City of Peterborough held a public meeting on December 11, 2006
at City Hall, 500 George Street North, Peterborough, in accordance with Regulation
244/02 under the Municipal Act, 2001;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of Peterborough enacts as follows:
1.
INTERPRETATION
In this By-law:
"City" means the City of Peterborough;
"Director" means the Director of Utility Services for the City of Peterborough and
where applicable includes a person designated by the Director to perform a task or
exercise a power in his or her place and stead;
"garbage" means dry waste other than recyclable materials, organic materials and
hazardous waste;
"green waste" has the meaning set out in Schedule "A";
"hazardous waste" means hazardous waste as defined in R.R.O. 1990, Regulation
347, as amended from time to time, pursuant to the Environmental Protection
Action, R.S.O 1990, cE19, which includes:
a) hazardous industrial waste;
b) acute hazardous waste chemical;
c)
hazardous waste chemical;
d) severely toxic waste;
e) ignitable waste;
f)
corrosive waste;
g) reactive waste;
h) radioactive waste, except radioisotope wastes disposed of in a landfilling site
in accordance with the written instructions of the Atomic Energy Control Board
or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission;
i)
pathological waste;
j)
leachate toxic waste;
k)
PCB waste as defined in Regulation of 362 of Revised Regulations of Ontario,
1990;
"recyclable materials" means those materials set out in Schedule "A";
"waste" means anything for which the holder has no further use and which the
holder has discarded and includes, but is not limited to garbage and recyclable
material;
1
"waste management facility" means the Peterborough County/City Waste
Management Facility, formerly known as Bensfort Landfill Site, located at 1260
Bensfort Road, Township of Otonabee, South Monaghan, County of Peterborough.
For the purpose of this by-law, the waste management facility includes the landfill
site and the Public Drop-off Depot.
2.
GENERAL PROVISIONS AND PROHIBITIONS
2.1 No person shall, at the waste management facility:
(a) deposit waste outside the posted hours of operation;
(b) deposit waste or recyclable materials at any place other than the place
respectively designated for the receipt of such waste;
(c)
deposit hazardous waste;
(d) deposit any waste which originated from outside the County or City of
Peterborough. If requested, the person shall provide proof of the origin
of the waste prior to depositing the waste;
(e) refuse to remove, at the person's expense, any waste which has been
deposited by the person which is not in compliance with this by-law;
(f)
remove or scavenge any deposited waste without the prior written
approval of the Director;
(g) deposit waste which has been transported to the facility except when
such waste has been properly secured or covered in canvas, tarpaulins
or nets, so fastened down around the edges as to prevent any of the
contents from leaving the vehicle during transport.
2.2 Not withstanding Section 2.1 (b), any load which contains less than 10% by
volume of recyclable materials may be deposited at the place designated for
the receipt of garbage.
3.
FEES
3.1 No person shall deposit waste at the waste management facility without
paying the appropriate fee for that type of waste, as set out in Schedule "B".
3.2 If any cheque provided in payment of a fee payable under Subsection 3.1 is
returned marked "Not Sufficient Funds", the amount of the fee shall remain
unpaid, and together with the administrative charge for NSF cheques,
determined in accordance with the City's Financial Policies shall be a debt to
the City owing by that person recoverable by action or other means open to
the City.
4.
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
4.1 In the event that a person deposits, or attempts to deposit waste, not in
compliance with this by-law:
(a) The person may be refused access to the waste management facility;
(b) The person shall receive a written warning on the first such occasion;
(c)
The person shall pay surcharges in the following amounts on any
subsequent occasions:
2
(i)
$100 on the first subsequent occasion;
(ii)
$200 on the second subsequent occasion;
(iii) $300 on the third and any other subsequent occasions.
5.
SCHEDULES
The following Schedules attached hereto form a part of this By-law:
Schedule "A" -Recyclable Materials; and
Schedule "B" - Waste Management Tipping Fees.
6.
PENALTY
Any person who contravenes this by-law is guilty of an offence and, upon
conviction, is liable to a fine or penalty provided for in the Provincial Offences
Act, as amended.
7.
EFFECTIVE DATE
This amended By-law shall come into force and take effect on Tuesday,
September 1, 2009.
By-law 07-027 read a first, second and third time this 26th day of February, 2009.
By-law 09-108 read a first, second and third time this 10th day of August, 2009.
3
SCHEDULE "A"
TO BY-LAW 07-027
RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
The following materials are banned from disposal at the waste management facility but
are accepted for recycling at the facility's Public Drop-off Depot:
"blue box materials" means recyclable materials as collected in the City of Peterborough
Blue Box Collection program, as amended from time to time, namely:
a) clear and coloured glass from food & beverage bottles and jars; aseptic containers;
b) metal cans and foil; including food & beverage cans, aluminum foil & trays;
c) empty metal paint and aerosol cans;
d) gable top drink cartons and tetra paks including milk and juice cartons and tetra pack
containers for juice, milk, soup;
e) plastic soft drink and water containers made out of polyethylene terephthalate (PET
or PETE #1);
f) plastic bottles and jugs made out of high density polyethylene (HDPE #2);
g) tubs and lids (#5);
h) polystyrene and styrofoam containers (#6) including clear trays abd clamshells
marked with the #6 only; plant pots up to 12 inches in size, cell-paks, carrying flats;
foam meat trays, plates, cups, take-out containers and egg cartons only;
i) film plastic bags including bread, milk , fresh and frozen produce bags, bulk food, dry
cleaning, toilet-tissue packaging, and cereal box liners;
j) boxboard, including cereal, crackers, detergent, toothpaste, shoe boxes;
k) corrugated cardboard consisting of triple-layer cardboard boxes. Waxed, stained,
painted or contaminated cardboard must be discarded as garbage;
l) paper including envelopes, direct mail advertising, paper egg cartons, greeting
cards and all remaining paper and paper products generated by households
m) newspapers & magazines, including inserts, catalogues, white envelopes, computer
paper; writing papers, telephone directories, manuals & softcover books;
"clean wood waste" includes untreated lumber and wood products such as pallets and
raw lumber, but does not include painted wood, paneling, pressboard or similar treated
products;
"drywall" includes drywall scraps or drywall material, which may contain paint and
screws, segregated from supporting building material;
"green waste" means leaves, grass clippings; trees, excluding stumps; garden roots and
cuttings; hedge and shrub trimmings; brush cuttings; twigs and branches; natural
Christmas trees; other plant material;
"scrap metal" includes metal auto parts, large appliances, bicycles, tools, etc; and
"tires" means tires without wheel rims.
4
SCHEDULE "B"
TO BY-LAW 07-027
WASTE MANAGEMENT TIPPING FEES
1. GARBAGE
Rate
a) Load of 100 kg or less
$5.00 flat rate
b) Load over 100 kg
$90.00 per
metric tonne
*2010 Budget Cycle*
c)
Asbestos
$200.00 per
metric tonne
2. RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
Rate
a) Load of 100 kg or less
FREE
b) Load over 100 kg
$45.00 per
metric tonne
c)
On-road, off-road, and farm tires
FREE
e) Appliance containing Freon
$15 fee per appliance to
certify removal of freon
3. UNCONTAMINATED GRANULAR MATERIAL AND NON-HAZARDOUS
CONTAMINATED SOIL TIPPING FEE
Rate
a) Granular materials determined by the Director to be suitable as
cover material at the waste management facility, and deposited
in the area specified by the Director, for such use;
FREE
b) Non-hazardous contaminated soil, tested for suitability by
owner of the material; determined by the Director to be suitable
as cover material at the waste management facility, and
deposited in the area specified by the Director for such use.
$20.00 per
metric tonne
4. ELECTRONIC OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
All loads of waste electronic and electric equipment or municipal hazardous and
special waste must be taken to the Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off Depot for
recycling or proper disposal.
Rate
a) Monitors
FREE
b) Fluorescent Light Tubes
FREE
5
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Appendix C
Waste Diversion Options
Strategy Category
Strategy No
Strategy Enhancement Option
Diversion
Potential
Implementation
Costs
Operation Costs
Economic
Feasibility
Environmental
Effects
Social Acceptance
Ease of
Implementation
Timeline
Total
Ranking
1
General P&E City Website, City to move into social media while continuing
with current media campaigns, mywaste.ca, and outside calendars/websites,
Media (Ads, Articles, Press Releases, Radio, etc.), Calendar and Promotional
Materials and Products, Enhanced In Your Area (media, signage, and prizes),
Materials - Design and Production (signage, mobile signs, and stickers/labels),
local presence at events and open houses within the community, increased
and targeted education (ie. paper/plastics), provide feedback to residents
with audits, composting campaign and enhanced promotion of backyard
composting, green procurement and sustainable procurement programs, re-
use exchange programs, support producer responsibility and Sustainable
Peterborough goals, support IC&I recycling programs, development of review
protocol with collection program to aim for 20% increase in capture rates
from 2006 levels over 20 years with a review every five years.
-
$100,000
S
17
1
2
Schools Programming Enhancement, expand and formalize
$10,000
$20,000
S
14
3
3
Training Attend training and workshops, industry meetings (MWA, SWANA
etc.)
-
$5,000
S
16
2
4
C&D Waste Collection City would provide residents option to receive
collection services for small quantities of C&D materials. City could establish
collection based upon building or demolition permit application.
5%
Policy Improvements
Enforcement
S
17
1
5
MHSW / Electronics Continue to improve upon the collection system
1-2%
Cost Neutral
Cost Neutral
S
16
2
6
Scrap metal collection and recycling Continue to improve upon the collection
system
<1%
Policy Improvements
Enforcement
S
15
2
7
Other areas of recycling including textile recovery, pet waste, wood waste,
durable goods and shingles - Continue to expand upon the current collection
system
1% to 3%
Policy Improvements
Enforcement
S
17
1
8
Waste Exchange Center - City establishes waste exchange program ranging
from reuse centres to on-line waste exchange programs enabling residents to
donate and exchange reusable goods. Common for reuse centre to be
established at landfill or transfer station.
1% to 5%
$20,000
Staff Time
S
16
2
9
SSO Collection City to establish a curbside collection and processing program
for SSO materials.
17%
Estimates of
$500,000 to
$1,500,000 from FCM
Estimates of $600,000
to $1,000,000 from
FCM
S
17
1
10
Expand the list of eligible Blue Box materials
<1%
Secure Markets
Education
S
14
3
11
Pick-Up Frequency Explore bi-weekly pick-up of waste once an SSO program is
established
3-7%
TBD
TBD
S
17
1
12
Audit & Report Complete waste regular waste audits to confirm composition
and to determine available material for recovery. Compare with other
municipalities and the County/Townships
-
-
$12,000
S
15
2
13
System & Costs Complete waste flow and full-cost accounting tools using gap
or similar analysis. Explore waste management utility by operating all waste
management activities as a separate utility.
<1%
Staff Time
Staff Time
S
13
3
14
Public space diversion and recycling Work with parks and recreation to install
and collect recycling containers in high traffic areas, especially where evidence
of container use is pronounced. Includes outdoor parks, trails, and public
facilities.
1% to 3%
$2,400
Staff Time
S
18
1
15
Special events diversion and recycling City establishes policy or incentives for
events coordinators and contractors to make recycling at special events
<1%
General P&E
Staff Time
S
14
3
16
Feedback to buildings The use of "barometers" and other graphic
representations to tell residents how their building is doing in the area of
recycling and waste diversion
General P&E
Staff Time
S
14
3
17
Garbage chute closure support City would provide support to buildings
opting to close garbage chutes to make recycling as convenient as waste
disposal
-
Staff Time
S
12
3
18
Designated goods diversion (e.g. HHW, Electronics, Textiles) Specific
collection programs are established in multi-residential buildings to divert
designated goods for recycling/reuse
General P&E
Collection
L
14
3
19
Waste diversion info provided to new and existing tenants Building owners
are required to provide waste diversion educational packages to new tenants
and existing tenants on an annual basis
General P&E
Staff Time
S
14
3
20
Multi-Residential Working Group City establishes a Multi-Residential Working
Group that meets on a regular basis to discuss waste diversion challenges and
strategies
General P&E
Staff Time
S
17
1
21
GreenCart Implementation Support GreenCart implementation in MR
buildings so service consistent with SF households
General P&E
Collection and bins
L
15
2
22
Clear bags for excess garbage Residents are required to place any garbage
beyond one bag, enforced as above
4%
Policy Improvements
Enforcement
L
13
3
23
Contract incentives/penalties (for recycling, organics, garbage contracts)
Develop contract language and approaches that will reward desired
performance or incentive increased waste reduction, recycling and organics
performance
<1%
Policy Improvements
Enforcement
L
10
3
24
Curbside Materials Bans Designated material is banned from being collected
with garbage at the curbside. example may include grass. The collection crew
has the authority to refuse to collect the garbage if containing banned
materials. Commonly banned materials include electronic waste, recyclable
materials, wood waste.
25
Stronger Enforcment of bans and lift limits at the curb
26
Stonger enforcement of Landfill/Disposal Bans Designated materials are
prohibited from being disposed at the landfill or disposal facility
27
Pay-as-you-throw and Sustainable Financing Strategies Financing strategies
used to promote waste diversion including Full or Partial Bag Tag systems,
variable and hybrid variable rates, pay by collection frequency, variable carts
rates, weight-based garbage collection, possibly supported by RFID technology
1% to 3%
$25,000
P&E and
Administration
S
13
3
28
Build IC&I Database Make database for use to manage and monitor solid
waste programs
Staff Time
Staff Time
L
13
3
29
Designated goods diversion (e.g. HHW, Electronics, Textiles) Specific
diversion programs established small IC&I to divert designated goods for
recycling/reuse and expand to larger IC&I gradually.
Policy Improvements
Enforcement
L
14
3
30
SSO Implementation Support SSO implementation at IC&I's so service
consistent with residential
-
Staff Time
S
16
2
Residual Disposal Options
Management of Residual Waste Options
1
Expand or build new municipally operated landfill Site
-
$6 million to $12
million
$500,000 to $1 million
L
7
2
Export Waste Garbage is shipped/transfered to a private waste disposal
facility (landfill or thermal) for disposal.
-
$20,000
$1.2 million to $1.7
million
L
9
3
Disposal using Energy from Waste Establishing a thermal treatment facility
within County to operate as EFW
-
$50 million to $200
million
$50 to $120 per tonne
L
6
Legend
Short Term
S
Long Term
L
Rating of 1 out of 5
Rating of 2 out of 5
Rating of 3 out of 5
Rating of 4 out of 5
Rating of 5 out of 5
IC&I Recycling and Dive
Multi-Residential Recycling and Diversion
Promotion and Education
Enhanced Diversion
System Optimization
Policy and Enforcement
Policy Improvements
Enforcement
Evaluation of Strategy Enhancement Options
Strategy Enhancement Options for Diversion
2
TBD
S
Enhancement Factors
2-5%
3%
15
Disposal
3-5%
Waste Management Master Plan
City of Peterborough
Ref. No.: 1965-001
November 12, 2012
Cambium Environmental Inc.
Appendix D
Supporting Reports
î
'
'I
-fiij c^py
fi tS
RESIDENTIAL WASTE
COMPOSITION STUDY
VOLUME
I
OF THE
ONTARIO WASTE
COMPOSITION STUDY
JANUARY 1991
Environment
Environnement
Ontario
ISBN 0-7729-8005-5
RESIDENfTIAL WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
VOLUME
I
OF THE ONTARIO WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
JANUARY 1991
Reprinted JANUARY 1993
®
Cette publication technique
n'est disponible qu'en anglais.
Copyright: Queen's Printer for Ontario, 1993
This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes
with appropriate attribution.
PIBS 1415
RESIDENTIAL WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
VOLUME
I OF THE
ONTARIO WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
Report Prepared By:
Gore and Storrie Limited
in association with
Décima Research Limited
Report Prepared For:
Waste Management Branch
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
JANUARY 1991
Reprinted JANUARY 1993
PIBS 1415
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment as part of a ministry-
funded project.
The views and ideas expressed in this report are those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Ministry of the Environment, nor does mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsements or recommendation for use.
INFORMATION FOR THE READER
The
results
of
the work
will appear
in
three volumes.
Volume
I contains the results of the
residential portion
of the Ontario Waste
Composition Study and are presented
herein. The emphasis
in Volume
I
is
on the development and testing
of a method
that municipalities can use
to
estimate
per
capita generation
rates
of
residential
refuse.
The
following
kinds
of
information on
municipal waste
are
also included
in
Volume
I:
inorganic chemical analyses
of vacuum
cleaner bag
dust (Town
of
Fergus
and
Borough
of
East
York);
moisture
content
of
combustible
materials
separated
from
residential
refuse (Town
of Fergus and Borough
of
East
York);
BTU
content
of
several
mixed
plastic
wastes;
waste
composition
and
per
capita
generation
rates
of
several
schools
(Borough
of East
York); and a survey
of disposal
of white goods and bulky items
in
several
Ontario
municipalities.
Volume
II
will
report
the
results
of
the
Commercial
Waste
Composition
Study.
Volume
III
will be a
" user friendly
" manual
that
will outline the procedures
for
conducting
residential
and
commercial
waste
composition
studies
in
municipalities
of
Ontario.
(i)
ABSTRACT
Volume
I, The Residential Waste Composition Study,
is the
first
of three volumes
representing
the
Ontario Waste Composition
Study.
The Residential Study focuses on developing a cost effective method
for carrying
out a waste composition analysis.
This method
facilitates the collection
of waste
composition
data and
per
capita waste
generation
data.
The
Residential
Waste
Composition
Study
took
place
in
the
following
municipalities.
The
Town
of
Fergus
(population
6,757)
between
July
15
and
August
31,
1989;
The
Borough
of
East
York
(population
101,085)
between
October 24
and
December
28,
1989;
and The
City
of
North
Bay
(population
51,313) from
February
21
- 28
,
1990.
The
method
used
in
the
study
is
based
on
the
hypothesis
that
the
characteristics
of
a
residential waste
stream
are
related
to
the
socioeconomic
lifestyles
of people and
the demographic
characteristics
of a
municipality.
Statistics
Canada
information
about
the
population
of
a
municipality
provides
subunits
of
the
population,
known
as
Enumeration
Areas
(EAs).
Each EA
on
average
contains 600
people.
Using
the most
recent
Statistics Canada Census
data each EA
of the
studied
Municipalities were
stratified
according
to income
level
(high, medium,
or
low). Within every income category each EA was
further
classified
according
to
housing
type.
Statistics Canada
reports on
the number
of
single
detached,
apartments and
other
residences
for each
EA.
From
the
income and housing type information, an income housing sample matrix table was
designed,
defining
the EAs
to be sampled.
Based
on
a
random
numbering
sample
selection
procedure
for
residential
dwellings
of a defined EA, the study team followed a sampling program
in which
refuse
was
collected,
sorted
into
various
waste
composition
categories
(i.e.
(ii)
papers,
plastics
etc.),
and
weighed.
Although
the
sampling
method may
vary
based on housing
type,
in general,
ten 100
kg. samples (minimum weight) were
collected
per
day.
Blue
Box
materials
and
yard
waste,
if
present,
were
also
collected
but
weighed
separately.
Total
weights
of
refuse
samples
were
measured
for per
capita waste generation
data.
White goods and
bulky waste
were
also analyzed
within
the scope
of the
study.
The
Residential
Study
demonstrated
a
cost
effective
waste
composition
and
generation
rate procedure that uses
readily available equipment and
that can be
implemented by
municipal
staff.
(iii)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
INFORMATION FOR THE READER
(i)
ABSTRACT
(ii)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(iv)
LIST OF TABLES
(vii)
LIST OF FIGURES
(x)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(xii)
1.0
PREFACE AND BACKGROUND LITERATURE
1-1
1.1
Preface
1-1
1.2
Background
Literature
1-2
1.2.1
Canadian and
Ontario
Studies
1-2
1.2.2
Foreign
Studies
1-9
2.0
METHOD DEVELOPMENT
2-1
2.1
Introduction:
Rationale and Overview
2-1
2.2
General Overview
of the Method
j
2-3
2.2.1
Demographic
Description
2-3
of
a
Municipal
Population
2.2.2
Residential Waste Sampling
Plan Based on
2-7
Municipal
Population Demographics
2.2.3
Data
Acquisition:
Collecting and
Sorting
2-8
Residential Refuse
2.2.4
Data Management
2-29
2.2.5
White Goods and
Bulk
Item
Data
Collection
2-32
Method
3.0
RESULTS
3-1
3.1
Estimation
of Per
Capita Waste Generation Rates
3-1
3.1.1
Town
of Fergus
3-1
3.1.2
City
of
North Bay
3-3
3.1.3
Borough
of
East York
3-3
3.2
Composition
of
Residential Waste
Exclusive
of
3-4
Yard Waste
3.2.1
Town
of Fergus
3-4
3.2.2
City
of
North Bay
3-4
3.2.3
Borough
of East York
3-4
3.3
Christmas
Collection
3-5
3.4
Schools
in
East
York;
Per
Capita Generation
3-5
Rates and Waste Composition
3.5
Moisture Content
3-5
(iv)
3.6
Metal
Analyses on Vacuum
Cleaner Bag
Contents:
3-6
Town
of Fergus and Borough
of
East York
3.7
BTU Values
for Mixed
Plastics and Disposable
3-6
Diapers
3.8
Yard Wastes
3-6
3.8.1
Town
of
Fergus
3-6
3.8.2
City
of
Nortfi Bay
3-6
3.8.3
Borough
of
East York
3-7
3.9
Estimation
of
the
"Capture
Rate"
of
the
Blue
3-7
Box Programs
3.10 The
Effect
of
Life
Style on
Residential Waste
3-7
Characteristics
3.11
White Goods and
Bulk
Items:
Estimation
of
Per
3-8
Capita Generation
Rates.
3.11.1
White Goods Generation
Rate.
3-8
3.11.2
Non-Metal
Bulk
Item
Generation
Rate.
3-9
4.0
DISCUSSION
4-1
4.1
General
4.2
Income Housing
Matrix
for the Three Study
4-1
Municipalities
4.3
"Verification"
of
the Method
4-3
4.4
Apartment
Buildings: Source
of Greatest
4-4
Number
of Problems
4.5
Percent Composition:
A
Useful
or Confusing Concept?
4-8
4.6
The
Blue
Box:
A Waste Management Option That
Presents
4-10
Problems
in Waste Composition
Data
Handling
4.7
Random Sampling- When
to Exclude
Large
Objects
4-1
1
From
the Sample
Collection
4.8
Determining
the Number
of Samples
to
Collect
4-12
4.8.1
The
Onginal
Klee &
Carruth
(1970) Working
4-12
Definition
of
"Organics":
Perpetuation
of
Half
the
Story Can be
Misleading
4.8.2
Determining
the
Appropriate Number
of EAs
4-16
to Sample
for
the Accuracy
of Percentage
Waste Generation
Rates
Required
4.9
White Goods: General Comments on Generation Rates
4-18
Reported.
5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5-1
5.1
General
5-1
5.2
Conclusions
5-1
5.3
Recommendations
5-3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
(V)
Table
of contents
cont'd...
APPENDIX A
TOWN OF FERGUS
Appendix AI
Calculation of Per Capita Generation Rates
for Study EAs
Appendix A2
Waste Composition
Data
APPENDIX B
CITV OF NORTH BAY
Appendix
81
Calculation
of
Per
Capita
Waste
Generation
Rates
for
Study EAs
Appendix 82
Waste Composition
Data
APPENDIX C
BOROUGH OF EAST YORK
Appendix Cl
Calculation
of
Capita Waste Generation Rates
for Study
EAs
Appendix C2
Waste Composition
Data
APPENDIX D
FLAME TEST AID TO IDENTIFICATION OF PLASTICS
APPENDIX E
PUBLISHED BTU DATA
APPENDIX F
WHITE GOODS BULKS ITEMS GENERATION RATE DATA
APPENDIX G
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
(vi)
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1
WASTE COMPOSITION DATA FOR ONTARIO.
TABLE
2
WASTE COMPOSITION DATA FOR THE UNITED
STATES & EUROPE.
TABLE
3
SUMMARY OF PER CAPITA WASTE GENERATION
RATES.
TABLE
4
INCOME HOUSING MATRIX USED FOR CLASSIFYING
MUNICIPAL POPULATIONS.
TABLE
5
CLASSIFICATION OF THE EA'S FOR THE TOWN OF
FERGUS
IN AN INCOME HOUSING MATRIX.
DISTRIBUTION OF EAs
IN THE MATRIX
(5A)
AND EAs SAMPLED
IN THE STUDY
(5B).
TABLE
6
CLASSIFICATION OF THE EAs FOR THE CITY OF
NORTH BAY
IN AN INCOME
HOUSING MATRIX.
DISTRIBUTION OF EAs
IN THE MATRIX
(6A)
AND EA'S SAMPLED
IN THE STUDY
(6B).
TABLE
7
CLASSIFICATION OF THE EAs FOR THE BOROUGH
OF EAST YORK
IN AN INCOME HOUSING MATRIX.
DISTRIBUTION OF EAs
IN THE MATRIX
(7A)
AND EAs SAMPLED
IN THE STUDY
(7B).
TABLE
8
FIELD DATA SHEET
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTED AND INTENDED
USE OF THE RESULTS.
TABLE
10
SAMPLE CALCULATION OF THE PER CAPITA
GENERATION RATE
IN AN
EA. DATA FROM
THE TOWN OF FERGUS, EA # 258.
TABLE
11
RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION DATA
INCORPORATED INTO THE INCOME HOUSING
MATRIX TO ESTIMATE THE WEIGHTED PER CAPITA
GENERATION RATE (KG CAPITADAY)
FOR THE TOWN OF FERGUS.
Following
Page No.
1-3
1-3
1-3
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-6
2-26
2-29
2-29
3-1
(vii)
List
of Tables
Cont'd. ..
TABLE
12
RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-3
INCORPORATED INTO THE INCOME HOUSING
MATRIX TO ESTIMATE THE WEIGHTED PER CAPITA
GENERATION RATE (KG CAPITADAY) FOR THE CITY
OF NORTH
BAY.
TABLE
13
RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-3
INCORPORATED INTO THE INCOME HOUSING
MATRIX TO ESTIMATE THE WEIGHTED PER CAPITA
GENERATION RATE (KG CAPITADAY) FOR THE
BOROUGH OF EAST YORK.
TABLE
14
ESTIMATED AVERAGE WASTE COMPOSITION FOR
3-4
THE TOWN OF FERGUS, BOROUGH OF EAST YORK,
AND THE CITY OF NORTH BAY.
TABLE
15
SUMMARY OF THE WASTE GENERATION
CHARACTERISTICS OF
7 SCHOOLS
IN THE
BOROUGH OF EAST YORK.
3-5
TABLE
16
MOISTURE CONTENT OF SOME COMBUSTIBLE
MATERIALS
IN EAST YORK AND FERGUS
RESIDENTIAL WASTE.
3-5
TABLE
17
METAL CONCENTRATION OF HEAVY METALS (UG G)
IN EXTRACTS PREPARED FROM THE CONTENTS
OF VACUUM CLEANER BAGS RECOVERED FROM
RESIDENTIAL WASTE
IN FERGUS.
3-6
TABLE
18
CONCENTRATION OF HEAVY METALS (UG G)
IN
EXTRACTS PREPARED FROM THE CONTENTS OF
VACUUM CLEANER BAGS RECOVERED FROM
RESIDENTIAL WASTE
IN EAST YORK.
3-6
TABLE
19
HEATING VALUES (DRY BASIS) FOR MIXED PLASTICS
3-6
AND DISPOSABLE DIAPERS.
TABLE 20
AN ESTIMATION OF THE "CAPTURE RATE" OF
3-7
THE BLUE BOX PROGRAM
IN EACH STUDY EA
IN THE TOWN OF FERGUS.
TABLE
21
AN ESTIMATION OF THE "CAPTURE RATE" OF THE
BLUE BOX PROGRAM
IN EACH STUDY EA
IN THE
BOROUGH OF EAST YORK.
3-7
(viii)
TABLE 22
EVIDENCE FOR THE EFFECT OF LIFE-STYLE
3-8
(E.G HOUSING TYPE) ON RESIDENTIAL WASTE
GENERATION.
(ix)
LIST OF FIGURES
Following
Page No.
FIGURE
1
NOMOGRAMS FOR RESIDENTIAL WASTE COMPOSITION
1-11
STUDIES SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
SAMPLE NUMBER AND STATISTICAL PRECISION
(WITH 90 % CONFIDENCE).
FIGURE 2
MAP OF ONTARIO SHOWING LOCATIONS OF THE
2-2
THREE MUNICIPALITIES.
FIGURE 3
CATEGORIZING A MUNICIPAL POPULATION WITH
2-4
RESPECT TO INCOME:
THEORETICAL
DISTRIBUTION
(3A) AND PRACTICAL
APPLICATION
(SB).
FIGURE 4
MAP OF THE TOWN OF FERGUS SHOWING THE
2-5
LOCATIONS OF THE
6 ENUMERATION AREAS.
FIGURE 5
MAP OF THE CITY OF NORTH BAY SHOWING THE
2-6
LOCATIONS OF THE STUDY ENUMERATION AREAS.
FIGURE 6
MAP OF THE BOROUGH OF EAST YORK SHOWING
2-6
THE LOCATIONS OF THE
7 ENUMERATION AREAS.
FIGURE
7
EXAMPLE OF ONE EA SHOWING NUMBERING
2-7
OF BLOCK FACES AND SAMPLE COLLECTION STARTING
POINTS.
FIGURE 8
PHOTOGRAPH OF PICK-UP TRUCK WITH
2-9
COMPARTMENTS FOR BLUE BOX MATERIALS.
FIGURE
9
PHOTOGRAPH OF CHICKEN WIRE CRIB MOUNTED ON
2-9
THE PLATFORM SCALE (REAR VIEW OF CUBE VAN).
FIGURE
10
PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE POSITIONING OF THE
2-10
STUDY TEAM AROUND THE TAILGATE SORTING
TABLE.
FIGURE
11
PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PLYWOOD TABLE
2-10
SITTING ON THE PICK-UP TRUCK TAILGATE.
FIGURE
12
PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CARNIVAL TENT
IN
2-11
WHICH REFUSE SORTING WAS CONDUCTED.
(X)
List
o(
Figures
Cont'd...
FIGURE
13
PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PROPANE HEATERS.
2-11
REFUSE SAMPLES UNDER BLUE TARPAULINS AND
ONE CORNER OF THE PLYWOOD SORTING TABLE
(LOWER LEFT CORNER OF PHOTOGRAPH) MOUNTED
ON SAW HORSES INSIDE
THE CARNIVAL TENT.
FIGURE
14
BAR GRAPH COMPARING THE PERCENTAGE FOOD
3-4
WASTE GENERATED
IN THE EAs
IN THE TOWN
OF FERGUS.
FIGURE
15
BAR GRAPH COMPARING THE PERCENTAGE FOOD
3-4
WASTE GENERATED
IN THE EAs
IN THE
CITY OF NORTH BAY.
FIGURE
16
BAR GRAPH COMPARING THE PERCENTAGE FOOD
3-4
WASTE GENERATED
IN THE EAs
IN THE
BOROUGH OF EAST YORK.
(xi)
FXFCUTIVE SUMMARY
The two-fold purpose
of
tfie
residential portion
of
tfie Ontario Waste Composition
Study was
to:
1.
develop a
simple,
cost
effective and
statistically
reliable mettiod
for
determining
ttie composition and per capita generation rate
of waste
from
residential sources
in
Ontario
municipalities; and
2.
apply
thie
method
in
several
municipalities
and
obtain
current
information on
the
characteristics
of
residential waste
streams.
On
the
strength
of
a
pre-study
literature
survey, summarized
herein,
it became
apparent
that
residential waste generation was a function
of the socio-economic
and demographic characteristics of a population.
Indeed, any assessment of the
residential
waste
generation
charactenstics
of
a
municipality
should
take
population demographics
into
consideration.
While
the
number
of
socio-economic
and
demographic
parameters
that
one
could
incorporate
in
a
study
of
residential waste
generation
is
very
large,
time
and
budget
dictated
that
the
parameters
in
the
present
study
should
be
restricted
to two
principal parameters: income
level and housing
type.
Statistics
Canada provides census data with respect to these parameters
for municipalities
across
the
country
and
this
kind
of
information
was
obtained
for
the
three
municipalities
participating
in the waste composition
study
in
Ontario:
the Town
of
Fergus
(population:
6,757);
the
Borough
of
East York
(population:
101,085);
and the City of North Bay (population 51,313).
The
field studies were conducted
in
the
three
municipalities
during
the
following
periods:
July
15
to
August
31,
1989; October 24
to December 28,
1989; and February 21
to February 28, 1990
respectively.
Statistics Canada provides socio-economic and demographic information on small
geographical
sectors
of
municipalities
called
Enumeration
Areas
(EAs)
that
typically
have
a
residential
population
of
600-800
persons.
Some
apartment
(xii)
buildings may have a
large enough number
of
units
that they
are designated as
EAs
unto themselves.
In the work reported
herein,
the EA was
the basic
population
unit whose waste
composition
and
per
capita
generation
rates
were
studied
as
representative
segments
of
the
entire
municipal
population.
First,
all
of
the
EAs
in
the
municipality were
classified
in
a
three-by-three,
two dimensional
matrix
of:
Average
annual income
:
high, medium, and
low; and
Housing
type
:
single detached
dwellings,
predominantly
multiple dwellings
(apts.), and
predominantly mixed (detached apts.).
This
classification
matrix
resulted
in nine possible combinations
of income
levels
and
housing
types
with
each
combination
termed
a
"cell".
One
EA
was
randomly
selected
from
each
cell,
unless
the
cell
contained
few
or
no
EAs,
which
was
often
the
case
for
the
low
income detached
dwelling
cell.
The
residential waste assessments
in
the Town
of Fergus and
the Borough
of East
York
were
based
on
data
from
EAs
that
were
representative
of
the
EA
distribution
in the income/housing matrix
for the respective
municipalities.
Based
on the
results
of these two
municipalities,
it was decided
to conduct a reduced
sampling program
in
the
City
of
North
Bay.
After
the
Study
EAs
in
the
municipality
were
randomly
selected,
a
curbside
refuse sampling plan was designed, based on a procedure
that assigned random
starting
points
for
refuse
collections
at
street
intersections throughout
the
EA.
For each
EA,
both
the number and
weight
of
the
refuse samples
that had
to
be
collected
and
sorted
in
order
to
obtain
the
statistical
accuracy
that
we
wanted
to achieve
for the
kitchen waste
fraction
(only)
of
residential waste was
based
on
the
pioneering
work
of
Dr.
A.
Klee
and
co-workers.
The
sample
number was
nine
per EA and
the minimum
sample
weight was
100
kg.
To
achieve
similar
levels
of
statistical accuracy
for waste components
occurring
at
lower
concentrations
in
the
waste
stream
(for
example,
glass
and
ferrous
(xiii)
metals),
a
greater number
of
samples,
which may be economically
impractical,
would be
required.
It
took
a crew
of
four,
approximately
5.5 days
to
collect and
sort
the bagged
refuse
and
Blue
Box
materials
in
a
single
EA.
Records
were
kept
of
the
number
of
dwellings
from
which
bagged
refuse
and
Blue
Box
materials were
collected
in order
to compute estimates
of
total
residential waste generation on
a per
capita
basis,
using
Statistics Canada data on
the average population per
dwelling
in
the
EA.
Blue
Box
materials
were
sorted,
weighed
and
recorded
separately
in order
to estimate the capture
rate
of
certain recyclable items from
the
residential waste
stream.,
Yard wastes were weighed and recorded whenever they were encountered,
but
this waste stream was
not included
in the computations
of the
residential waste
composition
and
the
weight was
not
included
in
the
estimates
of
per
capita
generation
rates
either,
for seasonal
generation
reasons discussed
herein.
The
moisture
content
of
the
combustible
fractions
of
the
waste
stream
was
determined by
drying.
The BTU content
of some mixed
plastics
(laminates), as
well
as disposable
diapers, was determined
by bomb
calorimetry.
Samples
of
vacuum
cleaner bag
dust were analyzed
for heavy
metals.
Special sampling procedures were devised
for those apartment
buildings where
the waste was compacted
in
containers.
Samples
of the
required weight were
removed
from
the
containers
for
the
waste
composition
analysis.
Then
the
residual contents were collected and weighed, courtesy
of
special arrangements
made
with a
local waste
hauler and
transfer
station
scale
house.
The weekly waste streams
for seven
schools
in
East York were
also
collected
and the waste composition was determined.
Per
capita generation
rates
for the
student body and
total
staff were computed.
(xiv)
A survey was also conducted
to assess the yearly tonnages
of white goods and
other
bulky
items generated
by
residential areas
in
10
municipalities
in
Ontario.
The methods developed and used
in
this
study were found
to be cost
effective
and capable
of being used by municipal
staff.
Recommendations are presented
to
further
refine and improve the methods
used.
Ontario
municipalities
are encouraged
to use
the methods demonstrated
in
this
study
to
satisfy
municipal
needs,
to
generate
further
data
on
a
consistent
province-wide
basis and
to
assist
in
assessing
the
effectiveness
of new waste
management
programs
and
identifying
trends
in
waste
composition
and
generation
rates.
Conclusions:
The
results
of the
residential waste study presented
herein lead
to the following
conclusions.
1)
Municipalities
in
Ontario
are
implementing
a number
of
waste
diversion
options
for residents
--
notably,
Blue Box and backyard composting
-- as
the
waste management
strategies
of
municipalities
continue
to
change.
As
the
number
of
waste
diversion
options
increase,
the
chances
of
obtaining
an
accurate
baseline
of
waste
generation
data
decreases.
Where there was formerly a
single waste stream coming from residences
on
a
predictable and
scheduled
basis,
now
there may be two
or more
curbside
waste
streams,
and
possibly
another
stream
directed
to
a
backyard composter.
Therefore, there
is more potential
for error
in waste
composition
studies
conducted
in
municipalities
that
are
aggressively
pursuing
waste
diversion
programs
(e.g.
Fergus
and
East
York)
than
in
those
that have
yet
to
implement such programs -- and where
there
is
still a
single
residential waste
stream.
(XV)
2)
Given
an
understanding
of
the
reality
of
residential
waste
stream
partitioning noted above,
tfie
residential waste assessment procedures
for
detacfied dwellings included an estimated allocation
for Blue Box
materials.
Waste assessment of residential populations residing
in
multi-unit dwellings
(apartments) presented additional cfiallenges
in data
collection.
Per capita
waste generation rates were obtained
tor
botti
residential groups; however,
a need
for improvement
in
sampling
procedures was
identified
for
large
apartment
buildings
(East York) where
refuse was compacted.
3)
The
per
capita waste
generation
rates
(excluding
yard wastes and
bulky
items)
for the three municipalities appeared to vary with population: Fergus
0.80
kg capita day;
North
Bay
0.93
kg capita day;
East
York
0.99
kg. capita day.
However,
municipal
population
per
se
is
probably
only
a
superficial
correlate
and
not
causally
related
to
the
waste
generation
process.
For
example,
the
weight
(kg)
of
the
newspapers
collected
in
East
York,
versus
Fergus,
may
partially
explain
the
higher
per
capita
generation
rate
(kg person day)
in
East
York
(Table
14).
Some
of
the
difference may
also be
attributed
to seasonal
factors.
4)
The method used
in
the
Study has
revealed
apparent
differences
in
the
per
capita
waste
generation
rates
within
income
groups.
More
waste
(excluding
yard
waste
and
bulky
waste)
appears
to
be
generated
by
residents
of
detached
dwellings
than
by
apartment
dwellers
(Table
22).
However, no easily discernable pattern could be detected
in the per capita
generation rates between
different income groups.
More detailed sampling
in each
municipality would be needed
to determine any
potential income
effects on waste
generation
characteristics.
5)
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
there
is
very
little
difference
in average
per
capita generation
rates
of
kitchen waste
for
Fergus,
North Bay and
East
York. The respective values
are: 0.23, 0.24 and 0.25
kg. capita day (Table
22).
(xvi)
When the kitchen waste tractions were computed as a percent
of the
total
connposition
of
the
residential
waste
streann,
Fergus
showed
a
higher
percentage
than
East
York and
North
Bay:
Fergus
28.8
°o
versus,
East
York
25.5
°o
and
North
Bay
26.0 %.
Again,
larger
quantities
of
other
components
in
the
East
York
and
North
Bay
residential
waste
streams
<e.g. newspapers) may explain the lower percentage
(or relative proportion)
of
kitchen waste
in
the
refuse.
(6)
Reliance
on
"waste
composition
percent"
as
the
sole
means
of
characterizing waste can
be
misleading and
create more
questions
than
are actually answered.
The per capita generation
rates
of the
total waste
stream and
its components are more
important
for
planners
of
municipal
waste management programs.
7)
The
study demonstrates
a
cost
effective
residential waste assessment
method
that uses
readily
available equipment and
that can be
implemented
by
municipal
staff.
Recommendations:
Municipalities conducting a waste composition study might consider the following
recommendations when
designing
the
sampling
protocol
and
implementing
the
study
methodology.
1)
For
sampling
and
sorting
convenience,
municipalities may choose
to
conduct
the
waste
composition
studies
in
late
spring
or
mid
fall when
refuse
odours
are
less
intense and maggots
are
less
frequently
encountered.
According
to
Vesilind
&
Rimer
(ref.
47),
the
average
residential
waste
composition does
not
vary
by more
than
±
10°o
over
three
quarters
of
the
year.
Therefore,
aesthetics
of
the
working
conditions can be
taken
into account
without
risk
of
obtaining skewed
(xvii)
data. The inclusion
of yard waste
in overall
residential waste composition
percent
profiles
sfiould be
avoided
so
ttiat
baseline
composition
percentages
are
not
misrepresented.
2)
Municipalities may
ctioose
to
set
up
independent
collection
systems
to
study
tfie
seasonal
generation
of
yard
waste
and
leaves.
Thiis
would
require a coordinated
effort between garbage
collection
personnel,
private
fiorticultural firms and
otfier agencies generating and collecting tfiese waste
streams.
3)
In
order
to
avoid
tlie
sampling
problems
thiat we
encountered
witfi
thie
large apartment
buildings
in
East
York,
wfiere
apparent
sampling
biases
were
difficult
to
avoid,
arrangements
could
be
made,
for
example,
witfi
30
units
witfiin
thie
building
to
participate
in
a
refuse
study.
Ttiis would
give
a more
accurate
appraisal
of
thie waste
composition
in
tfiese
large
apartment buildings. As a cfieck,
thie metfiod described tierein
for obtaining
the
per
capita
generation
rate
for
tfie
entire
building
could
tfien
be
compared
withi
thie
per
capita
generation
rate
for
tlie 30
units.
4)
fvlunicipalities
in Ontario
sfiould
follow
tfie waste composition procedure
in
conducting
tfieir own waste composition
analysis,
for reasons of consistent
data generation using a cost effective approach».
Periodically, municipalities
should conduct
additional waste composition
studies
to monitor
trends
in
residential waste management and the effectiveness
of waste management
programs.
(xvlii)
SECTION
1
PREFACE AND BACKGROUND LITERATURE
1.0
PREFACE & BACKGROUND LITERATURE
1.1
Preface
With
a
view
to OUR COMMON FUTURE
(ref.
49)
and
a
framework
for
a
sustainable
lifestyle,
tfie by-products
of industrialized nations nnust be responsibly
nnanaged.
Tfie
Ontario
Ministry
of
tfie
Environment
set
two
targets
for
tfie
diversion
of
solid wastes going to
landfill
sites
in the Province: a 25%
diversion
by
1992 and
a 50%
diversion
from
disposal by
the end
of
the
century.
The
methods
that may be used
to achieve these goals
involve the "3-Rs": Reduce,
Reuse and
Recycle, and
include composting
but exclude
incineration.
Landfill
crises
are
at
hand
in some
Regional
and
area
municipalities
in
Ontario
and
many waste disposal
sites are close
to
their capacity.
Similarly,
in
the United
States, where 30%
of the
country's
landfill
sites
will be
filled and closed
within
5
years,
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
has
initiated
an
"Agenda
for Action"
(ref.
46).
This program also encourages a maximum
effort
to
divert wastes by prudent implementation
of
"3R-s"
programs.
The
development
of
plans
to
divert
materials
from
landfill
sites
requires
knowledge
of the qualitative and quantitative composition
of
solid waste streams
from
residential, commercial and
industrial wastesheds.
The design
of materials
recovery
facilities and
centralized composting
facilities
that
will
receive, process
and
store
(short term) components
in the waste stream, must be scaled
to the
per
capita
waste
generation
rate
of
the
wasteshed
population
served
by
the
facilities.
The
Ontario
Ministry
of
the
Environment
contracted Gore &
Storrie
Limited,
in
association with Décima Research
Limited,
to develop
quantitative methods
that
could be used by any
municipality
in
Ontario
to assess
solid waste generation.
The
results
of
the
residential
portion
of
the
Ontario Waste
Composition
Study
are presented
herein.
1-1
The
residential
report
is divided
into two main
parts.
The
first
part reviews the
relevant literature (Canadian and non-Canadian) on the following topics: residential
waste composition, per capita waste generation
rates, some
of the methods
that
have been used
in
earlier waste composition
studies and some
of the
pit-falls
in methods and data
handling.
The second
part describes the methods used
to determine the
residential waste
compositions
and
per
capita
waste
generation
rates
in
three
municipalities
in
Ontario:
the Town
of
Fergus,
the Borough
of
East York and
the
City
of
North
Bay.
Also included
in the
report are data on:
solid waste composition and per
capita waste generation rates
for schools; chemical analyses on vacuum cleaner
bag contents; the moisture content
of combustible components
in the residential
waste
stream; the
heating value
(kj/kg
content)
of selected mixed
plastics and
disposable
diapers; and a survey
of some Ontario data on the generation
rates
of white goods and
bulky
items.
1.2
Background
Literature
1.2.1
Canadian and Ontario Studies
The
Bird &
Hale Report
(1978)
The acknowledged
landmark
of waste
composition
studies
in Canada was
the
work
reported
by
Bird &
Hale
(cited
herein
as,
BH)
in
1978
(ref.
5).
Eleven
cities were selected
with populations
in excess
of 100,000 from across Canada.
The average annual composition
of municipal
solid waste
entering
landfill
sites,
transfer
stations
and
incinerators,
was
derived
from
samples
obtained
during
the
spring, summer,
winter and
fall.
In
Ontario,
Toronto was
selected
for the
study.
Twelve
visits
were
made
to
six
sites
between
October,
1976
and
September,
1977,
with
2
visits
apiece
at:
Commissioners
Street
Incinerator,
Ingram
Incinerator,
Dufferin
Incinerator,
Beare Road
Landfill
Site,
Bermondsey
municipal
solid waste
=
residential
+
commercial
1-2
Transfer
Station and
Wellington
Incinerator.
Sample weights
of
nnunicipal
solid
waste ranged up
to 400
lbs.
(180.7
kg).
Tfie Ontario
results
of
tfie BH waste composition
study, averaged over
tfie year
(Table 9
in
ref.
5), are sfiown
hierein
in Tables
1
and
2.
The per capita waste
generation
rate
is given
in Table
3.
It should be pointed out
that while we are
using
the
BH
data
as
a
"standard"
for
comparative
purposes,
the
Peter
Middleton &
Associates
report
of
1975
(ref.
32) summarized
the
results
of
31
previous studies (United States & Canada), including 4, early 1970's studies from
Ontario.
Peter Middleton & Associates
(ref. 32) noted
that their review
of waste
composition
studies was
hampered
by
"six
distortion
factors":
(1)
the
"solid
waste"
that was being
studied;
(2) the geographic
location
of the
study;
(3) the
season
of the year when the study was undertaken;
(4)
the year
of the
study;
(5)
the socio-economic background
of the area where the
"solid waste"
for the
study was generated; and
(6)
moisture
transfer
that occurred
before
sampling.
Giving
"consideration"
to
these
six
factors,
Peter
Middleton
&
Associates
tabulated
"...the
following
percentage
figures.. .developed
for
the average
yearly
composition by weight
of
residential
solid waste
in Southern
Ontario on an
"as
generated"
basis
-
1974:
974:
TABLE
1:
WASTE COMPOSITION DATA FOR ONTARIO
COMPONENT
LITERATURE SOURCE
OF WASTE COMPOSITION
INFORMATION
(see footnote
16 below)
,12
ul3
Paper
TABLE
2:
WASTE COMPOSITION DATA FOR THE UNITED STATES & EUROPE
LITERATURE
SOURCE
OF HASTE COMPOSITION
INFORMATION
(see footnote
19 below)
A
b'
B^
C
Paper
44.94
Kraft
paper
10.75
Newsprint
10.61
Fine Paper
8.07
Other Paper
15.50
Glass
6.55
Beer containers
0.04
Returnable softdrink
0.23
Non-returnable softdrink
1.33
Liquor
and wine
1.53
Containers-food
1.98
Containers-other
0.30
Flat
and cullet
1.15
Ferrous metals
5.49
Beer cans
0.0
Softdrink
cans
0.88
Food
cans
2.61
Other
2.01
Non-ferrous Metal
0.89
Aluminum
0.85
Other
0.04
Plastics
5.72
Container
1.05
Sheet film other
4.67
Ceramics rubble
1.82
Lumber
3.36
Food wastes
22.59
Textiles/leather/rubber/
4.11
wood
Yard wastes
3.29
Fines
0.93
Petrol leum chemical
mix
0.31
(ash/dirt/rock)
(miscellaneous)
(all
other)
8.5
0.6
3.7
17.6
2.6j
1.4'
19.3
1.5
6.5^
7.5
4.3
1.8
3.5
9.5^
i.oj
0.7'
14.3
1.1
4.5-10.9^
6.7-9.8'
1.3-4.68
1.0-3.8
TABLE
3:
SUMMARY OF PER CAPITA WASTE GENERATION RATES
Ref.
While
the
wide
scope
of
the BH
study
understandably
precluded
a
greater
attention
to sample
size and sample number, two problems
with respect
to
the
BH
procedures
require some
discussion
in
view
of
the
major
objective
of
the
present
Study:
the development
of
a method
for
determining
residential
waste
composition and
per
capita waste
generation
rate.
First, BH
attempted
to
convert the weights
of the
sorted
materials from
a,
so-
called,
"as
received"
condition,
to
a
weight
which more
closely
reflected
the
items
in
their
original,
or
"as
generated"
state.
While
the
"as
generated"
concept
is
a
valid
one,
it
is
not
possible
to
compute
this
value
using
predetermined
factors
in
conjunction
with
the
equation
provided on page
10
of
their
report
(ref.
5).
The
following
discussion
will
point
out some
of
the
complexities
that BH were
attempting
to address.
When
moist
organic
matter comes
into
contact
with
dry
materials
(e.g.
plastic,
boxboard,
or paper) there
is a
transfer
of water from the organic
matter
to the
surface
of plastic packaging
( = adsorption)
or,
for example, throughout the entire
thickness
of a piece
of boxboard
( = absorption), causing
it to
swell.
Hence the
organic matter loses
weight,
while the other
materials
gain
weight.
Under
ideal
(laboratory)
conditions,
the
weight
transfer
of
the
water
can
be
measured.
Practically speaking however, the heterogeneous assemblage--and juxtaposition-
--of
wet
and
dry
materials
in
the
average
bag
of
residential
refuse
poses
a
much more complex problem than
simple moisture
transfer between the
initially
wet and
the
initially
dry components.
Moist
organic
matter may
also
be
found
as
a
residual
layer
on
surfaces
of
containers--metal,
plastic,
glass;
or
partially absorbed by paper
products.
The
weight
of
this
"tramp"
organic
matter
cannot
be
"universally
predetermined",
but must be quantified
for every case.
The
following example
further serves
to
illustrate the
complexity
of the
"as generated"
problem.
1-4
The
moisture
content
associated
with
a
discarded
can
of
spaghetti
sauce,
in
which
a
thin
layer
of sauce
is
still adsorbed
to
the
inner
surface,
is a function
of
the
physical-chemical
properties
of the
organic
matter
in
the
sauce,
as
well
as the thickness
of the sauce
coating.
In essence,
it may be argued
that
the
presence
of the organic
matter
in the sauce increases the apparent amount
of
water
adsorbed
to
the
surface
of
the
can.
Put
simply,
a
dirty can
will have
more
moisture
associated
with
it
than
a
clean
one.
Thus,
the
weights
of
materials
that we
collected
in
the
Study
are
reported
in
their
"as
received"
condition; we
did
not
attempt
to
derive any
"as generated"
weights.
It
is
difficult
to
justify
pursuing
this
level
of
theoretical
detail
at the expense
of
time
requirements
and
financial
limitations
which
control
the
pursuit
of
the
practical
objectives
of
a
waste
composition
study.
Brunner &
Ernst
(ref.
8)
alluded
to
this
point
while
reporting
that tramp
organic
matter may
contribute
significantly
to the
total organic
fraction
of the waste
stream.
The
second
problem,
illustrated
by
BH's
inclusion
of
yard
waste
data
in
the
calculation
of percent (%) composition (Tables
1 &
2), concerns the misleading
impact of quantitatively apportioning a "spurious event" over a time period which
exceeds
the
actual
duration
of
that
"event".
Again,
Brunner &
Ernst
(ref.
8)
may be
cited
for
a
relevant example:
the mercury
(Hg)
content
from a
single
battery
that was
mathematically apportioned over an
entire load
of refuse as
if
this were
the
true
"background"
level
of Hg
in
all
of
the
constituents
of
the
load.
The amount
of mercury measured
is, however,
relative only to the battery
and
not
the
entire
load.
In
Ontario, yard wastes and leaves are
not
part
of the
residential waste stream
throughout the
year. The
quantities
of these
materials
in
the waste stream
not
only
vary
with
season
but
their
occurrence
in
a
municipality
also
varies
with
population demographics: detached residential dwellings versus apartments; young
versus
mature
trees
lining
streets,
etc.
Over
and
above
the
false
notion
conveyed by
incorrectly
"weighting"
seasonal components over the
entire
year,
1-5
as
in the mercury example above, there are several equally inaccurate,
practical
consequences.
First,
there
is an
important mathematical
result when
yard wastes are
included
in
the
calculation
of
percent
composition
of
the
more
or
less
"baseline"
components
of
the
residential
waste
stream,
e.g.,
food
waste,
Blue
Box
components,
etc.
When
all
of
the
components
of
the
waste
stream
are
normalized
to the
total
,i.e., the percentage
of each component
is computed as
a
proportion
of
the
total,
the
inclusion
of yard wastes as a component causes
the other components
in the refuse--which are present
in the refuse throughout
the entire year--to appear
to be less abundant than they actually
are.
Brickner
(ref.
7,
Table
2)
demonstrated
the
effect
of
eliminating
yard
waste
from
composition calculations.
The seasonal waste composition results of Constantine
et
al.
(ref.
11,
Table
1)
would
similarly change
if
the
yard
waste component
were removed.
This computational problem
will
re-appear
below.
Second,
the design
of a waste management
facility
will be
different, depending
on
whether
the
arrival
of
the
waste
is
spread
out
over
an
entire
year
or
delivered
in
several
large
loads
over a few weeks.
Other
Studies
Two reports are
briefly reviewed here because they feature
either a provocative
experimental design or a design that appears
to have lead
to a problem
in data
interpretation.
In
1984,
the
Toronto
Recycling
Action Committee commissioned
an
interesting
study
(ref.
16)
to compare the composition
of refuse generated on the basis
of
land use,
ie.,
residential,
retail,
restaurants and an
office tower.
The
residential
sampling
strategy was well conceived;
residential refuse was collected from two
streets
in Toronto and per capita generation
rates
for
this wasteshed population
could have been readily determined.
In addition, the refuse from the commercial
1-6
establishments was
collected
at the premises so
that both per capita and land
use
calculations
of waste generation
could have been made.
The
report was
published
in 1985
(ref.
15).
The concept of the curbside collection
of residential
refuse was central feature of the sampling plan developed
in the present Ontario
Waste Composition
Study.
In
the
spring
of
1988,
Pollution Probe
Foundation
studied the waste generation
of 68 households
in Toronto to determine the quantity
of recyclable components
(ref.
31).
As
the
sampling program
evolved
in
complexity from
the
beginning
to the end
of the study
(in step-wise
fashion), a problem appears
to have been
encountered
in the presentation
of waste composition data.
(See Table 4 of the
"Hoggs Hollow"
report
(ref.
31,
p.
16)).
Newsprint was the only item
partitioned
from the
total household
refuse
in week two
of
the
study and
it was
reported
as
23.7%.
In
weeks
3
through
8,
when
other
components,
in
addition
to
newsprint, were separated and weighed, the percentage(%) of newsprint dropped
to
the
following
values:
17.3,
13.4,
16.9,
13.7,
20.9
and
13.9%.
It
is
highly
unlikely
that
the
sudden
decrease
between
weeks
2
and
3
was
due
to
a
reduction
in
newspaper
readership
or
subscriptions.
Insufficient
quantitative
information was provided
to
clarify and
interpret the data presented
in the
table.
A discussion
of the
presentation
of waste composition data
in the "percentage"
format
is given
in
Section
4.4
As
a
miscellaneous
note,
the
important
topic
of
"capture
rate",
le.,
the
actual
quantity
of
recyclable
materials
collected
via
the
Blue Box program
versus
the
potential
quantity
of
recyclable
materials
in
the curbside
refuse,
is presented
in
Table
5
(p.
17)
of
the
Pollution
Probe
report.
Unfortunately,
this
table
is
not
referred
to
in the
text and according
to the author of the report (pers. commun.,
G.
Perks),
no
capture
rates
were
determined
for
any
of
the
households.
Intended
to serve an
illustrative purpose,
the
table
requires
textual comment
in
order
to prevent
confusion.
1-7
Summary
of Waste Composition
Data
For
Ontario
Table
1
herein,
presents
the waste composition data obtained
from
formal and
"informal"
literature
(post
Peter
Middleton &
Associates
review
of
1975).
It
is
difficult
to
judge
the
completeness
of
the
original
data
that may
have
been
generated since the BH
report.
For instance, some Waste [Management Master
Plans (not cited herein) seem to have applied (and changed, without explanation)
the BH
data.
BH waste composition
categories
are
reported
with
no changes
in
this
report
in
Tables
1
and
2 and
their
results
are shown
in Column B
of
Table
1
and Column A
of Table
2.
With the exception
of columns L and M/M,
ie., waste compositions
for Presqu'ile
Provincial Park and MSW
in Quebec,
respectively, the data pertain to both MSW
and
residential waste streams
in Ontario,
or other "combinations"
of information.
On
the
basis
of problems
that were
already
alluded
to above--and which
will
be
discussed more completely
in
Section 4.4--the
literature
data
presented
in
Table
1
cannot be
easily compared.
However,
it
is
interesting
to note
that the
values
reported
for
food
wastes
are
generally
in
the 20%
range,
with
the
exception
of
particularly low values
of 7%,
in columns E and
I,
(refs. 39 &
29).
RIS
(ret.
39)
identifies
their
sources
as:
"compilation
of
data
from
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Environment Canada, Waste
Sampling
Study
for the
City
of Windsor and Waste Composition
Literature Reviews performed by
State
of Rhode
Island and Massachusetts."
Residential
Plastic Waste
The
recent EPIC
(Environment and
Plastics
Institute
of Canada)
study
of
post-
consumer generation
of
rigid
plastic
container waste
in
Barrhaven, a
residential
area
in
Neapean,
Ontario,
near Ottawa
(ref.
44),
reported
a
generation
weight
of 7
lbs capita year
(3.19
kg/capita/ year).
The composition
of the
plastic waste
1-8
stream was
given
as: HOPE
+
PP, 75%;
PET,
12%; and PS
+
PVC, 13%
.
A survey
of
the generation
rate and composition
of
plastic
fHrn by
residents
in
Peterborough,
Ontario,
is
currently
underway
(pers.
commun.,
Mr.
J.
Savage,
ESSO
Chemical).
No data from
this
study are
currently
available.
1.2.2
Foreign Studies
1.2.2.1
United States
According
to W.
J.
Rathje
(ret.
33), the "disposable society" began
in the mid-
1800s.
The
earliest
interest
in
discarded
materials may
be
credited
to
an
archaeologist who excavated the Andover, Massachusetts, town dump
in the mid
1920s.
In more recent times, knowledge about the kinds
of "materials discards"
that
society
generates
have been
of
interest
to
two
quite
different
groups
of
professionals:
(1) those hoping
to
gain
insight
into
archaeological
interpretation
of
historical
cultures
by
studying
and
analyzing
modern
material
cultures;
and
(2)
those
hoping
to
develop
the ways and means
of
reducing
the volume
of
discarded
materials through an
understanding,
in
part,
of
the waste
generation
patterns
of modern
society.
Oddly
enough,
while
the
objectives
of these two
groups,
ie., archaeologists and professional engineers,
respectively, are
different,
the methods employed by each group should have more
in common
with each
other than may be presently acknowledged.
Both archaeologists and engineers
want
to know
the composition
of the present day waste streams.
The job
of conducting waste composition studies
for governments has frequently
fallen
on
the
shoulders
of
companies
with
engineering
expertise.
These
HOPE
companies
have
been
traditionally
associated
with
solid
and/or
liquid
waste
nnanagement.
However, as Rathje noted
in 1979, "The behavioral aspect of the
legal
disposal
of
solid
wastes
involves
determining
the
broad
socio-economic
correlates
of
household
discard
behaviour,
including
variation
in
solid
wastes
relative
to household demographic
composition and
social
strata,
time
of
year,
and general
state
of the economy.
A number of
civil engineers and
solid waste
managers have
recently begun
to conduct such
studies"
(ref.
33,
pg.
26).
The
Peter Middleton & Associates review
(ref.
32)
cited three
residential
refuse
studies conducted
in
1969 and 1970
that concluded
that
lower income groups
throw
out
a
higher percentage
of food wastes and
wealthier
families
discard a
higher percentage
of
paper.
Cognizant
of
potential
socioeconomic
differences
in waste
generation,
a
fourth
study
focused
a
sampling
program
on
a
middle
income
residential
area.
Waste Composition
Studies
The
number
of
municipal
waste
composition
studies conducted
in
the
United
States
is
very
large.
For
instance,
a
list
of
the
studies
conducted
by SCS
Engineers, Long
Beach, CA,
reportedly
fills three typed pages
(pers. commun.,
R.
Grier), and
currently includes waste compositions
investigations
for
the
cities
of New York and Los Angeles.
The
results
of
studies shown
in Table 2 were
obtained
with
relative
ease
from
available
literature
and
is
by
no
means
complete.
Again,
the waste
classification
categories and
first column
of
data
on
the
left
side
of the Table
are from Table 9
in BH.
Techniques and Methods
While the American
Society
for Testing and
Materials
is
frequently
cited as
the
"standard"
for many
analytical methods, the document
in the
series, whose
title
makes
it appear
appropriate
for waste
composition
studies,
i.e., ASTM
F
889-
82
(ref.
3),
is
of
marginal
use
because
it
is
expressly
designed
for
use
at
1-10
resource
recovery
facilities.
The most
notable
individual who has
significantly
contributed
to
the
"sample-and-sort" nnethodology
is
Dr.
A.
J
Klee.
Building on
the
statistical
studies
of Cochran
(ref.
9),
Klee &
Carruth
(ref.
25)
reported
a
method,
employing
arcsine
transformation
of
raw waste
composition
data,
that
enabled
them
to
determine
the
minimum
sample
weight
required
to
achieve
appropriate
levels
of
statistical confidence
with respect
to
particular components
in refuse.
The results of their study showed that samples should weigh
at
least
200
lbs.
(90
kg),
but need
not exceed 300
lbs.
(135
kg)
(ref.
24).
Later,
the
method was adapted
by
Trinklein
(ref.
45)
in
the
design
of a program
for
the
sampling
frequency
of garbage
trucks
arriving
at an
energy-from-waste
facility.
The 200-300
lbs. (90-135 kg) sample weight range has been confirmed by other
investigators (McCamic,
ref.
28;
also see
Lohani &
Ko,
ref.
26).
How
many
samples
in
this
weight
range
must
be
taken?
If
one
has
an
approximate
idea
of
the
percentage
that component
'X'
is
usually expected
in
refuse
and
can
assign
a
precision
range
that one would
like
to
achieve,
with
90%
probability,
e.g., component
'X'
is expected
to be 25%
of the
refuse,
with
a desired
precision
(of the estimate)
of 20%
of the expected
value: 25
± 20%;
then one can determine the number
of 200-300
lbs. (90-135
kg) samples which
must be taken and
sorted.
Tables and nomograms may be consulted
to obtain
the
requisite number
of
samples
(see
refs.
20,
40,
47 &
48)
or
the
sample
number may be
calculated
according
to
the
equation
found
in
Klee &
Carruth
(ref.
25) and which
is
given
herein
,
Section
4.7.2.
Figure
1
shows nomograms
for
residential waste
composition
studies.
Sample number
is a function
of two major
factors:
component abundance (%),
standard
deviations
of sample data and desired confidence
limits.
The sample
numbers required for satisfactory statistical precision become unmanageably large
when
dealing
with components
that
are a
small
fraction
of the
total
refuse
or
when the desired results are to have a high degree
of accuracy and
probability,
(ref.
28).
1-11
FIGURE
1: NOMOGRAMS FOR RESIDENTIAL WASTE COMPOSITION STUDIES
SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SAMPLE NUMBER AND
STATISTICAL PRECISION (WITH 90% CONFIDENCE).
An
important
contribution
to development
of a methodology
for sampling
refuse
generated
in a wasteshed was made by
Rathje and
co-workers.
Their
earliest
noteworthy
study.
"THE MILWAUKEE GARBAGE
PROJECT"
(ref.
34)
clearly
demonstrated the relationship between socio-economic
stratification of populations
and
the
qualitative
and
quantitative
composition
of
residential
refuse.
The
concepts
embodied
in
the
Rathje
methodology
are
also
noted
in
some
engineering
sampling
protocols,
e.g.,
SCS
Engineers
(ref.
40),
and
are
contemplated by Woodyard &
Klee
(ref.
48).
In
a
literature
and
protocol
review
conducted
for
the
State
of
[Massachusetts
(ref.
28),
considerable emphasis was placed on implementation
of a wasteshed
sampling program based on socio-economic and demographic
characteristics
of
the
wasteshed.
As
previously
noted,
some
studies
have
addressed
the
importance
of
demographic
characterization
of
waste
generation
(ref.
34),
but
few
studies have come
to
light
that
report
results on
a demographically sound
basis.
A
very
recent
study,
again
by
the
Rathje
group
(refs.
35 &
36) was
conducted
for
the
City
of
Phoenix
and
revealed
patterns
of
refuse
disposal
along
ethnic
lines as
well
as a
function
of
collection
time
during
the week,
a
point
already
well known
to
refuse
collectors.
Waste Generation Rates
Waste generation
rates may
also be computed as
part
of a
materials
balance
where
material
inputs
must be
balanced
by
outputs.
This
approach
can
be
applied on a national scale but
is
not feasible on a small scale because
of the
difficulty
in
obtaining
accurate
input
values
(see
ref.
8).
In
addition,
there
are
no
provisions
for
sociological
"interventions"
in
this
strict
flow-sheet
approach.
The recent
Franklin
report on waste generation
in the United States
(ref.
18)
is
one example
of
this
kind
of a
study.
1-12
The
selection
of
per
capita
refuse
generation
rates shown
in Table 3
includes
rates
for
residential as
well as municipal
solid waste.
For the
United
States
in
1920,
the
generation
rate
was
2.8
lbs. (1.26
kg) capita/day.
A
value
of
4.03
lbs. (1.82 kg)/capita/day was reported
for 1986-87 and excluded
industrial wastes
and
"under-reported"
wastes
(ref.
1).
Several
Canadian
values
are
also
referenced
in Table
3.
In
a
recent
"popular"
article on
solid waste
(ref.
37),
Rathje mentioned the range of daily per capita generation rates that he
is aware
of:
2.9(1.31),
3.02(1.36),
4.24(1.92),
4.28(1.93),
5.0(2.26)
and. ..8.0(3.61)
Ibs.(kg).
In
his
opinion,
even
a
daily
rate
of
3.0
lbs.
per
capita may be
too
high
for
some
parts
of the
country.
1.2.2.2
Non-North American
While the
following sample
of studies barely scratches the
surface
of the world
literature,
the
references
indicate
the
general
applicability
of
the
concept
that
waste
generation
can
be
correlated
with
socioeconomic
patterns
of
human
existence.
Interesting
data were
reported
by
Sridhar
et
al.
(ref.
41)
for
high,
middle
and
low income
families
in
Ibadan,
Nigeria.
The
average
putrescible
content
(kg/family) was
positively
correlated
with
high, medium and
low income
groups.
2.81,
1.52 and
0.37
kg/family,
respectively.
Coad
(ref.
10) observed
a
large
difference
in
the
waste
generation
patterns
of
the
wealthy
and
poor
classes
of
society
in
Iran.
A waste
composition
profile was
recently
reported
for
f^insk, USSR
(ref.
6).
1-13
SECTION 2
METHOD DEVELOPMENT
2.0
METHOD DEVELOPMENT
2.1
Introduction:
Rationale and Overview
It
is
reasonable
to
assunne
that
both
the
quantity
and
the
composition
of
residential waste
generated
in
municipalities
in
Ontario
has changed
since
the
late
1970's when
Bird &
Hale conducted
their landmark
study
(ref
5). Changes
in
packaging,
technology,
life
styles
and
disposable
income
are some
of
the
factors
that
can
be
expected
to
have
altered
the
quantity
and
quality
of
residential
refuse. The purpose
of
the
present work was
to develop
a
simple,
cost
effective and
statistically
meaningful method
to be used
by
municipalities
to
determine
the
quantity
and
composition
of
residential
waste,
exclusive
of
leaves and
other seasonal
yard
waste.
The
method
used
in
this
study
is
based
on
the
hypothesis
that
the
characteristics
of
a
residential
waste
stream
are
related
to
the socioeconomic
lifestyles
of
people
and
the
demographic
characteristics
of
a
municipality.
Evidence
from
studies
in
the
United
States
and
elsewhere
supports
this
hypothesis.
The
present
method
was
developed
by
the
team
of
Gore
and
Storrie
Limited and Décima Research
Limited.
The
three
municipalities
participating
in
the
method
development
study
were
selected
in
consultation
with
the
Ministry
of
the
Environment
and
fit
into
the
three
population
categories
that
the
Ministry
required:
small
(population
<
25,000). medium
(population
>
25,000 and
<
100,000) and large (population >
100,000,
belonging
to
Metropolitan Toronto).
In deciding the three communities
that
would
be
approached
to
participate
in
the
method
development
study,
consideration was given
to the
following
factors:
(1)
a
municipality
within
Metro
Toronto
reflecting
the
earlier BH
report;
(2)
municipalities outside
of the sphere
of
Metropolitan
Toronto;
(3)
geographic
location
in
Ontario;
(4)
population and
income
distribution;
and
(5)
housing
type.
Relevant
information
for
the
three
study
municipalities
is
given
below,
in
order
of
increasing
municipal
population.
2-1
Town
of Fergus
The Town
of Fergus has a
population
of 6,757 (1988) and
is located about 75
kilometres west
of Toronto
in
Wellington
County
(Figure
2).
Residential
areas
are
generally composed
of
detached
dwellings,
occasionally
interspersed
with
duplexes.
There are also several neighbourhoods
of apartments
(3-4
floors; 35-
60
units).
Residential
refuse
was
collected
weekly
from
detached
dwellings
by
Plein
Disposal;
refuse
from
apartments
was
collected
twice
weekly
by
McLellan
Disposal.
A Class
1
residential
Blue Box program,
serviced detached dwellings
(McLellan
Disposal)
but
not
apartments.
Citv
of
North Bay
The
City
of
North Bay has
a
population
of 51,313
(1989) and
is
located about
335
kilometres
north
of
Toronto
in
the
District
of
Nipissing
(Figure
2).
The
residential
areas
are
characterized
by
neighbourhoods
of
single
detached
dwellings;
detached
dwellings;
duplexes
and
other
attached
dwellings;
and
neighbourhoods
with
small apartment
buildings
(3-4
floors;
multiple
units).
Residential
refuse was
collected weekly by Laidlaw Waste Systems
Ltd.
There
was no
Blue Box program
or drop-off bins
for
recycling
of materials
in the
City.
Borough
of
East York
The
Borough
of
East
York
has
a
population
of
approximately
102,000 and
is
located
in
the
Municipality
of
Metropolitan
Toronto
(Figure
2).
The
residential
population
is
distributed
in
neighbourhoods
of
detached
dwellings,
frequently
interspersed
with
small
apartment
complexes.
There
are
also
areas
with
numerous,
large apartment
buildings, each
with
several hundred
units.
2-2
FIGURE
2:
MAP OF ONTARIO SHOWING LOCATIONS
OF THE THREE STUDY MUNICIPALITIES
Ontario
TNUnOfAt**,
rwuMt -
f;*jw.v«
WMfH BAY
t
om*»»
riii«c*«*fMit
lOMOOM
WMOtO
Residential
refuse
was
collected
twice
weekly
by
Borough
employees
from
detached
dwellings and apartments
with fewer than 30
units.
Large apartment
buildings
also
had
twice
weekly
collection
service
provided
by
various
private
contractors.
A Class
1
Blue Box program serviced detached dwellings and small
apartment
buildings
but
not
large apartment
buildings.
Blue Box
collection was
also
a Borough
function.
2.2
General Overview
of the Method
2.2.1
Demographic
Description
of a Municipal
Population
2.2.1.1
The Enumeration Area (EA)--General
Description
Statistics
Canada
information
about
the
population
of
a
municipality
may
be
provided
for
subunits
of
the
population
called
Enumeration
Areas
(EAs).
The
information
is
derived
during
census
gathering
processes.
An
EA
contains
approximately 600 people
but may
frequently range over 800.
The geographic
area covered by an EA
is determined
by
the
type
of
housing;
that
is,
a
larger
geographic
area
is
occupied
by
a
population
that
resides
in
detached,
single
dwellings
than
for
a
population
of apartment
dwellers.
Inasmuch as EAs are planned without specific regard
for socioeconomic or other
demographic
factors,
the
likelihood
that
discrete
socioeconomic
sectors
of
a
population
are
exclusively
encompassed
within
an
EA
is
greater
in
a
large
municipality than
in a
small
one.
2-3
2.2.1.2
Classification
of EAs According
to Income
Using
the
most
recent
Statistics Canada Census
data,
each EA
in
the
study
community
was
stratified
according
to
income
level.
The
format
for
the
stratification was:
High
Income:
average household income
is
at
least
1 2
standard
deviation
greater
than
the mean
income
for
the
entire community;
Medium
Income:
average
household
income
is
no more
than
1 2
standard
deviation
greater
than,
or
less
than
the mean income
for
the
entire community;
Low
Income:
average household income
is at least
1 2 standard deviation
less than
the mean income
for
the
entire community.
Figure
3
below
illustrates
the
concept
of
population
stratification
by
income,
described above.
2.2.1.3
Classification
of EAs According
to Housing Type
Within
each
income
category,
each
EA
was
further
classified
according
to
housing
type.
For
each
EA,
Statistics Canada
reports
the number
of
Single
Detached
residences,
Apartments,
and
Other
residences.
These
numbers,
expressed as a percentage
of occupied dwellings
in the EA are used
to
identify
the predominant housing
type.
Primarily
Single
EAs
with 60%
to 70%
of
dwellings
reported
Detached:
as
single detached;
Mixed
Dwellings:
EAs
with
a
mixture
of
single detached,
apartment
buildings
with
fewer than 30
units, and
"other"
dwelling
types;
Primarily
Multiple
EAs
with 60%
to 70%
of
dwellings reported
Dwellings;
as
"apartments".
2-4
nOURE
3:
CATEGORIZING A MUNICIPAL POPULATION
WITH RESPECT TO INCOME:
- THEORETICAL DISTRIBUTION
(3A)
- PRACTICAL APPUCATION
(3B)
m
a.
o
t>
a.
E3
-3S0
-2SD
-JSD
'
+iSD
+2S0
+3S0
Income
of
a
municipal
population
(3A)
Idealized
representation
of
normal
Income
distribution
over
G
municipal
population.
The
middle income
range
extends
between -1/2 SD and +1/2 SD and
Includes 33%
of
ttie
population.
Town
of
Fergus
^
Low
Income
Medium
Income
-^^
avare^
incorrM
128,076
$30.936
$33.796
^Z
High
Income
City
of
North
Boy
Borough
of
East York
-=^^^
An
exact
boundary
line
between
dwelling
classifications
was
not
rigorously
specified
in
tfiis
Study
because
of
thie
need
for
flexibility
to
consider
tfie
distribution
of
the
nninor components
of
tfie
residential
mix
for
a
particular
EA.
The
distribution
of
types
of
residences
across
the
whole
municipality
was
examined
to
ensure
that
specific
cells
in
the
income housing
matrix
were
not
grossly
out
of
proportion
to
the
total number
of
EAs.
Table
4
below shows the housing income
matrix
that was used
in
the present
study
for
classification
of
the EAs
in a
municipality.
2.2.1.4
income/Housing
Matrix For the Town
of Fergus
Using
the
most
recent
census
data,
the
EAs
for
the Town
of
Fergus
were
classified
according
to
the
parameters
of
the income housing
matrix
(Table
5).
Of
the
1
1
EAs
reported by
Statistics Canada
for
Fergus,
9 were placed
within
the
study
matrix.
Two EAs were
not
included:
a
hospital zone and an area
of
Town
that extended
outside
the Town
limits.
Table 5
lists
the 6 EAs
that were
actually sampled
in the
study.
Their
location
within
the Town
of Fergus
is shown on
the map
in
Figure
4.
2.2.1.5
Income/Housing
Matrix For the
City
of North Bay
Using
the most
recent census
data,
the EAs
for
the
City
of
North
Bay were
classified
according
to
the
parameters
of
the income housing
matrix
(Table
6).
Of the 66 EAs reported by
Statistics Canada
for the City
of North Bay, 57 were
placed
within
the
study
matrix.
Typical
of
communities
in
Northern
Ontario,
the
City
limits
of
North
Bay
encompass a
large
rural area outside
of the
built-up
central
portion
of the
City.
The
income/housing
matrix
only
includes
those EAs
in
the
urban
area
of
the
2-5
TABLE
4:
INCOME/HOUSING MATRIX USED FOR
CLASSIFYING MUNICIPAL POPULATIONS.
Dwelling Type
(1)
(2)
(3)
Income
Level
(A)
High
(B)
Medium
(C)
Low
Primarily
single
Detached
Dwellings
Mixed
Dwellings
Primarily
multiple
Dwellings
Al
TABLE
5:
CLASSIFICATION OF THE EAs FOR THE TOWN OF FERGUS
IN AN INCOMBHOUSING MATRIX.
DISTRIBUTION OF EAs
IN THE MATRIX (5A) AND EAs SAMPLED IN THE STUDY (5B)
5A:
Distribution of
EAs
in the
income
/ housing matrix.
MAP OF THE TOWN OF FERGUS SHOWING
TI:
LOCATIONS OF THE 6 ENUMERATION AREAS
Vii/
Town of
Fergus
W«at
tfarafraia
TABLE
6:
CLASSIFICATION OF THE EAs FOR THE CITY OF NORTH
BAY
IN AN INCOMBHOUSING MATRIX.
DISTRIBUTION OF
EAs IN THE MATRIX (6A) AND EAs SAMPLED IN THE STUDY
(6B)
6A:
Distribution of EAs
in the
income
/ housing matrix.^
City.
9 EAs were
omitted
from
the
matrix
because
they were
either
outside
the
urban
area
or
they
lacked
necessary
information
for
categorization.
For
example
a
hospital
zone,
parts
of
the
Canadian
Forces
Base,
an
Indian
Reservation and
rural
areas were
omitted.
The
location
of the 2 urban EAs that were sampled
in the Study are shown on
the map
of
the
City
of
North Bay
(Figure
5).
(Note:
The
City
of
North
Bay was
studied
after
the Town
of
Fergus
and
the
Borough
of
East
York.
Based on the
results
of the
latter
municipalities,
it was
decided to conduct a much reduced sampling program
in the City of North Bay.
At
the same
time,
it was
also
decided
to
involve
an
employee
of
the
City's
engineering
department
in
order
to
assess
the
feasibility
of
implementing
the
Study
methodology
by
City
staff,
after
a
suitable
training
period.
The
City
employee was
very
confident
that he
could
continue
the
study
without
further
assistance
from Gore &
Storrie
Limited).
2.2.1.6
Income/Housing
Matrix For the Borough
of East York
Using the most recent
Statistics Canada census
data,
the EAs
for the Borough
of East York were
classified according
to the parameters
of the income housing
matrix (Table
7).
Of the
179 EAs
that were reported by
Statistics Canada,
170
were
placed
within
the
study
matnx.
The
remaining
9 were
excluded due
to
insufficient
information
for
categorization.
Table
7
gives
the
7 EAs
that were
included
in
the
study and
their
locations
are shown
in
Figure
6,
a map
of the
Borough
of
East
York.
2-6
MAP OF NORTH BAY SHOWING THE LOCATIONS OF THE
STUDY ENUMERATION AREAS
LtfltWO
TABLE
7:
CLASSIFICATION OF THE EAs FOR THE BOROUGH OF EAST
YORK IN AN INCOMeHOUSING MATRIX.
DISTRIBUTION OF
EAs IN THE MATRIX (7A) AND EAs SAMPLED IN THE STUDY
(7B)
7A:
Distribution of EAs
in the
income
/ housing matrix.^
FIGURE
6:
MAP OF EAST YORK SHOWING THE LOCATIONS
OF THE 7 ENUMERATION AREAS
SCALE
BOROUGH
OF EAST YORK
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
2.2.2
Residential
Waste
Sampling
Plan
Based
on
Municipal
Population
Demographics
2.2.2.1
Street Numbering and
Collection
"Starting
Points"
The following
is a general description
of the procedure
for setting up a sampling
program
in each
EA.
Every
street
"face"
within an EA was
given
a number.
This
process proceeded
systematically,
starting
in
the upper
left
corner
of
the
EA map,
numbering
left
to
right as
street
faces were
encountered,
ending up
in
the
bottom
right
corner
of
the EA map.
Opposite
sides
of
a
street
bear
different numbers,
with
eight numbered
street
faces
meeting
at an
intersection
of two
streets.
The map
in Figure 7 shows the numbering systems
in a
typical
EA
(for
purposes
of
example, EA
113
from
the
city
of
North
Bay
is
shown
here).
Next, a random number table was employed
to randomly select
"starting
points"
for the curbside waste
collection program.
For example,
if the number
17 was
determined randomly,
street face number
17 was
located.
Then, our convention
was
to
select
the
intersection
at
the
eastern
or
northern end
of
the
street as
a
starting
point.
Certain
practical
limitations
to
this procedure were encountered
from
time
to
time
but
were
easily
overcome.
For
instance,
if
the
random
numbers
selected
from
the
table
resulted
in
potential
starling
points
that were
too
close
to each
other,
i.e.,
their
locations
did
not
permit
the
collection
of a
minimum
quantity
of
refuse before encountering another
potential
starting
point,
alternative
starting
points were chosen, as indicated below.
In the
field,
starting
points
that were too close
to each other were frequently
"over-run"
in
order
to
collect
the
required
weight
of
refuse
at
curbside
(see
also
Section
2.2.2.2
below).
Nine
starting
points,
indicated
by
an
*
on
the map
in
Figure
7,
and
3
or
4
alternate
locations
(indicated
by
an
AI,
A2,
etc.)
were
usually
supplied.
No
preference was implied between the
first 9 and the
latter 3
or 4
starting
points,
or
the
sequence
in
which
the
sampling
occurred.
However,
there
was
a
2-7
FIGURE
7:
EXAMPLE OF ONE EA SHOWING NUMBERING OF BLOCK
FACES AND SAMPLE COLLECTION "STARTING POINTS-
NORTH BAY
EA 113
standardized, CLOCKWISE
direction
of
collection
from
each
starting
point
that
enabled
us
to
drive
and
collect
waste
on
the
right
hand
side
of
the
street,
proceeding
clockwise
around
corners
and
into
and
out
of
cul-de-sacs.
Alternative starting points were almost always used,
for the reasons noted above.
The sampling
of small and large apartment buildings, when they were either part
of an EA
or
constituted an
entire EA
(by
virtue
of
their
size),
respectively,
will
be described below
in
Section
2.2.3.5.
2.2.2.2
Problems Encountered
As the
distribution
of dwellings
in an EA was not known by the study team from
prior experience
within
any
of
the
municipalities,
several
minor problems
arose
as
a
result
of
the random and
"blind"
determination
of
starting
points
in
EAs.
On the one hand, there was complete
impartiality
in assigning the
starting points.
On
the
other
hand,
some
streets
were
sparsely
populated,
factories
or
commercial
enterprises
were
present
on
others
or
waste
from
second
floor
apartments over commercial premises was co-disposed
with commercial
waste.
The
difficulties were
readily overcome,
on-site, by using the designated alternate
starting
points.
If these
latter
points were exhausted,
additional
locations were
randomly
selected
from
the
remaining
potential
starting
points,
i.e.,
street
intersections,
in
the
EA.
2.2.3
Data
Acquisition:
Collecting and
Sorting
Residential Refuse
2.2.3.1
Collection Equipment
The
following
list
of
equipment
includes
rented
vehicles
and
purchased
equipment:
one
- 4.3 m.(14
ft.) cube van
(for
collection
of bagged
refuse);
one
- pick-up
truck
(for
collection
of
Blue Box
contents);
2-8
one
- electronic
platform
scale
(150
kg
capacity, Accu Weigh
Model
PAK-
150
(electronic,
battery
operated
scale
with
digital
read-out),
Exact
Weight
Scale,
Inc.,
Toronto,
Ontario);
six
-
1.2
m.(4
ft.)
X
1.2
m.(4
ft.)
x
1.2
m.
(4
ft.)
heavy
duty
corrugated
containers
{"gaylords");
these
containers
were
used
for
storing
the
bagged
(non-Blue
Box)
refuse
samples as
they were
being
collected;
four
- 1.2
m.(4
ft.)
x
1.2
m.(4
ft.)
divider
frames
(2.5 cm.
x
5.1
cm. wood
furring
stock chicken
wire);
these were used
as
horizontal
partitions
in
the
back
of
the
cube
van
for
separating
the
collections
of
bagged
(non-Blue
Box)
refuse which were
stacked on
top
of each
other;
two
- 46 cm. (18
in.)
x
2.4 m.(8
ft.)
divider frames
(2.5 cm.
x
5.1
cm.
wood
furring
stock chicken
wire); these were used as the two main
partitions
in the back
of the pick-up
truck
for segregating the
collections
of Blue
Box
materials
(see
Figure
8);
nine -46
cm. (18
in.)
x
41
cm. (16
in.)
(approx.)
plywood
panels;
used
as
partitions
in
the back
of the
pick-up
truck
(see
Figure
8);
one -chicken
wire
"crib":
1.2
m.(4
ft.)
x
1.2
m.(4
ft.)
x
1.3
cm.(1 2
in.)
plywood base;
0.6 m.(2
ft.)
high chicken wire and
2.5 cm.
(1
in.)
x
5.1
cm. (2
in.)
furring
sides.
Nailed
to the
underside
of the
crib
floor was
a square frame which
permitted
the
crib
to be centred on
the bed
of
the
platform
scale
(see
Figure
9);
the
crib was used
for
weighing
the
refuse
as
it was
being
collected
from
curb-side;
150
- 50.8 cm. (20
in.)
x
76.2 cm. (30
in.)
x
6
mil
polyethylene bags
(Oxford
Packaging
Inc.,
f^ississauga,
Ontario);
these were used
for
bagging
refuse
that was
set
out
loose
in
garbage
cans;
the
bags
were
also
used
for
storing
refuse samples
for
moisture and chemical
analysis;
40
-
30
litre polyethylene garbage cans; these were used as containers
into
which
sorted
refuse was
placed
(see
Figure
10);
one
- 2.7 m.(9
ft.) x 3.7 m.(12
ft.) reinforced
plastic tarpaulin
for covering Blue
Box
materials
in
the
pick-up
truck;
six
-
elastic
straps
to secure
the
tarpaulin
in
place;
one
- broad-mouth aluminum
shovel; used
for cleaning up
spills;
2-9
FIGURE
8:
PHOTOGRAPH OF PICKUP TRUCK WITH COMPARTMENTS
FOR BLUE BOX MATERIALS.
FIGURE
9:
PHOTOGRAPH OF CHICKEN WIRE CRIB MOUNTED ON THE
PLATFORM SCALE (REAR VIEW OF CUBE VAN)
one
- broom; used
for
cleaning up
spills and sweeping
out the
vehicles;
one
- staple gun
and
0.95
cm.(
3 8
in.)
staples
for
construction and
repair
of chicken
wire
dividers and
crib;
one
- claw hammer;
5.1
cm. (2
in.) common
nails:
used
in
the
construction
of the
crib and
divider frames.
Special Requirements
In Each
Municipality
For Sample
Sorting
a)
Town
of Fergus
The
field
study
took
place between:
July
15 and August
31,
1989.
Written
approval was
received from
the
City
of Guelph
that enabled
the
Study
to use the
landfill
site as
its base
of operation, with space
for sorting the refuse
samples,
an
eating
area,
washroom
facilities
and
helpful
guidance
from
the
municipal
staff.
The refuse was sorted, weighed and disposed
of
at the
landfill
site.
The sorting
of bagged
refuse
took
place on
the
tailgate
of
the
pick-up
truck
(see
Figures
10 &
11),
following
the
sorting and
weighing
of
the
Blue Box
materials
stored
in
the
truck.
Several
sheets
of plywood,
resting on
the
tailgate,
extended
the
working
surface
to
comfortably accommodate
four
people,
surrounded
by
the
garbage
cans.
b)
City
of
North Bay
The
field
study took
place between:
February
21
- 28
,
1990.
The
assistance
of
one
employee
of
the
City
Engineering
Department
was
provided
to complete
the Study team
(as noted
above).
Written
approval was
received
from
the
City
of
North Bay
that
permitted
the Study team
to use
the
Work's
Yard
as
their
base
of
operations.
Available
at
that
location
were:
an
eating
area, washrooms and
a telephone.
2-10
A
large
7.6
m.( 25
ft.)
x
7.6 m.(25
ft.)
carnival
tent (see
Figure
12) was used
as a
sorting area
at
tfie
City's Work's
Yard.
Tfie
tent,
supplied by
tfie
City
of
Nortfi Bay, provided storage space
for
tfie samples and
protection
for
tfie Study
crew from
thie
winter
weatfier.
Two,
15,000 BTU propane
fieaters
(see
Figure
13)
were
used
to
hieat
tfie
tent.
Refuse
was
sorted
inside
tfie
tent
on
a
plywood
table, mounted on saw
fiorses.
Several combinations
of protective
clotfiing were experimented
witfi by
tfie Study
crew.
In
addition
to
fieavy
duty
rubber
gloves
and
safety
glasses,
cotton
coveralls,
a
large
rubber
apron
and
a
fiat
seemed
to
provide
adequate
protection.
On
very
cold
days, a
nylon
parka
or
sfiell was worn.
Sorted and weigfied samples were disposed
of
in a
18.3 m.(20
yd.)
roil-off
bin,
rented from a
private
fiauler.
Wfien
full,
tfie
bin was taken
to
tfie
landfill
site
for
disposal
of
tfie waste and an empty
bin was
left
in
its
place.
c)
Borougfi
of
East York
Tfie
field
study took
place between; October 24 and December 28
,
1989.
Written approval was received from
tfie
Municipality
of
Metropolitan Toronto
tfiat
enabled
tfie
Study
to use
tfie Commissioners
Street
incinerator
as
its base
of
operation,
witfi space on
tfie tipping
floor
for sorting
refuse,
a
fieated
office and
wasfiroom
facilities
and
fielpful
guidance
from
municipal
staff
at
botfi
tfie
incinerator and
tfie Bermondsey Transfer
Station.
Tfie
refuse
was
sorted,
weigfied
and
placed
in
a
18.3
m.(20
yd)
roll-off
container,
rented by Gore &
Storrie
Limited
for
tfie
duration
of
tfie
study.
Tfie
sorting
of
refuse
was
conducted
off
tfie
tailgate
of
tfie
pick-up
truck,
as
described
for
tfie Town
of
Fergus.
Arrangements
were made
witfi
a
private
fiauler
to
fiave
tfie
container
taken
to
tfie
Bermondsey
Transfer
Station
for
disposal wfien
tfie
container was
full; an empty
container was
left
in excfiange.
2-11
FIGURE
10-
PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE POSITIONING OF THE STUDY
TEAM AROUND THE TAILGATE SORTING TABLE
FIGURE
11:
PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PLYWOOD TABLE SITTING ON
THE PICKUP TRUCK TAILGATE.
ilAi.'^'
^##^
FIGURE
12:
PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CARNIVAL TENT
IN WHICH
REFUSE SORTING WAS CONDUCTED.
FIGURE
13-
PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PROPANE HEATERS, REFUSE
SAMPLES UNDER BLUE TARPAULINS AND ONE CORNER OF
THE PLYWOOD SORTING TABLE (LOWER LEFT CORNER OF
PHOTOGRAPH) MOUNTED ON SAW HORSES
INSIDE THE
CARNIVAL TENT.
2.2.3.2
The
Field Crew
Four
or
five people were needed
for
{he waste
collection
task where
a Class
1
Blue
Box
program was
in
place
(Town
of
Fergus;
Borough
of
East
York):
two truck
drivers, one
collection data recorder and one
(or two) people
to
pick
up the bagged refuse and Blue Box
materials.
Occasionally, a 5 day work-week
was
not
long enough
to complete
the
collection and
sorting
operations and an
additional work day
(Saturday) was
required.
In
North
Bay, where there was no
Blue Box program
in
place, a three member
crew carried out the refuse collection.
It should be noted
that the reduced crew
number
required
that
they work
an
extra
full
day,
i.e.,
Saturdays,
to complete
the
sorting and weighing
of waste.
Personal equipment
included:
heavy
duty,
waterproof (PVC-coated)
gloves;
work
clothes
or
coveralls;
apron;
hat
steel toed work
boots;
eye
protection;
tetanus/polio
vaccination
(optional:
diphtheria,
Hepatitis A and
Hepatitis
B);
traffic
safety
vest;
particle
masks,
worn
by
crew members concerned
with
dust
and
the
possibility
of disease
transmission;
anti-bactenal
soap, used
to clean
gloves, hands and
face before meal
breaks and
at the end
of
the
day.
2.2.3.3
Documents and Meetings
Two
important documents were obtained
from
the
Ministry
of
the
Environment,
Waste f^anagement Branch.
The
first authorized the
collection
of waste
for the
Ontario Waste
Composition
Study;
the second was a
letter
to be
given
to any
individual
in
the
municipality who was
interested
in
learning
more
about
the
ongoing
residential
Study.
2-12
Following
Ministry
of
the
Environment
approval
to
consider
a
municipality
for
inclusion
in
the
Study,
a meeting was arranged
with
the
municipality
to discuss
the aims
of the Study and
"invite"
the
municipality
to
participate.
Following the
meeting,
a
formal
letter
of
request was
sent
to
the
municipality.
A high
level
of coordination,
to ensure scheduling
of refuse
collections, required
weekly meetings and numerous phone
calls between the Study Project Manager,
municipal
staff and waste
haulers.
Each week,
a map
of the EA scheduled
for
inclusion
in
the
refuse
study was
delivered
to
municipal
staff and or
the waste
haulers.
There was
only one
incident during the
entire Study when the
"line
of
communication"
tailed,
but
only
briefly.
A
similar
level
of
coordination was
required
in
order
to
obtain
permission
to
include
small
and
large
apartment
buildings
in
the
Study.
Usually
the
details
were arranged through phone conversations
with apartment owners and
building
managers
and
waste
haulers,
but
occasionally
written
requests
for
permission
were
prepared.
In
North
Bay,
a
press
release was
issued
by
the
City
to
inform
its
residents
about
the
City's
participation
in
the
Ontario Waste Composition
Study.
2.2.3.4
Waste
Collection
Process: Detached
Dwellings--General
Procedures
The
goal
of
the waste
collection
process,
on
any one
day, was
to
obtain
10
(9
as
a
minimum),
100
kg
(minimum
weight)
samples
of
residential waste-
exclusive
of
the
weight
of
Blue Box
materials and
yard
waste
that were
also
coincidentally
collected
if
they were
placed
curbside.
This
task proceeded
as
quickly as
possible,
with
a 0700
h
start,
so
that the normal
collection
of waste
and
Blue Box
items by the
municipality was
not
seriously
inconvenienced.
2-13
The waste sample
collection began
at one
of the
starting
points
(refer
to Figure
9).
Waste was
collected
in
front
of
every
dwelling where
it was
set
out,
until
approximately 100 kg were accumulated
in the
crib
(Figure
12), some
variations
to
this
are
noted
below.
An
"en
route"
collection
record
was
kept
of
the
number
of
dwellings
that had waste
set
out:
general waste and or
Blue
Boxes.
Single and duplex
dwellings were
also
Indicated.
The
importance
of
the
"en
route"
collection
record
and
the
accuracy
of
the
recording
of the number
of dwellings
that were sampled should be noted.
The
team member who recorded
the
trip
data
did
not have time
to concentrate on
any
other
aspect
of the
curb-side
collection
process.
Loose waste set out
in garbage cans was rebagged
in
clear polyethylene bags.
These bags were reused and
not included
in
the analyzed waste sample.
The
collected waste was placed
in the chicken
wire
crib which was mounted on the
platform
scale
on
the
floor
of
the
van
(see
Figure
9).
The
scale was
tared
with the empty
crib on
it, pnor to
tilling the
crib with waste.
When the minimum
required
weight
of
waste
had
been
collected
(with
an
allowance
for
the
estimated
inclusions
of yard waste co-disposed
with household
waste),
the
crib
was unloaded and sample was
stored
in
the
van.
Corrugated
gaylords were used
to
store
six
of
the waste
collections.
Two
of
the
remaining
collections
were
piled
on
top
of
1.2
m.(4
ft.)
x
1.2
m.(4
ft.)
chicken wire dividers placed on top of the collections
in the gaylords.
The ninth
collection
of bagged
refuse was
piled on top
of the
Blue Box
materials,
stored
in compartments
in the pick-up truck (see below),
while the tenth collection was
kept
in
the weighing
crib.
Yard waste
set
out
at
the curb was weighed
at
the time
of sample
collection.
The weight was recorded and
the yard waste was placed back
at the curb
for
municipal waste collection.
(Note: the Town
of Fergus issued a notice that yard
2-14
waste should
not be
set out
for
collection
but
this
edict appeared
to be
widely
ignored).
Blue
Box
items were
placed
in
the
corresponding
sample compartment
in
the
back
of
the pick-up
truck
(Figure
8).
There was space
for 9
collections
in
the
truck;
the
tenth
collection was
stored
in
polyethylene garbage cans
in
the
van.
It
took
between
2
and
2.5
hours
to
make
9-10
collections
within
an
EA.
Following
the
last
collection,
the
contents
in
the
pick-up
truck
were
covered
with
a
tarpaulin.
Elastic
straps
secured
the
crib and
contents
in
the
back
of
the
van.
The
Study
team
proceeded
to
the
base
of
operations
in
the
municipality and began
sorting
the
samples.
Special
Requirements
In Each
Municipality
For Sample
Collection
a)
Town
of Fergus
Municipal
solid
waste was
collected
on Wednesday
or
Friday,
depending
on
whether
the
street
address was
on
the
North
or
South
side,
respectively,
of
the Grand
River.
In
several cases, EAs were
intersected by the
River and the
sampling programs
required waste
collections on
both
days.
b)
Citv
of
North Bay
Municipal
solid waste was
collected
on Tuesday
or Wednesday,
depending on
the
street
location
in
the
City.
The
short
time
interval
between
the
City's
agreement
to
participate
in
the
Study
and
the
timing
of
the
first
curb-side
collection
precluded
a
careful
coordination
of
the
Study's
collection
route
and
the
normal
collection
routes
of
the
City's
refuse
contractor.
Thus
the
Study
crew had
to commence sample
collection
at 0500
h and
finish
by 0700
h,
in
order
to
avoid
having
the waste
picked up
by
the
regular
collection
service.
2-15
c)
Borough
of East York
The
Borough
of
East
York
had
a
twice
weekly
curb-side
collection
program:
l^onday and Thursday
or Tuesday and
Friday, depending on whether
a
street
was West
or
East,
respectively,
of Greenwood
Avenue.
Therefore,
two
trips
were nnade
to
collect waste from the same sample areas,
i.e.,
using the same
starting
points,
in each
EA.
Staff
in
the
Borough
of
East
York
indicated
that
about 60%
of
the
weekly
volume
of
refuse
was
placed
at
curb-side
for
the
first
of
the
two
weekly
collections,
with
about 40%
set
out
for
the second
collection.
This
ratio was
not
universally
reliable
for
all
of the EAs
in
the Borough.
With
a
target
of
100
kg
(minimum
weight)
of
waste
that
had
to
be
collected
for
a
sample
of
adequate
size, the
following
collection
protocol was developed and
illustrated
in
the example
below.
For a
given
sample,
approximately 60 kg
of bagged
refuse was
collected from
approximately
7
houses,
on
the
first
collection
day.
The
collection
on
the
second day was
initiated
at the same
"starting
point"
in the EA and waste was
collected
from
the same number
of
dwellings .
This ensured
that an
accurate
per capita generation
rate could be estimated.
In
theory, the 60/40 relationship
would
also
result
in
approximately
40
kg
of
refuse
collected
on
the
second
occasion,
for
total
of
100 kg
of waste
for
the composition
analysis.
The
uncertainty
of
the
60/40,
or
any
other
ratio,
required
that
we
"overcompensate"
with
respect
to
the
weight
of
the
first
collection
in
each
sample
by
picking
up
more
than
60
kg
(e.g.,
70
kg)
from
approximately
9
dwellings.
This
"insurance"
weight meant
that
the crew was
required
to
pick
up from 9 dwellings on the second collection day.
The
total sample weight,
that
is,
the sum
of two
collections, would
therefore
not
likely be
less
than
100
kg.
Of
course,
the
fear
was
that
the
weight
of
refuse
collected
from
the
nine
2-16
dwellings on
the second day would
put
the
total
considerably over the
100
kg
point and
require
additional hours
of
sorting.
Waste collection from apartment buildings did not present this kind
of a sampling
problem
(see
below).
2.2.3.5
Waste
Collection
Process: Apartment
Buildings
Special
Requirements
In Each
Municipality
a)
Town
of Fergus
100
kg
waste samples were removed
from
the waste
bins
at each
apartment
building
for the composition
analysis.
In some cases, 2
- 100 kg samples were
taken.
The
residual waste
that
remained
after
the
sample(s) was
taken, was
removed, weighed and
returned
to
the
bin
for normal
pick-up.
The normal waste collection schedule
for apartments was on Monday and Friday.
Our
collections
were made
on
Fridays,
only,
and
per
capita
generation
rate
calculations accounted
for the 5 day period
of waste accumulation.
The number
of
units
in each
apartment was determined
as
well
as
the occupancy
rate.
(Note: the weakness
of
this procedure,
i.e.,
the omission
of
collection
of refuse
generated
over
the
weekend,
was
rectified
later
in
the
Study
in
the
other
municipalities.
It
is
possible
that
the estimated
per
capita
generation
rates
for
this
sector
of
the
Fergus
population
is
lower than
it might have been, had
the
calculations included the 3 day part of the week,
i.e., the weekend, when people
are frequently
at home and the refuse generation may be expected
to be higher
than
during
the Monday
to
Friday
period.)
2-17
b)
City
of
North Bay
In
North
Bay,
waste was
sampled
from
small
apartment
buildings
(fewer
than
30
units)
only.
This waste was placed curb-side
at the
buildings
that were
part
of the
collection
route, therefore no
particular problems were encountered.
The
quantity
of waste placed
at the curb was
sufficient
to comprise a
single sample
per
building
(125.6
kg and
105.3
kg).
The number
of
units occupied
in each
building was determined
later and
recorded.
c)
Borough
of
East York
Small Apartment
Buildings
The waste
from
apartment
buildings
with
up
to
30
units was
collected
by
the
municipality as
part
of
the
curb-side
residential
collection
program.
Frequently
such premises were
part of the sampling areas
in the Study EAs.
The
following
procedure was
applied.
On
the
first
collection
day,
approximately 60
kg was
randomly
taken
from
the
curb-side
pile
of bagged
waste, weighed and
placed
in a gaylord.
The remaining
portion
of waste was weighed and replaced
at the
curb
for
collection by the Borough's garbage
brigade.
A
similar procedure was
followed on
the second
collection
day,
except
that
about 40
kg
of waste was
randomly
collected,
with the remainder being weighed and returned
to the curb.
A general problem with the small and large apartment buildings was that despite
the knowledge
of the number
of
units
that were actually occupied, we could not
be
certain
that
ALL
tenants
put
out
their
waste
for
the
collections
that we
sampled.
In
our
calculation
of
the
per
capita waste
generation
rate we have
multiplied
the
number
of
units
by
the
Statistics
Canada
data
for
average
population
per
dwelling
to
obtain
the
estimated
number
of
residents
in
the
apartments.
The weight
of waste
set
at the curb
(or accumulated
in the refuse
bins)
was
divided
by
the
apartment
population.
Our
calculations
could
2-18
underestimate
the
per
capita
generation
rate
if some
of
tfie
residents
did
not
discard
tfieir
refuse
in
a
pattern
wtiich was
coincident
witfi
{he
normal
refuse
collection
pattern.
Unless tenants
received
specific
instructions from apartment
managers,
tenants
could
be
"isolated"
from
thie
regularity
of
garbage
collection:. ..down
ttie garbage
stioot...out
of
sigtit,
out
of mind. ..at
least
it
is
not
smelling up
rny
unit.
When
Blue Box
materials,
especially grocery bags
of newspapers, were placed
at the curb
in
a manner which
obviously
intended
that they would be
collected
by
the
Borough's
recycling
truck,
the
team
placed
the
materials
in
the
appropriate
section
of
the
pick-up
truck.
Again,
as
noted
above, we
did
not
know how many
of
the apartment
units (number
of
tenants)
contributed
to
the
separate
pile
of
Blue Box
materials.
Large Apartment
Buildings
Two
large apartment
buildings were EAs
unto themselves:
EA
12-055 and EA
90-055.
They were treated as
individual EAs
in
that
nine,
100 kg samples were
collected from each
of the two buildings.
The following discussion describes the
procedures employed
at EA 90-055, which
serves as the example.
Under
normal
circumstances,
waste
collection,
by
a
private
hauler, was made
twice
a week
(in
both
of the
EAs).
Thus,
the Study team
applied
the
"60 40"
sampling
plan described
earlier
for
the Borough
of
East York
(Section
2.2.3.4).
Six
bins
of
waste
were
set
out
on
each
collection
day.
On
day
1,
approximately 60
kg
of waste were randomly taken
from
the
top
of each
bin;
these
collections were
the
first
6
samples.
For
the
last
3
samples,
the
bins
were paired and resampled so
that each sample contained waste from 2
bins.
Prior arrangements were made
with the apartment's hauling company
to provide
an empty
front end overhead
packer
truck
to
pick
the waste
remaining
in
the
6
bins and
deliver
it
directly
to
the Bermondsey
Transfer
Station
for weighing
2-19
and
disposal.
The weight
of the waste was telephoned
to
the
hauler's
office
from
the
Transfer
Station
and
the
datum
was
relayed
to
Gore
and
Storrie
Limited.
A
similar sequence
of
operations was
followed on
the second
collection
day,
except
that
the
sample
weights
of
waste
removed
from
the
bins
were
approximately 40 kg.
The sum of the 18 sample weights and 2 residual weights
gave the
total weight of refuse generated by the "towering" EA during the week.
2.2.3.6
Special Collections
Yard Waste
Yard waste
set
out
at
the curb was weighed and
replaced
at
the curb
for the
regularly
scheduled
municipal
refuse
collection.
The
weight
of
yard
waste
recorded
"en
route"
for each sample was
later combined
with
the
yard waste
that was co-disposed with household refuse to give a
total weight
of yard waste
for the sample.
While the weight
of yard waste
is recorded,
herein, on the raw data sheets
for
the waste composition (see Appendices A2, B2 & C2),
it may be NOTED THAT
the
calculations
of
per
capita
generation
rates
and
waste
composition
percentages
in
the
present
Study
do
not
include
the
yard
waste
component.
An explanation
for
this decision
in data handling may be found
in the
Literature
Review
(see
Section
1.2.1).
Leaves
A
figure
for the reported tonnage
of leaves collected from
the Borough
of East
York during the
fall.
1989, was obtained from
staff
at the Commissioners
Street
Incinerator
and
confirmed
by
staff
in
the
Borough
Work's
Department.
The
reported
weight was
1,115.2 tonnes.
2-20
Schools
Special
arrangements
were
made
with
the
Borough
of
East
York
Work's
Department
that
enabled
the Study team
to
collect
waste
from
7
schools:
4
primary,
2
junior
high
schools
and
1
high
school.
The
curb-side
sample
collection
method
was
the
same
as
that
used
for
small
apartment
buildings
described
above
in
Section
2.2.3.5
(Borough
of
East
York--small
apartment
buildings).
Christmas
Residential
refuse
was
collected
from
EA
90-117
(middle
income
/
primarily
detached dwellings) on 28 December
1989.
Blue Boxes were not set out
at the
time
of
this Christmas week
collection.
The EA had been
initially sampled on
28 and 30 November,
1989.
2.2.3.7
Equipment For Waste
Sorting
The
following
equipment and
supplies were needed
for
the
waste
sorting and
composition
analysis:
1-150 kg
capacity
platform
scale
(noted
previously);
1-5 kg capacity scale (Accurate model 50()0 (electronic, battery operated
with
digital
read-out),
Exact Weight Scale
Inc.,
Toronto,
Ontario);
40-polyethylene garbage cans
(note
above);
1-claw hammer;
1 -slotted screw
driver;
1 -electrician's
pliers;
4-magnets
pairing
knives
for opening
plastic bags
Personal equipment was
listed above
in
Section
2.2.3.2.
2-21
2.2.3.8
Personnel
Town
of
Fergus
Four students from
Shieridan College
in MIssissauga,
Ontario, and a graduate
of
the
University
of Toronto were the Study crew on
this phase
of the work.
They
possessed
a
background
in
science
or
engineering
and
had
a
working
knowledge
of measuring techniques,
the care
of reasonably
delicate equipment
and
data
recording.
At the
outset
of the work they were
given
instruction,
by
Dr.
Fred
Edgcombe,
Executive
Director,
Environment
and
Plastics
Institute
of
Canada (EPIC)
in the
kinds
of
plastics
that would
likely be encountered
during
the survey
of
residential
waste.
It was
emphasized
that
the
Study was
really
a
"laboratory
situation".
Thus
attention was given to organization,
routine,
reproducibility, consistency--even the
cleanliness
of
garbage
cans,
van
floor
etc.
This
approach
attempted
to
maximize a
scientific
attitude and thoughtful
responsibility leading
to careful work
habits
that the
students
learn as
part
of
their
analytical
training.
Borough
of
East York
Three members
of
the
Study team
departed
prior
to
the
time
the Borough
of
East York Study
got underway, however one Study team member remained
to
give
important
continuity
for
the
work.
The
three new
Study team members
were
university
graduates
in
science
and
liberal
arts,
with
practical
waste
composition experience
or with the objectives
of the Study serving as a "cause
célèbre"
for
their
participation.
City
of
North Bay
The three Study team members included two
of the Borough
of East York team
and one
staff member
of
the
City
of
North Bay
Engineering
Department.
The
2-22
latter individual was a University graduate with a science background and,
at the
time, was
training
to be
a
Recycling
Co-ordinator.
General
Attitudes
It took about 2 weeks
of sorting waste before the Fergus Study team had
"risen
above"
the physical
(distasteful) aspects
of the work and saw the
larger
picture,
i.e.,
the
residential waste
characteristics
of
the
citizens
of
Fergus.
In
the
other two
municipalities,
the
Study team
reached
a
level
of
proficiency
earlier
than
the
Fergus
team.
It
should
be
noted
however,
that
the
working
conditions
in
Guelph,
e.g.,
high
temperatures,
direct
sun,
blowing
dust,
flies,
a
general maggoty condition
of the refuse and very strong odours produced
in the
heat, were much more
"trying"
conditions
than those experienced
by
either
of
the
other Study teams.
2.2.3.9
Sorting Routine
Blue Box
Materials
Each compartment
of the pick-up truck was
sequentially unloaded and
the Blue
Box
materials were
sorted
into the
categories noted
at the bottom
of
the
data
sheets found
in Appendices A2, 82 & C2.
The separate categories
of materials
were placed
into 114
lit.( 30
gal.) polyethylene garbage cans, which had uniform
tare weights
of
1.8
kg., and
the weight
of each
material was determined.
The
weights of the Blue Box materials were entered on the appropriate waste sample
data
sheet.
The
sample
data
sheets
were
identical
to
those
shown
in
Appendices
A2, B2 &
C2.
The
materials
collected
in
the
Blue Box program
in
the Borough
of
East York
included
rigid
plastic
containers
and OCC
(Old
Corrugated
Containers),
items
that were
not
part
of
the
recycling program
in
the Town
of
Fergus.
2-23
The
City
of
North Bay
did
not have a
Blue Box
program.
Blue Box
materials were separated
into
the
following
categories*
a)
Newsprint,
including coated paper
inserts
b)
Liquor/wine
bottles
c)
Food
jars/other
bottles
d)
Food cans
(i)
ferrous
(ii)
non-ferrous
e)
Beer cans
(i)
ferrous
(ii)
non-ferrous
(iii) American
f)
Pop cans
(i)
ferrous
(ii)
non-ferrous
g)
PET
bottles
h)
Rigid
plastic
containers
i)
OCC
"items
a-g
in
the Town
of
Fergus;
items
a-i
in
the Borough
of
East York
"Bagged"
Residential Refuse
The contents
of
the remainder
of
the
residential waste
stream,
i.e.,
the
largely
bagged
refuse, were
sorted
according
to
the
categories
of
items
listed on
the
data
sheets
found
in
Appendix
A2,
B2 &
C2.
Blank
data
sheets were
used
to record the weights of the categories
of waste.
The samples were sorted one
at
a
time by
the
sorting team.
Each 100+
kg sample was unloaded
from
the cube van and
sorted.
The
9-
10 samples
collected
in an EA were
sorted over a 3-5 day
period.
A
sorting
routine
was
developed
as
follows.
Garbage
cans
into
which
the
various
components
of the waste were
sorted, were arranged
in an
array around each
sorter
(see
Figure 10)--with
the
following
notation
of "handedness",
in
respect
to containers
for plastics and paper,
to permit the sharing of containers between
sorters.
Directly
in
front
of each
sorter
(or nearly under the
sorting
table) were
his/her
own
receptacle
for
food
waste,
with
containers
for
polyolefins
2-24
(polyethylene &
polypropylene) and
assorted paper
tissue on
either
side
of
the
central
food
container.
Then,
progressing backward on
the
left
(or
right) hand
side was a grouping
of containers
for
other
kinds
of
plastics.
On
the opposite
side,
were
containers
for
other
categories
of
paper
items.
Hence,
the
"handedness"
aspect
of
container placement
permitted
the
person
on
the
left
to
sort
plastics
with
the
right hand
while
the person
to the
right
sorted
plastics
with the
left hand.
Containers
for metals,
glass, diapers--categories
of materials
that could be lobbed some distance
to shared containers--were located behind
the
sorters.
The
"handedness
routine" was
devised
to
minimize
the
handling
of
the same
material
twice,
i.e.,
transferring an
item
between
hands,
and
to speed
up
the
sorting
efficiency.
Items
that were
not
easily
classified,
that
is,
they
were composed
of
several
materials
that could
not be
readily separated
from each
other
e.g.,
light
bulbs,
costume jewellery,
electrical equipment,
etc., were weighed separately
(or simply
counted,
as
in
the
case
of
light
bulbs)
and
recorded
on
a
sheet
of
"miscellaneous
items"
for each sample
(see Appendices
A2, B2 &
C2).
Note: The weights
of
all
of the components were summed and
the percentage
of each component was determined on the basis
of
this sum and not the weight
of the sample determined en
route , during curbside
collection.
As noted above,
3-5
days
were
required
to
sort
the
residential
refuse
collected
from
an
EA.
During
this
time,
the samples
lost some
weight, presumably
via evaporation
of
water.
Under the summer
conditions
during
the Study
in
the Town
of
Fergus,
moisture
loss
occurred
during
the
sorting
process,
as
bags
of
refuse
were
opened
and
air
exchange
promoted
evaporation
of
water,
particularly
under
sunny
or windy
conditions.
Under
the
winter
conditions
during
the
latter
part
of
the
Study
in
the
Borough
of
East
York
and
for
the
entirety
of
the
work
in
the
City
of
North
Bay,
the
2-25
garbage
was
frozen.
This
created
a
problem
for
separating
frozen
items,
particularly
food
wfiicfi
was
frozen
to
packaging.
Thiere
was
also
less
evaporation
of
moisture
wfien
\\r\e
separated
items were exposed
to
tfie open
air.
Table
8
is
a
copy
of
the
field
data
sheet
used
in
the
study
showing
the
categories
into which
the household
refuse was
separated.
Notes On
the Categories
Dr. Fred Edgecombe,
Executive
Director, EPIC (Environment &
Plastics
Institute
of
Canada)
recommended
that we
group
all
polyethylene
and
polypropylene
containers and
film plastics together as "polyolefins"
(item
5a), rather than trying
to
distinguish
between
polyethylene
of
different
densities
and
crystal
linearity.
A
small amount
of SARAN wrap
(polyvinylidene
chloride) would
also have been
included
in
this
category.
The PVC category (item 5b) was
restricted to
rigid containers; the
vinyl category
was reserved
for
other
materials such as scraps
of
vinyl
siding.
A
simple
"smoke
and
drip"
test,
provided
by
Dr.
Edgecombe, was
used
to
assist
in
determining
the
category
for
a
particular
plastic
item.
The
test
is
included
as Appendix D
but
it
should
not be viewed
as a
definitive
qualitative
method when used
by
itself.
Mixed
blended
plastics
(item
5f)
were
reserved
for
plastic
packaging
around
meat products. Coated
plastics (item 5g) were
for packaging
in which the
plastic
portion was judged
to be
the
greatest percentage by
weight,
e.g.,
potato
chip
bags. The
"Tetrapak" boxes were categorized as mostly paper (boxboard) and
included
in
item
Id.
2-26
TABLE
8:
FIELD DATA SHEET
ra
Rodent bedding (item 6a) was
routinely encountered
in
snnall
quantities
of urine-
soaked
cedar
shavings and
faecal
pellets.
The
material was
included
in
the
food
waste
category
because
of
the
putrescible
nature
of
both
of
the
components.
Likewise,
individual
"packages"
of
canine
excreta--presumably
contributed by citizens obeying the "poop-and-scoop" statutes--were included
in
this
category.
Kitty
litter
(item
13)
was
more
frequently
encountered
and
because
of the inorganic nature
of the granular product, save
for the associated
feline
excretory
products,
the
two components
were
given
a
single,
separate
category.
Sanitary napkins were included
in
the paper category
(item
1i).
Medical
wastes
(item
14)
included
medicines,
insulin
bottles
and
associated
used
syringes
(needles
protected
and
unprotected)
and
syringes
without
accompanying evidence
of
medicinal
application.
Aerosol cans were
collectively weighed and
included
in the
ferrous
section as
item
3d.
At
the
time,
we
felt
that
one
category
for
ferrous non-ferrous
pressurized
containers would be adequate.
2.2.3.10
Moisture Content
After the waste was sorted
into the designated categories and weighed, samples
of
plastics,
paper,
food
waste
and
disposable
diapers
were
placed
in
large
polyethylene
bags
and
stapled
shut.
The
bags
were
labelled
with
the
appropriate
sample numbered and
then
taken
to
the
laboratory
of
the
former
Ontario
Centre
for
Resource
Recovery
(now
known
as
the
Dufferin
Transfer
Station),
Toronto.
The
contents
of
the bags were weighed
in
tared, aluminum
baking pans (purchased
in
local supermarkets) and placed
in
the waste
drying
oven
at 203
F(95
C)
for 48
h.
The
samples were removed
from
the
oven,
cooled and reweighed
to determine the weight loss due
to evaporation
of water.
2-27
A Sartorius top-loading balance (Model # 3802; 6 kg capacity
±
0.1
g) was used
for the weight
determinations.
2.2.3.11
Inorganic Analyses
of Vacuum Cleaner Bag
(Contents
Bags
of vacuum cleaner dust fibre hair were frequently encountered
in
residential
waste.
As the curbside separation
of the
residential waste stream
is expanding
beyond
the
bulky
items
presently
included
in
municipal
Blue Box
programs,
it
was decided
that the chemical
composition
of
the
contents
of vacuum
cleaner
bags may be
instructive,
for example,
with respect
to the decision
to employ a
two
versus
three
stream
"wet-dry"
separation
procedure.
That
is,
the
heavy
metal
concentration
in
the
acid-extractable
fraction
of
the vacuum
cleaner bag
contents could determine whether
to exclude these
items from the category
of
waste
that
will be composted,
i.e., due
to
growing
concerns
with heavy
metal
loadings
in some
kinds
of compost prepared from
residential waste
streams.
While
it may
be
argued
that
the
chemical
composition
of
commercial
paints,
coatings and
inks--or the pigment
in
the
bright yellow HOPE detergent
bottles-
-may be
available through
Material
Safety Data Sheets
or on a "need-to-know"
request,
the
inorganic
composition
of house
dust may
only be
gained
through
empirical
experience,
i.e.,
direct chemical
analysis.
Furthermore, depending on
the geographic location
of a municipality, the amount
of vehicular
traffic occurring
within
it and
local
industry, one may
hypothesize
that
there
will
be
differences
In the chemical composition
of the
contents
of vacuum
cleaner
bags.
In
the Town
of
Fergus, vacuum
cleaner bags were saved and grouped by
EA.
One bag was chosen
at random
from each EA
for
analysis.
Fibrous contents
and dust were pulled from the selected bags, placed
in acid-washed
plastic
jars
and
submitted
to
X-RAL
INC.
for
a
30
element
inorganic
analysis
by
ICP
spectroscopy,
plus analyses
for mercury
(Hg) and
arsenic
(As).
2-28
A
similar procedure was
followed
in
the Borough
of
East York except
that
the
pooled
sample was made
up
from
the vacuum
cleaner
bags
collected
from
each
EA.
No
analyses were
performed on
the bags
collected
in
the
City
of
North
Bay.
2.2.3.12
BTU Analyses
of Selected Components
The
following
samples
of
mixed
plastic
packaging
were
obtained
from
the
residential waste
stream, washed
with
detergent,
thoroughly
rinsed,
oven
dried
(101
C)
to a constant weight and
submitted
for BTU
analysis:
(1) prepackaged
meat
containers;
(2)
prepackaged
bacon
wrap;
(3)
plastic
ketchup
bottle.
In
addition,
a new
disposable
diaper was
similarly oven
dried
and
submitted
for
BTU
analysis.
2.2.4
Data Management
2.2.4.1
General Considerations
As noted
in the preceding sections, data were collected at different points during
the
collection and
sorting
of
residential
refuse.
Table
9, summarizes
the
kinds
of
data
that were
collected and
the
intended use
of these
data.
2.2.4.2
Calculation
of Per Capita Generation Rate
Estimation
of the
Per
Capita Generation
Rate
in an EA
Table
10
serves
as
an
example
of
how
per
capita
generation
rates
were
computed from the sample data (Appendices A1.
B1 & CI)
for each EA.
The
example
cited
in Table
10
is EA 258 from
the Town
of Fergus.
The weight
of
waste used
for
this
calculation was made up
of
either household waste
alone
or household waste and
Blue Box
materials, depending on whether
or not Blue
Box materials were
set out.
In almost every case the number
of houses setting
2-29
TABLE
9: SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTED AND INTENDED
USE OF THE RESULTS
Kind
of data
Use
of data
Weight
of
refuse samples
collected en
route
in
EAs;
number
of
residences
setting
out bagged
refuse and
Blue
Boxes
Weighit
of components
in
bagged
refuse and
Blue Boxes
after
sorting
Calculation
of
per
capita
waste
generation
rates
(apts.
in
Fergus;
tfiose
<
units
in
East
York)
Calculation
of percent{%)
composition
Calculation
of Blue Box
"capture
rate"
30
Calculation
of moisture
content
of components
in
tfie
refuse
Weight
of components
in
bagged
refuse
collected
from
schools
(East
York) and
single Christmas week
residential
collection
(East
York)
Calculation
of
per
capita
waste
generation
rates
Calculation
of percent(%)
composition
Weight
of yard waste
collected en
route
in EAs
(not included as
part
of
the present method
development
Study)
Chemical analyses
Inorganic analyses
of
vacuum
cleaner bag
contents
BTU
values
for
selected
materials
TABLE
10:
SAMPLE CALCULATION OF THE PER CAPITA GENERATION
RATE IN AN EA.
DATA FROM THE TOWN OF FERGUS. EA
# 258
Town:
out
Blue Boxes
did
not
equal
the number
setting
out
other household
refuse.
A two-step
calculation was
required
to account
for
this
difference.
Note:
A
decision had
to be made
with
respect
to
apportioning the weight
of
the
Blue
Box
materials
collected
at
curbside.
Recycling
coordinators
from
4
municipalities
in Ontario were contacted and asked about the average frequency
of Blue Box set-out by residents.
Where Blue Box monitoring had been carefully
conducted
(e.g.,
East
York),
a
complex
picture
emerged
which
reflected
demographics
of the
municipality, thickness
of the newspapers,
seasonality,
etc.
Nevertheless,
an average
set-out
frequency
of once
every two weeks seemed
to
be
a
reasonable
compromise,
given
a
range
of:
more
than
1
set-out
per
week
to
less
than
1
set-out
every
3
weeks.
Thus, we
have
employed
a
conservative
convention whereby
the weight
of
Blue Box
items was
divided by
two
(2)
before
including these materials
in
calculations
of per
capita generation
rates
or
percent composition.
The
generation
rate
of household
waste,
excluding yard
waste, was
calculated
as
follows:
The weight
of household
refuse sampled
(column
3) was
divided
by
the number
of houses the sample was taken from (column
2).
The weight
of
Blue Box
material
collected
(column
4) was
divided
by
2,
as
noted
above,
and
then
divided by the number
of houses were
Blue Box
materials had been
set
out.
Next,
these two weights were added together and then
divided
by 7
(days
per week)
to
give a
daily weight per
dwelling
(column
5).
The
daily
per
capita
generation
rate (column
6) was
calculated by
dividing
the
daily weight per dwelling (column
5) by the population per dwelling (PPD)
for the
given
EA.
As an example
of the
calculation,
consider Table
10, Sample Number
31:
1.
115.8
kg
(household
refuse)
divided
by
8
(dwellings)
=
14.47
kg
per
dwelling
per week;
then,
2-30
2.
31.1
kg
(Blue
Box
materials)
divided
by
2
(weeks)
=
15.55
kg
per
week;
15.55
kg
Blue Box
materials
per week
divided
by
5
(dwellings)
=
3.11
kg
per
dwelling
per week;
then,
3.
[14.47
kg/dwelling
plus
3.11
kg/dwelling]
divided by
7
(days per week)
=
2.51
kg/dwelling/day;
4.
2.51
kg/dwelling/day
divided
by
2.93
(population
per
dwelling)
=
0.86
kg/capitci/day.
The average per
capita waste generation
rate
(kg/capita day)
of
all
10 samples
was
determined
after
summing
all
values
in
Table
10
and
dividing
by
the
number
of samples.
Thus
the
per
capita waste
generation
for EA 258
(high income primarily
single
detached
dwellings) was
0.88
kg
+
a Standard
Error
of
0.09.
In
other words,
the
"true"
estimate
of
the
average
per
capita
generation
rate
of
the EA
lies
within the
range:
0.79
to 0.97
kg/capita/day.
2.2.4.3
Method to Estimate the 'Capture Rate"
of the Blue Box Program
The
following method was used
to estimate the "capture
rate"
of the Blue Box
programs
in
the Town
of
Fergus
and
the
Borough
of
East
York.
The
total
weight
of
Blue Box
items
in each
sample was
the sum
of:
(1)
the
weight
of
materials set out
in Blue Boxes, divided by 2 as per the conservative convention
noted above .: and
(2)
the
weight
of the same
"potential"
Blue Box
items
that
were
put
out
in
the bagged
refuse,
rather than
in
Blue Boxes.
The weight
of
material
set
out
in
the
Blue Boxes
(1) was
divided by
the sum
of
(1) and
(2)
determined above and then
multiplied by
100.
This gave the percent which the
Blue
Box
materials
represented
of
the
total
"municipally
recyclable"
and
potentially
collectable categories
of
materials
in
the
residential waste stream.
2-31
2.2.4.4
Per Capita Generation Rate
of Waste From Schools
Per
capita generation
rates were calculated using student population, number
of
teachers and support
staff
(administrators,
clerical,
janitors,
etc.).
In
calculating
the per capita generation
rate
for schools, a 5 day week was used
to account
for weekend
closure
of the
institutions.
It may
also be
noted
that,
as
only
a
single
100
kg
(approximately)
sample
of
waste was collected and sorted from each school, an average waste composition
was
computed
by
pooling
the
data
from
all
of
the
schools.
No
statistical
comparison
of waste
generation
characteristics
of
the
3
categories
of
schools
may be made.
2.2.5
White Goods and
Bulk
Item Data
Collection Method
Characterization
of
white
goods
and
bulk
item
waste
generation
requires
a
method
that
monitors
the
waste
on
a
yearly
basis,
and
monitors
the
entire
municipality.
The
put-out
rate
for worn-out
appliances,
furniture and
other
bulk
items can be expected to vary over the course
of the year.
For example, many
communities may have a
spring/fall clean-up
at which time many tonnes
of bulk
items may be discarded,
while
for the
rest
of the year very few
bulk
items
will
enter the waste stream.
Similarly bulk item put-out by residents
will be sporadic
and
difficult
to
predict
for
the
municipality being
studied.
To
determine
generation
rates
of
bulk
items
on
a
yearly
basis,
several
communities were contacted
that have kept accurate yearly records
of tonnages
of
bulk Items collected as
part
of
their
residential waste
collection program.
By
contacting numerous
communities,
a
broad
spectrum
of
collection
practices
is
represented.
As
well,
a range
of
potential
generation
rates can be assessed.
2-32
2.2.5.1
Data Collection
Data were
collected by telephoning the person
responsible
for waste
collection
in each community.
This person would
typically be
the
municipal engineer
or
the recycling co-ordinator.
Additional correspondence by telephone or
letter was
often
required
to complete the survey and data
collection.
Data requested
of each community
included:
1.
tonnages
of white goods
collected on a weekly monthly yearly
basis;
2.
tonnages
of other bulk items collected on a weekly monthly yearly basis;
3.
description
of
the
collection
program
for
white
goods/bulk
items
to
identify data
that may be biased
or incomplete.
Population data
for each community
for various years was determined from the
Ontario
Municipal
Directory.
These data were used
to
calculate
the per capita
generation
rate
(tonne/capita/year)
of
white goods and
bulk
items.
2.2.5.2
Communities Reporting Data
A
total
of
18
communities
was
contacted
by
telephone
to
inquire
about
the
availability
of
collection
records
of
white
goods
and
other
bulky
items.
The
following
10 communities were able
to
report
collection
data:
Town
of Ajax
Borough
of East York
City
of
Etobicoke
City
of Mississauga
City
of
North York
City
of
Oakville
City
of Toronto
Town
of Whitby
County
of Wellington
City
of York
2-33
SECTION 3
RESULTS
3.0
RESULTS
3.1
Estimation
of Per Capita Waste Generation Rates
3.1.1
Town
of Fergus
Table
11
shows
the
per
capita
generation
rates
and
the
quantities
of
waste
(kg day) generated
for the 5 EAs
that were
part
of the sampling program.
The
following
general
equation
is used:
OVERALL GENERATION RATE (kg/capday)
Sum of cells
|
waste
|
|
EAs
in
the cell
as
|
A1-C3
in
=
I
generation
|
x
jpercentage of
total
number!
income/housing
|
rate
in
a
|
|of
EAs
in the municipality!
matrix
I
matrix
cell
|
|
(for Study purposes)
|
EAs 255, 259 and 264 were
not sampled
in
the
study.
The
per
capita waste
generation
rates were
estimated
for
these EAs
from
the
rates
determined
for
the EAs
that were sampled
within
the
respective income
-
housing
matrix
cell
(recall Tables 4 &
6).
For example, EA 259
is
in
cell
B2.
The
0.80 kg
per
capita
generation
rate
is
the average
of
the
two
rates
obtained
from
data
for
EAs 256 and 263
in
matrix
cell
B2.
The average
per capita generation
rate
for the 9 EAs,
i.e., 0.804 kg/capita day,
was
multiplied by the 1988
population
of Fergus
(6,757)
to
get the estimate
of
the
daily
rate
of
residential waste
generation
for
the whole Town
(exclusive
of
yard waste): 5,433 kg/day or 5.43 tonnes day.
The data are shown
in Appendix
A.
(Note
that Sample
51 EA 260,
is
omitted from
per
capita waste
generation
rate
calculations
due
to
excessive
amounts
of
miscellaneous
wastes
which
indicated
that
this was a
non-representative
sample).
We have
attempted
to check
the
accuracy
of
the
residential waste
generation
estimate
for the Town
of
Fergus
in
the
following
way.
3-1
TABLE
11:
RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION DATA
INCORPORATED INTO THE INCOME/HOUSING
MATRIX TO ESTIMATE THE WEIGHTED PER CAPITA
GENERATION RATE (KG/CAPITA/DAY) FOR THE
TOWN OF FERGUS.
First,
residential
curbside
collection
tonnage was
estimated
from
the
total
tipping charges
that
Plein
Disposal
Inc.
incurred during
the course
of our Study
in
Fergus.
It
should be
noted
that
this
weight
included
commercial
waste
from
stores
located
on
St.
Andrews
Street
and
environs.
$5,054 6 weeks
-r
$29.70 tonne
=
170.2 tonnes 6 weeks
170.2 tonnes 6 weeks
-r
42
days. 6 weeks
=
4.05 tonnes day
Second,
waste
from
apartments
and
"condominiums"
in
Fergus was
collected
by
McLellan's
Disposal
Services
Limited.
According
to
their
records, 100 cu yd
of uncompacted waste were picked up weekly form
these
premises.
Using
an
estimated
weight
of
250
Ibscu
yd,
the
following tonnage may be
calculated:
(100
cu
yd/wk
x
6 wks
x
250
Ibscu
yd)
^
(2.2
lb/kg
x
42
days
=
1,623
kg day
or
1.6 tonnes day
Third,
McLellan's
Disposal
Services
Limited
also
estimated
that
they
picked up 37.7 tonnes
of
Blue Box
items
over
that 42 day
period,
or
0.90 tonnes day.
Fourth, the
total weight
of materials (including Blue box and yard waste)
collected curbside over
that time by the study team was
7.3 tonnes
or
0.17 tonnes/day.
The TOTAL of these four separate quantities
is 6.72 tonnes day.
This number
includes commercial waste, noted above,
as
well as yard waste.
The Study
estimate, derived from the per
capita generation
rate,
is 5.43 tonnes day and
does
not include yard waste, which
is on the order
of 20%
of the weight
of
the
total waste
stream
collected
by
the
Study team.
3-2
The average population per dwelling
in Fergus
is 2.63 (Table
11).
The average
per capita generation
rate
of 0.804 kg capita'day
(or
1.77 Ibs'capitaday)
=
5.63
kg capita wk
(or
12.4
lbs capita wk).
It should be reiterated
that the Fergus data
do
not
include
yard
wastes.
3.1.2
Crty
of North Bay
Appendix B gives the
data obtained
for each EA
that was sampled.
Table
12
reports
the
per
capita
generation
rate
calculated
for
the
study
enumeration
areas.
The
estimated average
per
capita
generation
rate
of
residential waste
in
North
Bay
for
the medium
income
brackets
is
0.93
kg capitaday,
exclusive
of
yard
waste.
3.1.3
Borough
of East York
The
income 'dwelling
matrix
in
Table
13
accounts
for
95°o
of
the EAs
in
the
Borough
of
East
York.
Appendix
C.
herein,
gives
the
data
obtained
for each
EA
that was sampled
during
the course
of the
study,
including the data
for the
schools and
the Christmas
collection
of
refuse
in EA 90-117.
Table
13 shows how the per capita generation
rates calculated from the sample
data
are used
to
estimate
the
overall
generation
rate
for
the
Borough
of
East
York.
The
estimated
average
per
capita
generation
rate
of
residential
waste
in
the
Borough
of
East
York
was
0.99
kgcapitaday,
exclusive
of
yard
waste
and
leaves.
3-3
TABLÉ
12:
RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION DATA
INCORPORATED INTO THE INCOMBHOUSING
MATRIX TO ESTIMATE THE WEIGHTED PER CAPITA
GENERATION RATE (KG/CAPITA/DAY) FOR THE CITY
OF NORTH BAY.
TABLE
13: RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION DATA INCORPORATED
INTO THE INCOMeHOUSING
MATRIX TO
ESTIMATE THE
WEIGHTED PER CAPITA GENERATION RATE {KG/CAPITA/DAY)
FOR THE BOROUGH OF EAST YORK.
3.2
Composition
of
Residential Waste
Exclusive
of Yard Waste
3.2.1
Town
of Fergus
Data
for
tfie composition
of the
residential waste stream
in the 6 EAs
is given
in Appendix A1.
Table
14
is the estimated average waste composition
for
the
Town
determined
by
weighting
the means
from
each EA
using
the
income
housing
matrix.
Because we are using a series
of weighted averages
for each
waste
component,
the
total
composition
for
a
particular
municipality
will
not
necessarily sum
to a
total
of
100
percent.
Figure
14
is
a
bar
graph showing
the
percent food waste
data,
±
1
Standard
Error
(SE).
It
will
be
recalled
that
both sample
size (minimum
weight
=
100
kg) and sample number
(9
to
10 per EA) were needed
to achieve an accuracy
of 90% and a precision
of
±
15°o
for the food waste fraction
only.
Two sample
means
are
different from each
other
if
their standard
errors do
not
overlap.
3.2.2
City
of North Bay
Data
for the composition
of the
residential waste stream
in the 2 middle income
EAs
is
given
in
Appendix
B1.
Table
14
gives
the
estimated
average
waste
composition
for
the
City,
based
on
a
sample
averaging
of
the
available
data.
The
statistically
significant food waste
data,
+
1
SE,
are graphed
in
Figure
15.
3.2.3
Borough
of East York
Data from the composition
of the
residential waste stream
in the 7 EAs
is given
in Appendix Cl.
Table
14
is the estimated average waste composition
for the
Borough,
determined
by
weighting
the
means
from
each
EA,
using
the
income dwelling
matrix.
Figure
16
is
a
bar graph showing
the %
food waste
data,
±
1
SE.
3-4
>
CI
CD
roz
I-'
i
!
o>
LU
es
U.
-
I * ï
' 1
a I
« ? a *
I = ï I
-
« a » "
s
-il
sllj
\n
ddddddbdd
d
ddddddddd
o o
o o
u?tH?c«iî n
%%
dd-'nddddd
ddddddd
d
ddddddd |d
ddddddd
did
I
vi ô
-
ô ô ô à
~
\
m
iiîii
i
iliif
sliilliiii! iiinigyi?
iiMsii?
iiiiiiiii MUMi
iii
o o o o o d Id
ddddddo
o
odddddd
did
M'^Mi^iii
Mîîîïîîjjîjî
^ïiîîîîîîliîî
l??îlî?ÎÎÎJJ|
«4
-r
-
d
(J
I
Hi?!?? I« i«
iiii««
SôSôSSSSS
\
Ji
ddddddddd id
ï ' < ï ' ï
- K 8 8 --
*******
' *
ddddddd
I
--
t ,*******
" ïddddddd
t i ( * i t *
*
-ô à O
<i
<à o à
d
t*t**t*
*
' t
*
S8lj;î:
8iS
s
S
%
\%
li%\%
t
o
co"^ --
0)
Ë
s
00
LU
--J
CD<
o 00 VO
<^
«o
\0 \X3
O o
oo
o
f--«^H00CVJO^«-Hr^OOCVJOlf)
f-H00OO«--<0^«--'00OO«--'1--<OU1
VOCVJCVIV
OCVJ
CVJO<C
0000
V
OOVOCNJV^HCVJt--IVVtO
If).
^
CM«-ilf>vO
OOO
V
---
-
Cl
r>«
---
<
^
---t csj
00
-
(M
t^
o
OOO
O'Tvo
lo
-
o
-
%o
-
'
00>---
«CT» «OO «OOO «O^
t-<0000
-0CT>'-»000
-----0*0
o
««a-.--<
mocvj<vicMO^H'^o»oi.nv«---oO'-HOcviv»---^--H^H
o*o
inoo
V
o«--i«-<io»-iini-i
lovovm
v
v
m
00
m
»--t
-
«--(
oo
<
00
enO
CO
T--I
CVJ
inO
enO
CVJ
00
o o
1^
OOVD«--iCMfOOOCV10000<-HOOU1»-itOOO«-<00«-<000»--'---'0«---
o
-m
m
oif>
mofvi
oo»o>v.-ioovo^v<-t(V).--iv
Oro
o
.--i.-Hf-t«
9VO00
VV
(vj
m
«--t
m
tvi
ro
CO
CO
un
00
m
vo ^
o o
OCVI«--'---'00l~^OCMinr0O^CVJO^'O«-HCTiOO«--lOCOi--iooo«--'---'0«--<
o
vovt-Hr^ovû
^or>-
oco
-
oovocviv»--tcsj.-ivvmv
.-H
CO
r^t-H
V a\
a\
vvv
cm
o»
.-I
»-«
---I
00
o»
o m CO
m
<Tt
a\
00 u^
o
CM***
-
«O^»
«O
^ «"^
-
o
vo<--lOOcoocorof^ococMoo
-----00
O---"Oo^ «OOO
-
«oco
O
lOV
oco
lOOlD
0>â0
f-HOOVOCO.--i^hO"--<*0<VlfO
00
o
00
00«-"
OO---'VCJV
CO
CVJ
in
^
CVJ
vo CO
vD
00
o o CVJ
U)
l£>
m
o o
m
o
.-4 o
r-~
o
o
-
CT^
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
---i<TCVJOCVJr-tvDO^<--lO^
..--«^00<--lOOO---<OOOCVJ»-iO»--'
V.--I
or^
^o«--«voocvjov
oovo«--'V---«cm.--!
vco
o
^
lO
lO i-t
00
vvv
CVJ
.--t
---
I
CVJ
m
CVJ
00
CVJ
a\ o
o o
ocoo<--icomooO'-Hr-^oocoo^rcvjf--«ooo«--"OCVJ,--iooo»-<«--lO"---
Q
,-4vco
OCO
tno«T
oio
v»-<oovoinv«-HCvj«--tvvcvjv
.-H
o
a\ --I
r^
o m
o
vvv
m
00
CVJ
«--i
---I CVJ
in
i-i
m
E
E
(U
3
3 E
E
3
E
3l/1Ci-3
3Ut-
EE3
B -r-
<U
>, <U
0->-
_
Ë'-E<--
33 ----->»-
3i/lCJ--0>-- J:t/1S_E
-t-C3'--
C'>- -<-£>--
0)
-t-a)(a3jQa>Q.</l(l)3
eai-^->>OEooiaQ.c-o.ccc7»u>iJi<:i/i<a>->-
3</it.j_j--oi-- ujaQ.o<o+JC7>c5->-- uo+Ji-- -o
-- i.<oaio<o<oj=ooi.<u-i-"W'oa»o->-.co-^-o
«a:«<cDCQ0QO<_)<_)<_)i_>'--'--I--JZSZSzci-Q-i/oto
E
TABLE
19:
HEATING VALUES (DRY BASIS) FOR
MIXED PLASTICS AND DISPOSABLE DIAPERS
Component
Analysed
BTU/lb
kJ/kg
Plastic prepacked
meat
container
Plastic bacon wrap
Plastic ketchup
container
Disposable diaper
15580
3.8.3
Borough
of East York
The raw
data
for yard waste
are found
in Appendix C2.
3.9
Estimation
of the "Capture Rate'
of the Blue Box Programs
Estimation
of
the
"Capture
Rate"
of
the
Blue
Box
programs
in
the Town
of
Fergus
and
the
Borough
of
East
York
are
Shown
in
Tables
20
and
21,
respectively.
Note
that
the
conservative
estimate
of
Blue
Box
material,
as
discussed
in
Section
2.2.4.2, was employed
for
the amount
of
material
in
the
Blue
Boxes.
3.10
The
Effect
of
Life
Style On
Residential Waste
Characteristics
As we
noted
in
Section
2.1,
the method used
in
the Study was based on
the
hypothesis
that
the
characteristics
of
a
residential waste
stream
are
related
to
the socioeconomic
life
styles
of people and
the demographic
characteristics
of
a
municipality.
In
Table
22,
the
per
capita
generation
rates
of
total
residential
waste
and
the
quantity
of
kitchen
waste
(putrescible
matter)
for
the Town
of
Fergus
and
the Borough
of
East York
are compared on
the
basis
of income
level and
dwelling
type.
The
East York
data show
that
residents
in detached
dwellings generate more waste than those
living
in
multiple
dwellings. The data
for
the
middle
income
group
in
the
Town
of
Fergus
also
suggest
this
relationship.
Other
trends
in
the
total waste
generation
data
are
less
evident.
The
generation
rates
of the
kitchen waste
(putrescible
matter) tended
to
follow
the
pattern
set by the
per
capita
generation
rate
of
total
refuse,
but as
noted
earlier,
a
potential sampling bias may have underestimated the Borough
of East
York
medium and low income multiple dwelling
kitchen
refuse.
The
uncertainty
in
the
Borough
of
East York
multiple
residential waste composition
data
is
not
3-7
TABLE 20:
AN ESTIMATION OF THE "CAPTURE RATE" OF THE
BLUE BOX PROGRAM
IN EACH STUDY EA IN THE
TOWN OF FERGUS.
£A/Classification
Total
wt of
recyclables
generated
in
curbside waste
(kg)
Weight of
recyclables
in Blue Boxes
(kg)
"Capture Rate"
(wt of recyclables)
in Blue Boxes
as
a % of
total
recyclables generated
in curbside waste)
258
/ High
income
226.2
primarily
single detached
262
/ Medium
income
214.2
primarily
single detached
263
/ Medium income
183.0
primarily
mixed dwelling
256
/ Medium
income
248.6
primarily
mixed dwelling
257
/ Medium
income
289.3
primarily
multiple dwelling
260
/
Low
income
202.6
primarily
multiple dwelling
147.6
89.3
60.2
133.2
47.5
68.1
65.2
41.6
32.9
53.5
I6.4J
33. 6^
^Apartment buildings do not have Blue Boxes
TABLE 21:
AN ESTIMATION OF THE "CAPTURE RATE" OF THE
BLUE BOX PROGRAM
IN EACH STUDY EA IN THE
BOROUGH OF EAST YORK
EA
/ Classification
present
in
the data from
the Town
of Fergus because
the refuse from
tenants
was bagged
but
not compacted.
The data
for
the middle income population
in
the Town
of
Fergus
indicates
a
convincing
trend,
suggesting
that
more
food
waste
is generated by
the
residents
of detached
dwellings than those
living
in
multiple
dwellings.
The
potential
underestimation
of
the
quantity
of
the
components
in
the
residential
refuse
from
multiple
dwellings
in
the Borough
of
East York,
will exaggerate the difference
in kitchen waste generation
rates
in the
detached versus
multiple
dwelling
data.
As
the
food waste
fraction
is
the
only
fraction
of
the
residential waste
stream
where
there
is some
statistical
confidence,
the
per
capita
generation
of
food
waste
by
the Town
of Fergus and
the Borough
of
East York
are compared
in
the
right hand column
of Table 22.
EA matrix weighting factors were employed
to
obtain an
overall estimate
of the per
capita generation
rate
of food waste
in
the two
municipalities.
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
the
per
capita
generation
rate
of
kitchen
waste
in
the
Town
of
Fergus,
0.23
kg/cap/day,
represented
28.8%
of
the
residential
waste
stream
(see
Table
14),
while
the
comparable
values
for the Borough
of
East York were:
0.25
kg, cap/day and 25.5%.
3.11
White Goods and Bulk Items: Estimation of Per Caorta Generation Rates
Data were collected from 10 communities regarding tonnages of white goods and
non-metal
bulk
items generated.
Data
for non-metal
bulk
items
collected were
available
for only 4
of the
10 communities.
Generation
rates (tonne capita'year)
were based
on
population
data
for
1985 and
1988 as
reported
in
the
Ontario
Municipal
Directory.
3.11.1
White Goods Generation Rate
The average
generation
rate
for
white goods
(metal
appliances
etc.)
is 0.0015
(tonne, capita year)
±0.00018
(data
in Appendix
F).
3-8
<u
c
3.11.2
Non-Metal
Bulk ttem Generation Rate
The
average
generation
rate
for
other
bulk
items
(non-metal)
is
0.0172
(tonne/capita/year)
±0.0032
(data
in Appendix
F).
3-9
SECTION 4
DISCUSSION
4.0
DISCUSSION
4.1
General
The methods developed
in the present Study are based on the hypothesis
that
residential waste generation
is a function
of people's habits and
lifestyles.
Both
economic
status and type
of housing are two
factors
that may
influence waste
generation
patterns;
cultural
background
is
another.
As
mentioned
in
the
Introduction,
this working hypothesis
is
well supported by the data
of W.
Rathje
and associates and their pioneering studies
in the
cities of Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
and
later,
in
Phoenix,
Arizona
(refs.
34, 35 &
36).
The
scope
of
the
present
study
precluded
an
opportunity
to
profile
the
residential waste generation characteristics of a single municipality with the depth
and
detail
achieved
by
Rathje
and
associates.
Nevertheless,
the
essential
elements
that we
have
presented
herein
are
sufficient
for
any
municipality
in
Ontario
to use as
guidelines
in the development
of a detailed
residential waste
study.
In
the
following
paragraphs
we
will
critically
review
the
methods
that
we
employed so
that
potential users
of the procedures can have the advantage
of
our experience.
In some cases, the need
for refinement
in sampling procedures
will be
identified; suggestions
will be
offered.
One
of the major problems
that
we
encountered
was
attributed
to
municipal
recycling
programs
that
served
residents
of detached
dwellings
but
not apartment
buildings, and
the
sampling
problems created by these
practices.
4.2
Income
/ Housing
Matrix For the Three Study
Municipalities
The EAs
from each
municipality were
placed
into
the
appropriate
cells
of
the
income housing
matrix
(cf.
Table
4)
in
Sections
2.2.1.2
to
2.2.1.6.
The
4-1
procedure
for
determining
the
"absolute"
numerical,
or
dollar,
boundaries
between
the
low,
medium
and
high
income
groups
was
also
described
in
Section
2.2.1.2
and
Figure
3 compares
the
income
boundaries
for
the
three
municipalities. The boundary between the low and middle income groups
for the
three
municipalities ranged from $27,670
to $28,400,
a narrow spread
of about
$1,200.
However,
there was
a much
greater spread
of about $5,700 between
the middle and
high income boundaries.
In
other words,
a
large
portion
of the
high income grouping
for the Town
of Fergus would be considered
part
of the
middle
income
grouping
for
the
Borough
of
East
York.
Is
this
an
important
factor
to consider
while
evaluating the method employed
in
the present Study?
No,
it
is
not.
The
following
points
highlight
the
socio-demographic
features
of
the approach.
1.
Each
municipal
population
was
objectively
assessed
with
respect
to
available
Statistics Canada data on income and
housing.
2.
Low,
middle
and
high
income
brackets
are
relative
to
individual
municipalities and are based on the mean income which was calculated
from
Statistics Canada
information
on
the
average
income
within
the
EAs of the municipality.
Other important parameters such as population
age,
sex,
ethnic
background,
etc.
could
also be used
in
designing
a
residential waste
sampling program,
given
time, budget and manpower
to pursue
a
study
at
this
level
of
detail.
3.
Residential
waste
generation
is
a complex
social phenomenon
which
cannot be quantified
with the accuracy and precision that
is comfortable
and familiar to engineering and
scientific disciplines.
Nevertheless, there
are
acknowledged
"parameters"
which
have
been
shown
to
be
correlated
with
residential waste generation
habits
(cf.
Rathje's
studies,
refs.
34, 35 &
36, among
others).
As long as municipalities take these
parameters
into account when they
are evaluating
their own,
individual
4-2
population's
waste
generation
characteristics,
the
appropriate
waste
nrianagement programs can be
planned.
4.3
"Verification"
of the Method
Verification
of
the
results
of
a
scientific
investigation may be
carried
out
in
a
number
of
ways.
The
investigator may
repeat
the
initial
work
several
times,
under the same conditions,
in order to determine the reproducibility of the results
and the
reliability
of the method.
In order to avoid any personal
bias,
the work
maybe
carried
out by
others,
following the procedures
initially described by
the
original
investigator.
Complications
arise
when
the
phenomenon
under
observation investigation undergoes periodic
fluctuations,
or
is
at least suspected
of such
oscillations
or changes.
In
this case, choosing the
right time
to repeat
the
work
may
be
a
critical
factor
in
evaluating
both
the
results
and
the
worthiness
of
the method.
Frequently,
alternative procedures may be used
to
confer confidence
or non-confidence on
the method under
scrutiny.
In the present Study, we have worked
to develop a method
to characterize and
quantify
a
social phenomenon:
residential waste
generation.
With
respect
to
the
amplitude
in the annual
cycle
in waste
generation.
Figure
1-2
in
Vesilind &
Reimer
(ref. 47)
indicates
that,
for 75%
of
the year the weekly generation
rate
will be
within
+
10%
of
the
yearly
average.
The
residential
data
reported
by
Brickner
(ref.
7)
supports
this
notion.
The waste composition
Studies
reported
herein were conducted
during the summer,
fall and
winter; and
in southwestern
and
in
a more
northerly
portion
of
Ontario.
From
a
theoretical
point
of
view,
if
one
wanted
to
check
the
accuracy
of
the
waste
data
and
determine
the
variance of the estimate, the same seasonal "windows" and geographic locations
would have
to be
studied
for
several years
in a
row.
A
municipality may choose
to
undertake
this
yearly
monitoring
for purposes
of
tracking
progress
in
waste
reduction
initiatives.
We
(the
Study)
could
not
4-3
undertake
this
task
ourselves.
A
yearly
monitoring
program
would
have
to
decide whether,
for example, an observed
reduction
in waste generation was a
result
of:
(1)
packaging
laws
or
consumer
purchasing
practices
(2)
social
changes
in
the community
or
(3)
the methodology employed.
However,
an
attempt
was made
to
verify
the
Study
estimates
of
per
capita
waste
generation
for
the Town
of
Fergus
by
piecing
together waste
collection
estimates from commercial haulers
for the same time period (see Section
3.1.1).
Allowing
for the
uncertainties
in the
information assembled
in
the
latter manner-
~and making some assumptions about yard waste generation-- it seems that the
Study method
for
estimating
the
per
capita waste
generation
rate,
exclusive
of
yard waste and
leaves,
yielded an
acceptable
result.
4.4
Apartment
Buildings: Source
of Greatest Number
of Problems
We
have
identified
some
of
the
problems
that
may
potentially
affect
the
estimation
of
both
the
per
capita
waste
generation
rate
and
the
percent
composition
of
the waste
stream.
Per
Capita Waste Generation
Rate
Within
a
similar income
grouping
in
the income housing
matrix,
the
per
capita
waste
generation
rates
that we determined
for
residents
of apartment
buildings
were
usually
lower than those determined
for
the
residents
of
largely detached
dwellings.
While we
believe
that
the
results
underlie
real
differences
in
the
lifestyles between residents
of apartment buildings and detached dwellings (Note:
anecdotal evidence
of geographers supports
this conclusion,
although according
to
Dr.
J.
Simmons,
Geography
Department,
University
of
Toronto,
(pers.
commun.), there
is a paucity
of documented observations], there
is one potential
source
of
error
which
could
lead
to
a
low
estimate
of
the
per
capita
waste
generation
rate.
4-4
We employed
the
Statistics Canada
data
for
the
average
population
per
unit
dwellings
in
the EAs and we have assumed
that
all
of
the
inhabitants
of
the
apartment
units
contributed
refuse.
We
did
not
verify
the assumption
of
100°'o
refuse
"set out"
by every apartment
unit.
In the case
of the small apartments
in
the Town
of
Fergus and
the
City
of
North
Bay, we checked
the number
of
units occupied
in each
building.
For the Borough
of East York, we know
(pers.
commun.,
Dr.
J.
Simmons)
that
the
vacancy
rate
of
apartments
(in
Metro
Toronto)
is
exceedingly
low
and
therefore
the
residential
population
in
the
apartments may be
accurately
reflected
by
multiplying
the number
of
units
by
the average population
per
unit, using
Statistics Canada data
for the appropriate
EA.
In
our
Study,
the
weight
of
refuse
generated
by
the
East
York
apartment
buildings,
that were EAs unto themselves, was the sum
of:
1)
-
the
quantity
of
refuse removed from
the refuse containers
for waste composition analyses and
2)
-
the
weight
of
remaining
refuse
in
the
containers.
The
latter
weight was
reported
by
the
hauler
at
the time
of weigh-in and
disposal
of
the
apartment's
refuse
at
the
Bermondsey
Transfer
Station.
It
is
possible,
but
unlikely,
that
significant
errors
in the weighing
resulted
in the low per
capita generation
rates
calculated
tor the two apartment EAs
in
the Borough
of
East
York.
The most
likely source
of
error was,
therefore,
the assumption
that
refuse was
contributed from every
unit.
If
this was not
true, then we have under estimated
the
per
capita
waste
generation,
(i.e.,
the
total
weight
of
refuse
should
have
been
divided by
a
smaller
population
of waste-disposing
tenants).
The composition and per capita generation
rate
attributed
to apartment buildings
may be
influenced
by two
kinds
of
tenant
population
dynamics.
First,
tenant
turn-over
normally
occurs
at
the end
of every
month,
therefore
the amount
of
waste
generated
by
tenants coming and
going
will be
higher than
the normal
waste generation
rate.
Second,
the
largest number
of tenant changes occur
at
the end
of the school year (May-June) and again
at the end
of August.
These
4-5
are two
periods when
per
capita
generation
rates
in
apartment
buildings
could
be expected
to exceed
the normal
yearly average.
Waste Composition:
Potential Sampling
Biases
The
refuse
generated
in apartment
buildings
in
the Town
of Fergus and
small
apartment
buildings (<
30
units)
in the Borough
of East York and
City
of North
Bay
was
not
compacted.
Random
samples
were
unbiasedly
taken
from
accumulations
of
this household
or
"unit"
refuse.
In
Section
2.1 we noted
the
lack
of a Blue Box
collection
for apartment buildings
in the Town
of Fergus and
the
set-out
of
recyclable
materials
by
some
of
the
tenants
of
the
small
apartment
buildings
in
the Borough
of
East
York.
In contrast however, the household refuse was compacted
in the two "apartment
EAs"
in
the Borough
of
East
York.
We
think
that
the
combination
of
refuse
compacting
and
the
lack
of
Blue
Box
programs
for
these
buildings
jointly
contributed
to
a
waste
sampling
bias
at
these
locations.
The
difficulty
in
removing "random" samples from
the compacted
bins may be
attributed
to;
1)
an
overwhelming
quantity
of
newsprint,
co-mingled
with
other
refuse
[because
there
was
no
Blue
Box
(waste
management
alternative)
program
in
these
premises];
2)
wet
refuse
which
was
generally
bagged
in
polyethylene
supermarket
shopping
bags.
The
bags
were
lodged
(compacted
with
other
refuse)
in ways which made
it
difficult
to remove them
without
tearing.
When
bags
were
torn,
the
contents
became
distributed
over
the
refuse
in
a
bin,
making
quantitative
retrieval
of the
spilled waste
very
difficult.
We encountered
many
bags
that
were
already
torn,
presumably
a
result
of
the
compacting
process.
Thus,
the
60
and
40
kg
quantities
of
refuse
that
were
taken
for
the
waste
composition analysis were predisposed
to have a
larger weight of newsprint and
a lower quantity
of waste contained
in small polyethylene bags
for a combination
of
reasons:
1)
no
alternative
disposal
for
the
newsprint was
at
hand
for
the
4-6
tenants;
2)
it was
easier
to remove
the
newsprint from
the compacted
refuse;
and
3)
for
detached
dwellings,
the
weight
of
Blue
Box
materials
was
not
included as
part
of
refuse
weight
guideline
of
100 kg
that we
collected
at
the
curb
for the waste composition
study.
The
last
factor
(3)
is
critical and
points
out a weakness
in
the methodology.
We recommend
the
following
procedural
change
in
order
to
get around
the sampling
bias.
The
suggested
procedure
relates
the
weight
of
waste
to
be
sampled
with
a
component
in
the
tenant's household
refuse.
The component must meet one
criterion:
it
must
only
be
collected
by
"regular
garbage"
service,
with
no
options
for
diversion
(i.e..
Blue
Box).
At
the
present
time, we suggest
that
the
food
scrap component
of household
refuse makes the best
"normalization"
basis
or guideline
for
this
kind
of sample
collection.
We
will assume from experience
that food waste
represents
about
27%
of
the
household
waste
and
it
always
is
disposed
of
in
the
"regular
garbage".
For
the
time
being we
will
also assume
that backyard composting
is
not an
option
practised
extensively by
residents
in apartment
buildings.
We can
still apply the 60
/ 40
ratio
to determine the
relative quantities of waste
to sample on days one and two,
respectively.
On day one, we would randomly
remove
sufficient refuse from the compacted waste so that the sample contained
a minimum
of 27%
x
60,
or
approximately
16
kg
of bagged
refuse
with
food
scraps,
irrespective
of
the
quantity
of
newsprint
(and
all
other
materials)
that
were
collected
during
the random
sampling.
The same procedure could be used on day two, except
that 27%
x
40,
or
1
1
kg
of
bagged
refuse
with
food
scraps
could
have
been
collected
as
the
guideline
for
the sample
size.
In
this way,
the two samples would have been
"normalized"
with
respect
to
the
general
low percentage
of newsprint
that was
found
in
residential
"regular
garbage"
wherever
municipal
Blue
Box
programs
were
in place.
Of course the weight
of newsprint (and
all other materials) would
4-7
be recorded as usual, but the distortion
of the percent composition results would
be
minimized.
This
point
is considered
further
in
Section
4.5.
4.5
Percent Composition: A Useful
or Confusing Concept?
Is
"percent
composition"
a
useful
or
a
confusing
concept?
The
report
by
Brickner
(ref.
7)
illustrates
the
major
issue
raised
by
the
question,
that
is:
the
quantitative
"illusion"
created
by
manipulating
absolute
quantities
of
per
capita
generated
wastes
in
relative
terms
of
a
percentage
of
an
arbitrarily
defined,
"total"
waste
stream.
In
Table
2
of
ref.
7,
there
are
four
quantities
(total
weights)
of materials
in the waste stream.
Brickner shows that while the weight
of a component does
not change,
its
"percent"
contribution
to
the
total waste
stream may be made
to change, depending on
the NUMBER
of
categories
of
components
in
the
waste
stream.
The
lesson
from
this
is
that
waste
composition
data, presented as "percentage"
of the
total waste stream
are
not
readily comparable
if the same components are
not present
in the sets
of data
under
comparison.
One
may
attempt
to
adjust
waste
composition
data
by
eliminating
or combining
categories
of
materials.
However,
if
certain
materials
are
presented
in
combination
at
the
outset,
e.g.,
a
single
category
for
both
food &
yard wastes,
useful
manipulations are
precluded.
The
conversion
of
finite
quantities
of
a
given
waste
to
a
percentage
basis,
subjects
the
particular
material
to
a
mathematical
relationship
of
"interconnectedness"
which
does
not
exist
in
terms
of
the
generation
of
the
waste.
The
sizing
of
waste
management
facilities
(e.g.,
materials
recovery
facilities
for
recyclables,
centralized
or
backyard
composting
facilities,
etc.)
is
based
on
the
best
estimates
of
quantities
of
certain
waste
streams
that
are
generated
in
a
municipality.
The
graphic,
frequently
pie-shaped
depiction
of
waste
composition
data
(see
references
cited
for some
of
the
data
in
Tables
1 &
2),
is
visually appealing
but does
not convey the important information
that
planners
of
waste management
facilities
need
to
know.
An
example
of
the
4-8
distortion
that can
result
from
using
percentage
calculations,
without
providing
quantitative,
per
capita
generation
rates
of
the
individual
components,
is
illustrated
in the handling
of yard waste data (see also Tables
1 & 2
in Brickner;
ref.
7).
A temporal component must be
included
as
well.
Yard waste
production and
leaf
fall
are
seasonal
events
in
Ontario.
In some
municipalities,
a
finite
and
sometimes
large
quantity
of
yard
waste
can
be
collected
during
spring
and
early summer
(in some
wet
years;
and
in
areas where
there
is
no
lawn and
garden
watering
prohibition).
Likewise,
there
is
an
annual
leaf
drop
and
collection
in the
fall
in areas
of
municipalities where there are mature trees
(not
in new
sub-divisions
or on the grounds
of many apartment complexes).
Approximately
1,100
tonnes
of
leaves were
collected
by
the
Borough
of
East
York,
which
works
out
to
an
average
of
0.01
kg
of
leaves cap day--or
0.02
lbs/person, day.
For municipal waste management purposes, the amortization
of
the tonnage
of leaves and yard waste over the
entire year,
in order
to calculate
a
daily
per
capita
generation
rate
is very
misleading.
Leaves and
yard waste
are
not
generated
by
residents
on
this
kind
of
basis.
Likewise,
it
is
equally
misleading
to record leaves and yard wastes as some annual percentage
of an
overall
waste
stream.
A
hypothetical
centralized
composting
facility
that was
sized
for a
daily feed
rate
of leaves would be grossly
undersized.
In
fact,
the
entire
annual
tonnage
of
leaves may be
expected
to
arnve
over
a
period
of
approximately
3-4 weeks.
The
latter
arrival
rate
of leaves
will be an
important
factor
in
formulating
alternative waste management
plans
for
their
disposal.
A
similar argument may be made
with respect
to the seasonal generation
of yard
wastes.
In summary,
residential
waste
generation
is
the
result
of human
activities;
the
"necessities-and some
luxuries-of
life".
The
"residues"
that
remain
after
a
single
day
of
living
can
be
categorized
and
quantified.
Essential
waste
management
practices--current
and
planned--require
quantitative
information
4-9
about
the
specific
types
of
residues wfiose
production
is
properly documented
over
"real"
generation
periods,
i.e.,
day,
week
or
month.
Percentage
composition adds
nothing
useful
to
this
basic
quantitative
information;
rather,
it
is a mathematical manipulation
of the data that ultimately requires an explanation.
Waste composition data presented
in
a percentage format are
only
useful when
the
physical
quantity,
e.g.,
per
capita generation
rate, tonnages
etc.,
of
at
least
one component
of the waste stream
is
also
indicated.
4.6
The
Blue
Box: A Waste Management Option
That
Presents Problems
In Waste Composition Data Handling
The presence
of the Blue Box
"option"
for setting out certain recyclable portions
of
residentially
generated
refuse
at
the
curb
has
presented
some
significant
problems
for
this
study
in
two
areas:
1)
the
general
calculation
of
per
capita
generation
rates
for
sectors
of
municipal
populations
which
have
a
Blue
Box
program;
2) the
estimation
of the
efficiency
of
Blue Box programs
to
"capture"
those
recyclables
that
are
part
of
a
municipal
program
and
3)
the
general
residential
waste
sampling
problems
encountered
in
apartment
buildings
(discussed above
in
Section
4.3).
As noted
in Section
2.2.4.2,
a number
of municipal
recycling coordinators were
interviewed
in
order
to determine
a
reasonable
estimate
of
the
frequency
with
which
residents
of detached
dwellings
put
out
their
Blue
Boxes.
While many
sources
of
variations
in
frequency were
noted,
an
overall
impression was
that
a
bi-weekly
set-out
frequency was
not
unreasonable
as
an
average
estimate.
Given
this assumption, how were the weights
of the
Blue Box
materials
to be
calculated
into
the
estimated
average
per
capita
generation
rates
and
waste
composition?
We have reasoned
that a conservative estimate
is
preferred and
have therefore divided the weights
of the Blue Box items by
2.
This calculation
attempts
to account
for the randomness
of
Blue Box
set-out by any
individual
and
tries to provide an allowance for an
"error factor", necessitated by the small
sample
of residents.
That
is,
the Study Team
typically collected bagged refuse
4-10
from
7-10
dwellings
with
Blue Boxes coming from
a
varied
proportion
of these
dwellings.
If our sample population were on the order of 100 or more dwellings,
then,
given
an
average
bi-weekly
set-out
frequency, one would
anticipate
that
approximately 50%
of
the dwellings would have placed there Blue Boxes
at the
curb each week.
Therefore the weekly
quantity
of
Blue Box
materials,
set
out
by
50°o
of
the
population,
would
be
a
reasonable
estimate
of
the
weekly
generation
rate by the
entire
100
or more
dwellings.
In
the case
of our
small
samples, we
felt
it was better to
err on the low, or conservative
side, and divide
the weight
by
two.
4.7
Random Sampling--When To Exclude Large Objects From the Sample
CoHection
The
statistical concept
of "optimum
allocation
in
cluster analysis"
is
relevant
to
the
practical
problem
which
field crews
face
in
a
sampling program
like
ours.
For example, an
old
oil burner
unit was
set
out
at curbside, along
with bagged
waste.
The
question
arose as
to whether
to
include
this
item as
part
of
our
100
kg
sample
or
whether
to
record
the
weight
of
this
item
and
treat
it
separately,
like
yard
waste.
The
answer
is
based
on
empirical
experience
with
respect
to
the
standard
deviation
of the expected average weight
(or percent composition)
of the metal
fraction
in
the
residential waste
stream.
We know
from
literature
reports
that
metal
is a
relatively minor component
in household garbage; the average weight
of
metal
would
also
have
an
associated
standard
deviation.
Discarded
oil
burners
are
not
a
commonly
encountered
component
in
residential
curbside
waste and
its weight does
not
fall
within the standard
deviation
of the average
weights
of metal
that have been
historically encountered.
Because we
are
only
collecting
100
kg
quantities
(approximately)
of
curbside
waste,
inclusion
of
the
oil
burner
weight
would
have
the
secondary
effect
of
reducing
the
relative
(proportional)
weight
of
other components
that we
would
4-11
collect
to
achieve
the
100
kg
total.
(NOTE:
this
is
similar
to
the
problem
encountered
with
large
quantities
of newsprint
in
the apartment
building EAs
in
the
Borough
of
East
York
where
there
are
no
Blue
Box
programs
and
also
relates to the discussion
of yard wastes.)
Calculation of the percent composition
for this sample would reveal a skew toward lower than average values
for items
normally encountered
at a
higher percent
in
the
residential waste
stream.
The
optimal
allocation
for sample weights
within
clusters
(ref.
19)
is
as
follows:
ni
=
Op
=
.
.
.
=
Hi.
hH
N2S2
N,^Sk
Where
n|^
=
sample weight of waste component
(cluster)
S|^
= expected population
standard deviation
''k
=
total
weight of waste component available
for
sampling
(cluster)
The
inclusion
of a
large
oil
burner causes
the
fraction
for miscellaneous metal
to
upset the
optimal
allocation
function.
The
only
solutions
to
this problem are
to increase the sum
of
[N.|...Nj^]
(i.e.
total sample
weight),
or
to
omit the
large
item,
a
priori
,
from
the
sample.
4.8
Detemiininq the Number
of Samples
to
Collect
4.8.1
The
Original
Klee & Carruth
(1970) Working
Definition
of
"Organics":
Perpetuation
of
Half the
Story Can be
Misleading
For the
record,
it
is
important
to
note
that
certain
details
in the
important work
of Klee & Carruth
(ref. 25) came to
light
in the
later report
of Woodyard &
Klee
(ref.
48).
The
latter
paper came
to
our
attention
after
our
Study
was
well
underway
and
shows
a
graph
depicting
the
range
of
numbers
of
200
-
300
lb. (90-1 36
kg.)
samples
that
must
be
analyzed
with
respect
to
the
relative
4-12
composition
of
particular
constituents
in
the
waste
stream.
Graphs
of
these
relationships have appeared
in the published
literature
(ref. 47, Figure
1-6; Figure
1
herein)
and
in
an
unpublished
manuscript,
courtesy
of
Mr.
A.
Geswein,
U.S.E.P.A.
(pers. commun.).
More
important
is
the
terminology
that was employed
by Woodyard
and
Klee
(ref.
48)
in
the
classification
of
the
components
in
the
waste
stream.
The
following
five
categories were
used:
organics
(wet garbage,
yard waste, mixed
paper,
plastic and
rubber);
metal
(ferrous, aluminum
and/or
other
nonferrous);
glass
(mixed
or
colour
sorted);
newsprint
corrugated
Of
interest
Is the wide
variety
of items under the category
of "organics".
While
Klee
and
coworkers
were
chemically
correct
in
their
assignments
to
this
category, the present "conventions" generally separate these items
into individual
categories
(perhaps
with
the
exclusion
of wet garbage and
yard wastes which
are frequently combined; see Table
1,
herein).
By combining as many materials
as they
did under
the heading
of
"organics"
the
relative weight
of
this
fraction
of
the
waste
stream was
greatly
increased,
vis-à-vis
a
conservative
definition
that
restricts
"organics"
to
just
kitchen
or
food
wastes.
The
implications
for
the
original Woodyard &
Klee
category
is
that fewer 200
- 300
lb. (90-1 36
kg.)
samples were needed
in order
to achieve a precision
of
±
10%, than
presently
would be needed
for an
"organic"
category
with
only
food wastes
in
it,
as
in
our
Study.
The
broader
definition
of
organics
used
by
Klee
and
coworkers
would
have
application
if
waste
composition
information was
to be
evaluated
with
respect
to
the
incineration
of waste
streams.
At the
outset
of the
Study, we were unaware
of the Woodyard and Klee paper
and assumed-incorrectly-that
the
term
organics,
shown
on
the
graphs
noted
4-13
above was
restricted
to
the more
conventional usage
of present
day.
Hence,
our curb-side sampling
plan
called
for 9
-
10 samples
of 90
-
136 kg each
in
order
to give
a
precision
with
respect
to
the organic
fraction
(by our
definition)
of
±
1 0%
.
Estimated
Percent Composition:
Kitchen Waste
The
number
of
samples
taken
in
the
study
for
the
purposes
of
estimating
percent composition
of household waste was based on
the
results
reported
by
Klee &
Carruth
(ref.
25).
It
is
possible,
however,
to determine
the number
of
samples
required
to
estimate the
percent composition
of waste
within a
stated
confidence
level
for the
population under
study.
These
calculations are
carried
out
in
exactly
the same manner
as
the
calculations
to
estimate
the
required
sample
size
for
the
estimation
of
per
capita
generation
rate
(see
section
4.8.2
below).
Using
the Borough
of
East York as an example,
the
following
calculation can
be made
to determine the number
of EAs that must be sampled
to achieve the
desired
estimate
of
the
percent
composition
of
kitchen
waste.
In
this
case,
percent
composition
will
be
estimated
at
a
precision
of
±
15%,
with
a 90%
probability
(confidence
level).
The
following
statistical
relationships
apply:
,2
n = (ts/d)'
where:
n
=
number
of
required samples
t
=
t-value
at
the
required
confidence
level,
with
appropriate degrees
of freedom
s
=
estimation
of
the
population
standard
deviation
d
=
precision
requirement
for
the estimate
of
the
population
parameter
4-14
For example
in
East York
the
following
calculation can be
nnade:
X
=
24.0%
(%
food waste)
(unweighted mean)
s
=
5.194
(unweighted
standard
deviation)
alpha
=
0.1
(for 90%
confidence
level)
alpha/2
=
0.05
(two-tail
test
of confidence)
degrees
of freedom
=(n-1) = 6
t-value
=
1.943
n
=
((1.943
X
5.194)
/
(24.4
x
0.1))^
n
=
17.7
The
t-value
at
n = 18,
(t
=
1.740.
d.f.
=
17),
is
less
than
n = 7
(t
=
1.943),
therefore, a
better approximation
of the required sample
size can be
calculated.
By
reiteration
of
the above
steps
for
n =
1 8, and
n =
1 4,
the new approximation
of the
required sample
size
is
n = 14.7.
A
final
calculation
finds:
n
=15
t
=
1.761
d.f.
=
14
n
=
((1.761
X
5.194)
!
(24.0
x
0.1))^
n
=
14.5
confirming the
approximation.
In
the case
of
the Borough
of
East
York,
8
additional EAs would be
required
for
sampling
to
achieve
the
accuracy
desired
for
the
food
waste
component.
These EAs could be selected randomly from the
list
of
all possible EAs, or they
could be apportioned
over
all
the
matrix
cells.
In the Town
of Fergus, the number
of EAs required
for sampling
to achieve the
stated
accuracy
is
only
5
(calculations
not
shown).
This
indicates
that
the
number
of
samples
actually
taken
(6) was more
than
enough
to
achieve
an
estimate
at
the
stated
accuracy.
No
calculations were
attempted
for
the
City
of
North Bay due
to the
limited
nature
of the
data.
4-15
4.8.2
Determining
the Appropriate Numbei
of EAs
to Sample For
the Accuracy
of Percentage Waste Generation Rates Required
The
following
points may be noted about
the method:
1.
Each
EA
selected
for
study
was
chosen
at
random
by
Décima
Research,
based
on
Statistics
Canada
information,
as
described
in
Section
2.2.1.
In
the
case
of
the
Borough
of
East
York,
if
the EA
turned
out
to have
too
small
a
population
for
us
to
sample.
Décima
rejected the EA and randomly chose another.
If the EA turned
out
to
present sampling problems because the
dwellings were
mostly
located
over
store-fronts, we reported
this
to Décima and they randomly chose
a
replacement.
As
noted
earlier
in
the
report,
waste
generated
in
apartment
units over stores was co-mingled
with waste from the
stores.
These
locations are
not
easily included
in a
residential waste sampling
program.
2.
In the Borough
of East York, where there was such a
large number
of
EAs
in each income dwelling
matrix
cell,
it would have been
desirable
to
sample
more
than
one EA
per
cell--time,
manpower and
budget
permitting.
Using
the
standard
deviation
of
the
average
per
capita
generation
rates computed
for
all 7 EAs, we can
calculate the number
of EAs that we may theoretically wish
to sample
in the Borough
of East
York
if
we
wanted
to
obtain
an
accuracy
of
±
10%
with
a 90%
confidence
level
for
the
estimate
of
the average
per
capita generation
rate.
4-16
The
following
relationships
apply:
n
=
(ts/d)^
where:
n
=
number
of
required
sannples
t
=
t-value
at
required confidence
level,
with
appropriate degrees
of freedom
s
=
estimate
of the
population
standard
deviation
d
=
precision
requirement
for estimate
of
population parameter
From our sample
of 7 EAs,
the
following
results were
obtained:
X
=
1.039
(kg/cap/day)
(unweighted sample mean)
s
=
0.188
(unweighted standard
deviation)
alpha
=
0.1
(for 90%
confidence
level)
alpha/2
=
0.05
(two-tail
test
of confidence)
degrees
of freedom
=(n-1) = 6
t-value
=
1.943
n
=
((1.943
X
0.188)
/
(1.03
x
0.1))^
n
=
12.6
The
t-value
at
n = 13
(t
=
1.782;
d.f.
=
12)
is much
less than
at n = 7
(t
=
1.943),
therefore a
better approximation
of
the
required sample
size can be
calculated.
By
reiteration
of the above
steps
for n = 13,
the new
approximation
of the
required sample
size
is
n = 1 1
.
A
final
calculation
finds:
n
=
11
t
=
1.812
d.f.
=
10
n
=
((1.812
X
0.188)
/
(1.03
x
0.1))^
n
=
10.9
confirming the
approximation.
4-17
In
the Borough
of
East
York,
only 3
additional EAs would be
required
to
achieve
the accuracy
sought.
These EAs could be randomly
selected from
the
list
of
ail
possible
EAs,
or they could be
selected from
the
matrix
cells
with
the
largest number
of
EAs.
In
the Town
of
Fergus,
the number
of EAs
required
for sampling
to achieve
the
stated accuracy
is
17
(calculations
not shown).
This
large number poses
a problem
as
there
are
not
17 EAs
in
Fergus.
One
suggestion would be
to
resample EAs
at
regular
intervals
until
the
required number
of EAs have been
sampled.
No
calculations were attempted
for
North Bay due
to
the
limited
nature
of the
data.
4.9
White Goods: General Comments On Generation Rates Reported
Generation
rates
for both
white goods and non-metal
bulk
items
varies
substantially from community
to community and
from
year
to
year.
This can
be
attributed
to a
variety
of
reasons,
several
of which were
identified
in
our
discussions
with
the community
officials.
Notable causes
for
differences
are:
1.
Type
of
collection
service.
Some communities
collect white goods
and
bulk
items year
round,
while
other communities have
only
a
spring/fall
bulk
collection.
2.
Commitment
to
recycling.
Communities promoting
recycling
of
white
goods
for scrap metal
(e.g.
Toronto)
reported
increases
in tonnages
collected as the
recycling program became more
established.
3.
Definition
of a
"bulky"
item
requiring
special
collection.
Depending
on
the
municipal waste
collection
policy, some
items
that
are
treated
as
bulk
or
special
pick-up
items
in one community may be
collected
with
regular curbside waste
in communities
that have
a
"take
all"
collection
policy.
4-18
SECTION 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
General
The Study methodology may be used by
individual municipalities wishing to assess
their own
residential waste
streams.
It may be
helpful
for a
municipality
to
retain
professional
expertise
to
assist
in
the
assessment
of
the
Statistics
Canada
information on income, dwelling type and any other socio-economic parameters that
the municipality has the time and budget
to incorporate
into
their residential waste
sampling program.
The
actual
collection and
sorting
of
residential waste can be
earned
out by
municipal employees who have
received
the
proper
instruction on
waste
classification and
other
field techniques.
5.2
Conclusions
The
results
of
the
residential waste
study
presented
herein
lead
to
the
following
conclusions.
1)
Municipalities
in Ontario are implementing a number
of waste diversion options
for
residents
--
notably,
Blue Box and
backyard
composting
--
as
the waste
management
strategies
of
municipalities
continue
to change.
As
the number
of
waste
diversion
options
increase,
the
chances
of
obtaining
an
accurate
baseline
of waste
generation
data
decreases.
Where
there was
formerly
a
single waste stream coming
from
residences on a
predictable and scheduled
basis,
now there may be two
or more curbside waste streams, and
possibly
a another stream directed
to a backyard composter.
Therefore, there
is more
potential
for error
in waste composition studies conducted
in
municipalities that
are
aggressively
pursuing
waste
diversion
programs
(e.g.
Fergus
and
East
York) than
in those
that have
yet
to implement such programs -- and where
there
is
still a
single
residential waste
stream.
5-1
2)
Given
an
understanding
of
the
reality
of
residential
waste
stream
partitioning
noted
above,
the
residential
waste
assessment
procedures
for
detached
dwellings
included
an
estimated
allocation
for
Blue
Box
materials.
Waste
assessment of residential populations residing
in multi-unit dwellings (apartments)
presented
additional challenges
in data collection.
Per capita waste generation
rates
were
obtained
for
both
residential
groups;
however,
a
need
for
improvement
in sampling procedures was identified
for large apartment buildings
(East
York) where
refuse was compacted.
3)
The per capita waste generation
rates (excluding yard wastes and bulky items)
for
the
three
municipalities
appeared
to
vary
with
population:
Fergus
0.80
kg capita day;
North
Bay
0.93
kg capita day;
East
York
0.99
kg capita day.
However,
municipal
population
is
probably
only a
superficial
correlate and
not
causally
related
to the waste generation process.
For example, the weight
(kg)
of the newspapers
collected
in
East York, versus Fergus, may
partially explain
the
higher per
capita
generation
rate
(kg person day)
in
East York
(Table
14).
Some
of the
difference may
also be
attributed
to seasonal
factors.
4)
The method
used
in
the
Study
has
revealed
apparent
differences
in
the
per
capita waste
generation
rates
within
income
groups.
More
waste
(excluding
yard waste and bulky waste) appears to be generated by residents
of detached
dwellings
than
by
apartment
dwellers
(Table
22).
However,
no
easily
discernable
pattern
could
be
detected
in
the
per
capita
generation
rates
between
different income groups.
More detailed sampling
in each
municipality
would
be
needed
to
determine
any
potential
income
effects
on
waste
generation
characteristics.
5)
It
is
interesting
to note
that there
is very
little
difference
in average per
capita
generation
rates
of
kitchen
waste
for
Fergus,
North
Bay and
East
York. The
respective
values
are;
0.23,
0.24 and
0.25
kg capita day
(Table
22).
When
the
kitchen
waste
fractions
were computed
as
a
percent
of
the
total
5-2
composition
of
the
residential
waste
stream,
Fergus
showed
a
higher
percentage
than
East York and
North
Bay: Fergus 28.8 %
versus,
East York
25.5 %
and
North Bay 26.0 %.
Again,
larger
quantities
of
other components
in
the
East York and
North Bay
residential waste streams
(e.g.
newspapers)
may
explain
the
lower percentage
(or
relative
proportion)
of
kitchen waste
in
the
refuse.
6)
Reliance on
"waste composition
percent"
as the
sole means
of characterizing
waste
can
be
misleading
and
create
more
questions
than
are
actually
answered.
The
per
capita generation
rates
of the
total waste stream and
its
components
are more
important
for planners
of
municipal waste management
programs.
7) The
study demonstrates a cost
effective
residential waste assessment method
that uses readily available equipment and that can be implemented by municipal
staff.
5.3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Municipalities
conducting
waste
composition
study
might
consider
the
following
recommendations
when
designing
the
sampling
protocol
and
implementing
the
study methodology.
1)
For sampling and
sorting convenience,
municipalities may choose
to conduct
the waste composition
studies
in
late
spring
or mid
fall when
refuse odours
are
less intense and maggots are
less
frequently encountered.
According
to
Vesilind & Rimer
(ref.
47), the average
residential waste composition does not
vary by more
than
+
10%
over
three
quarters
of
the
year.
Therefore,
aesthetics
of the working conditions can be taken
into account without
risk
of
obtaining skewed data. The inclusion
of yard waste
in overall residential waste
composition percent
profiles should be avoided so
that baseline composition
5-3
percentages are
not misrepresented.
2)
Municipalities may choose
to
set up independent
collection
systems
to
study
the
seasonal
generation
of
yard
waste
and
leaves.
This
would
require
a
coordinated
effort
between
garbage
collection
personnel,
private
horticultural
firms and
other agencies
generating and
collecting these waste
streams.
3)
In
order
to
avoid
the
sampling
problems
that we encountered
with
the
large
apartment buildings
in East York, where apparent sampling biases were
difficult
to
avoid,
arrangements
could be made,
for example,
with 30
units
within
the
building
to
participate
in
a
refuse
study.
This
would
give
a more
accurate
appraisal
of
the waste
composition
in
these
large
apartment
buildings.
As
a
check, the method described herein
for obtaining the per capita generation rate
for the
entire
building
could then be compared
with
the
per
capita generation
rate
for
the 30
units.
4)
Municipalities
in
Ontario
should
follow
the
waste
composition
procedure
in
conducting
their own waste composition
analysis,
for reasons
of consistent data
generation
using
a
cost
effective
approach.
Periodically,
municipalities
should
conduct
additional
waste
composition
studies
to
monitor
trends
in
residential
waste management and
the
effectiveness
of waste management programs.
5-4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There were many people who contributed
to
this research
project and they are
acknowledged,
hopefully
without omission.
Town
of
Fergus:
The Study crew of Bruno D'Addarlo,
Cila Dadd, Jasmine Essue, Don Tooley and
Andrea
O'Malley were
committed
to
the
task
of
breaking new ground
as
the
Study unfolded, working the bugs out
of the Study methods and labouring under
environmental
conditions
and
logistical
distances
that
were
trying.
They
performed
admirably.
Mr.
George
Woods,
Clerk-Treasurer,
Town
of
Fergus,
and
Mr.
Don
Taylor
(Wellington
Recycling
Group)
gave
their
support
to
our
study
in
the Town
of
Fergus.
Mr.
Adolph
Plein
(Plein
Disposal)
and
Mr.
Peter
Armer
(McLellan
Disposal) were
patient and
went
out
of
their way
to accommodate
the
Study
team's
presence
in
the
Town
of
Fergus.
Their
cooperation
was
greatly
appreciated.
The
staff
in the Engineering Department,
City of Guelph,
particularly, Messrs. Dan
Hoornweg and John
Bull,
smoothly arranged
for the
landfill
site
to be our base
of operations.
The
staff
at the
landfill
site were ready with assistance and
witty
rejoinders, making
the
task a
bit
lighter.
Mr.
Robert
Ferguson, Commissioner
of Works,
Metro
Toronto, gave permission
to
use
the
laboratory
in
the
former
Ontaho
Centre
for
Resource
Recovery
(OCRR)
for
the
moisture
analyses.
Mr.
Brad
Guglietti,
Waste
Management
Branch, MOE, arranged
for
the
loan
of a
Sartorious balance
for
this
work.
Borough
of
East
York:
The
transition
of
the
year
from
fall
to
winter saw
three new
faces;
the
Study
team was; Jasmine Essue
(from
Fergus), Rob
Flindall, Gord McLaren and
Cria
Pettingill.
They were steadfast and dedicated
to
fine tuning
the procedures that
were
initiated
by the Fergus
crew.
The
friendly
cooperation
of
the
East
York
Works
Department,
in
particular:
Messrs.
Paul Cockburn,
Jeff Walker,
Elliot
Hill,
AI Karns and Ms. Kathy
Killinger,
facilitated
the
curbside
collection
of
residential and
school
wastes.
Mr.
Robert
Ferguson,
Commissioner
of
Works,
Metro
Toronto,
gave
us
permission
to
sort
the
East
York
refuse
on
the
tipping
floor
of
the
Commissioners
Street
Incinerator
and
to
continue
using
the
OCRR
for
the
moisture
analyses.
A
& M
Disposal
and
Industrial
Disposal
provided
important
refuse
collection
services
in
this phase
of
the
Study.
City
of
North
Bay:
Rob
Flindall,
Gord
MacLaren
and
Dean
Wilde
(City
employee)
braved
the
elements
to
continue the
refuse
collecting and
sorting
in
this
last phase
of the
residential
Study.
Friendly
cooperation was
demonstrated
by
the
City
of
North
Bay
Engineering
Department,
in
particular,
Mr. John Simmonds.
The
City provided
vehicles,
the
sorting
tent and
the propane
heaters.
In
addition
to
those
noted
above
tor
the
three
municipalities,
we
gratefully
acknowledge
support
and
cooperation
provided
by
Messrs.
Neal
Ahlberg,
REFERENCES
Brendan
Killackey and Dan
lonescu, Waste Management Branch,
Ministry
of the
Environment.
The
Gore and
Storrie team
consisted
of:
Dick
Buggein,
Jeff
Flewelling,
Leslie
MacMillan, Rob
Flindall.
Peter
Kurtz, Barb
St.
Hill,
David
Fox,
Brock
Harrington.
The
team from Décima Research was Messrs.
Ian McKinnon, Russ
Wilton,
Raj
Matuk.
Ill
REFERENCES
1.
American
Public
Works
Association.
1987.
Solid
Waste
Collection
&
Disposai:
1987.
(Summary
Report
of
North
American
Practice
based
on
a
Survey
by
the
Institute
for
Solid
Wastes
of
the
American
Public
Works
Association).
14
pp.
2.
Annon.
1989.
"Canada
vs
the
World;
we
toss
more,
we
save
less".
Intervenor
14(4) :
6.
The
Newsletter
of
the
Canadian
Environmental
Law
Association.
3.
Annual Book
of ASTM
Standards.
1982.
Composition
or
purity
of a
solid
waste
materials
stream.
ASTM
Designation: E
889-82.
4.
Barton,
T.G.
1976.
Refuse
analysis
for
the
Citv
of
Kingston.
Civil
Engineering
Research
Report
No.
76-6.
Royal
Military
College
of
Canada,
Kingston,
Ontario,
iii
+
35
pp.
5.
Bird &
Hale.
1978.
Municipal Refuse
Statistics
for Canadian Communities
of over
100.000
(1976-1977).
37
pp.
(EPS
File
No.
4672-1).
6.
Blattert,
R.
E.
1988.
"To
Russia,
with
Sludge:
Americans
see
Soviet
waste".
World Wastes. September
pgs.
58-9.
7.
Brickner,
R.H.
1989.
"Refuse
quantification
in
the
first
person".
Waste
Age
April,
pgs.
157-162.
8.
Brunner, G.
H. & W.
R.
Ernst.
1986.
"Alternative Methods
for the Analysis
of
Municipal
Solid Waste".
Waste Management & Research
4:
147-60.
9.
Cochran,
W.
G.
1938.
"Some
Difficulties
in
the
Statistical
Analysis
of
Replicated
Expenments".
Empire
Jour.
Exptl.
Agr.
6:
157-175.
(Not seen by
author).
10.
Coad,
A.
1983.
"A case
study
of waste
generation and
characteristics
in
Iran".
In:
(ed,
J.R.
Holmes).
Practical Waste Management
pgs.
503-515.
11.
Constantine.
L.A.,
J.D.
Murdoch,
J.F.
Puzio
&
E.A.
Sable.
1989.
"Waste
Composition,
after
recycling".
Waste Age
(April)
pgs.
349-351;
382.
12.
City
of Guelph.
1990.
Unpublished
report, June
1990.
13.
EMCON
Associates.
1980.
Methane
Generation
and
Recovery
from
Landfills.
Ann
Arbor Science,
Publishers/The
Butterworth
Group.
Ann
Arbor,
Ml.
viii
+
139
pp.
14.
Flindall,
R.S.J.
1989.
Analysis
of
solid
waste management
at
Presqu'ile
Provincial
Park.
Undergraduate thesis,
University
of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.
V
+
208
pp.
15.
Evans,
B. W.
1985.
How Garbage
Analysis can Reduce
Collection Costs.
Biocvcle
.
March:
30-33.
16.
Evans,
B. W.
&
R.
L.
Paine.
1984.
Composition
Analysis
of Refuse
by
Land
Use
in
the
Core
of
the
City
of
Toronto.
Prepared
for
The
Toronto
Recycling
Action Committee.
33 pp
+
attachments.
17.
Franke,
B.
1987.
Comparing
solid waste management
options:
a case
study.
Unpublished
manuscript.
Institute
for
Energy
and
Environmental
Research.
Takoma
Park, MD 20912.
15pp
+
6
figures.
18.
Franklin
Associates,
Ltd.
1988.
Characterization
of
f>^unicipal
Solid Waste
in
the
United
States.
1960
to 2000
(update
1988).
v
+
summary
+
33
pp.
19.
Freund, John
E.
1984. Modern Elementary
Statistics
.
6th
Edition.
Prentice-
Hall, Englewood
Cliffs,
N.J.
xii
+
561
pp.
20.
Geswein,
A.
Excerpt
from
Untitled
Document
containing
"Table
5a1-1.
Determination
of
the
Number
of
Solid
Waste
Samples
required".
(Received
from
Mr.
A. Geswein
(Solid Waste
Branch, EPA)
in
October,
1988).
21. GIRDUSGRAIGE.
1988. Le programme de collecte selective a
Ville La
Salle:
composition
des
déchets,
potentiel
de
resources
secondaires
et
taux
de
recuperation.
L'Université du Quebec
a
Montreal,
xii
+
69
pp.
22. Green Cone
Inc.
(1989?).
Synthesis
of
studies conducted by Metro Works
Department
(Toronto).
City
of
Barrie.
City
of
Mississauga. Durham
Region
and
Ontario
Ministry
of
the
Environment.
23.
Kashmanian,
R.M.
1989.
Promoting
source
reduction
and
recvclability
in
the
market
place: A
study
of consumer and
industry response
to promotion
of
source
reduced,
recycled
and
recyclable
products
and
packaging.
U.S.
Environmental
Protection Agency contract No. 68-02-4283. 68 pp
+
appendices.
24.
Klee,
A.
J.
1980.
Design & Management
for Resource
Recovery.
Vol.
3.
Quantitative
Decision-Making.
Ann
Arbor
Science
Publishers,
Inc.The
Butterworth Group, Ann
Arbor,
Ml.
xii
+
153
pp.
25.
Klee,
A.
J.
&
D.
Carruth.
1970.
"Sample
Weights
in
Solid
Waste
Composition
Studies".
Jour.
Sanitary
Engineer.
Division:
Proc. Amer.
Soc.
Civil
Eng.
pgs.
945-54.
26.
Lohani,
B.N. & S.M.
Ko.
1988.
"Optimal sampling
of domestic
solid waste".
Journal
of
Environmental
Engineering .
114(6):
1479-1483.
27. Matrix Management Group.
1987.
1986 Washington State Recycling Survey.
Washington State Departnnent
of Ecology.
Solid and Hazardous Waste Program.
37
pp.
+
appendix.
28.
McCamic,
F. W.
(for
Ferrand and
Scheinberg
Associates).
1985.
Waste
Composition
Studies:
Literature
Review
and
Protocol.
68
pp.
+
notes.
Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Management.
Bureau
of
Solid
Waste
Disposal.
Publication:
#14621 -88-50-1 0-86-C.R.
29. OMMRI
1990.
OMMRI
- The New Challenge
(fold-out
brochure).
30.
Ontario
Waste
Management
Advisory
Board.
1980.
Guidelines
for
Recovering
Residential
Waste
Materials
through
Source
Separation.
Ontario
Ministry
of
the
Environment.
45
pp.
31.
Perks,
G.
1988.
Waste
Less
Now.
Final
Report.
Pollution
Probe
Foundation,
Toronto,
Ontario.
34
pp.
32.
Peter
Middleton &
Associates
Limited
1975.
Composition
and
guantitv:
a
critical
evaluation
of
existing
data.
A
Municipal
Solid Waste Management Study
by the
Pollution Probe
Foundation 86
pp.
33.
Rathje, W.
L.
1979.
"Modern
Material
Culture
Studies".
In:
(M.
Schiffer,
éd.).
Advances
in Archaeological Method & Theory.
2:
1-37.
Academic Press,
New
York.
34.
Rathje,
W.L. &
B. Thompson
1981.
The Milwaukee Garbage
Project.
The
Solid Waste
Council
of
the Paper
Industry.
35.
Rathie,
W.
L,
D.
C.
Wilson
&
W.
W.
Hughes.
1988.
The
Phoenix
Recycling
Project.
A
Characterization
of
Recyclable
Materials
in
Residential
Solid Wastes:
Initial
Results
(Executive Summary)
16 pp
+
appendix.
36.
Rathje,
W.L., DC.
Wilson, W.W. Hughes and
T. Jones,
1989.
The Phoenix
recyclables
report.
Characterization
of
recyclable
materials
in
residential
solid
wastes
The
City
of Phoenix,
Arizona, Department
of Public Works. v+
178 pp.
37.
Rathje,
W.L.
1989.
"Rubbish!" The
Atlantic
Monthly . December pp
1-10.
38.
Recycling
Advisory
Committee.
1989.
Discussion
paper.
A
Recvclino
Strategy
for
Ontario.
33 pp
+
appendix.
39.
RIS.
1987.
Ontario
Recvcler's
Training
Program.
Participants
Kit.
(Figure
entitled:
Estimated Waste Composition
for
Ontario
Municipalities).
40. ses Engineers.
(Undated).
Municipal Solid Waste Survey Protocol.
Excerpt
(28 pages)
from
Municipal
Solid Waste Survey
Protocol,
Section
7,
U.
S. EPA
Contract
No.
68-03-2486.
Ill
41.
Sridhar,
M.
K.
C,
A.
O. Bammeke &
M.
Ademola
Onishakin.
1985.
"A
Study on the Characteristics
of Refuse
in Ibadan,
Nigeria".
Waste Management
& Research
3:
191-201.
42.
SWEAP.
1990.
"Your
Guide
to SWEAP"
(Brochure)
16pp.
January.
Metropolitan Works
Department,
Toronto,
Ont.
43.
Tchobanoglous,
G.,
H.
Theisen
&
R.
Eliassen.
1977.
Solid
Wastes:Enqineering
Principles
and
Management
issues.
McGraw-Hill
Book
Company. New
York,
xv
+
621
pp.
44. Trans Ontario Plastics Recovery
Inc.
1989.
Barrhaven Demonstration Project:
Collection
of
rigid
plastics
containers
in
the
Blue
Box.
ii
+
22
pp.
45.
Trinklein,
B.
J.
(undated)
"An
Applied
Statistical
Approach
to
Refuse
Sampling".
(Untitled
document,
pgs.
365-72;
Note:
this
report
from
the
Mitre
Institute,
Bedford,
Mass.,
has
the
following
retrieval
code
in
the
Washington
Library, McLean,
VA.: WP
81
W00156).
46.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection Agency.
1988.
The
Solid Waste Dilemma:
An Agenda
for
Action.
Draft Report
of the
Municipal
Solid Waste Task
Force.
Office
of
Solid Waste,
lii
+
69
pp.
47.
Vesilind,
P. A. &
A.E.
Rimer.
1981.
Unit Operations
in Resource Recovery
Engineering.
Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ. x+
452
pp.
48. Woodyard,
J. P. &
A.J.
Klee.
1978.
"Solid waste characterization
for resource
recovery
design".
In
Proceed.
Sixth
Mineral
Waste
Symp.,
U.S.
Bureau
of
Mines IIT Research
Institute.
Chicago,
III. May
2-3,
1978. pg 272-279.
49. World Commission on Environment and Development.
1987.
Our Common
Future.
Oxford
University
Press,
Oxford
&
New
York.
xv
+
400
pp.
(Brundtland Commission).
50.
Personal communication.
Dr.
Fred Edgecombe.
Environment and
Plastics
Institute
of Canada
(EPIC).
1262 Don
Mills
Rd.
,suite
104 ,Dons
Mills
Ontario (M3B 2W7).
IV
APPENDIX A
TOWN OF FERGUS
APPENDIX AI
CALCULATION OF PER CAPITA WASTE
GENERATION RATES FOR STUDY EAs
APPENDIX A2
WASTE COMPOSITION DATA
r-- U
(0
01
M
o.
o
10
--
o.
0)
u
«A
u
-M
Pog
LU
<
O r* LU
hOO
LU
O
>-
< O
O
cû
LUI
(-
wo±
m
LU
m<
«en
«J o "O
a,4J a.
« « «
u u
(J
u e
o>
Û. CD «-^
»-- ^
0) 1-
o»
u
0) ^
as »«--
01
o;
1/1
3 -o
i^
VO ID C\J
CVI
t-H
CNJ t-H «-H
ID ir> V LO
o '^
00
kT) m vo
iT)
<T> <*1 ^ O
o m ^D ro
f^ fo ro ro
cva o»
^ O
^ en
-a-
a>
ro vo CM ^
r^ CO o 00
1--I 1--t <--t O
-
-
-
-
o o o o
r-H C\J
o o
r~. PO m n
00 o> ---> 00
00 CM .-I (^
CT< m o ^^
f-H ---I CM ^H
»-l CM
*o ---
00 ^-*
CO VD
ro PO
o
CM
o «T OO ^H
m CM o> m
CM CM 00 f*1
1-1 en
V CO
o
00
FIGURE
15:
BAR GRAPH COMPARING THE PERCENTAGE FOOD
WASTE GENERATED
IN THE EAS
IN THE
CITY OF
NORTH BAY.
UJ
_Jmo
en UJ
LxJI-
Q-
^o
oP
<g20
5
10
MEDIUM
INCOME
i
104
(1)
1
113
(13)
1
--
Consecutive weeks
in
study
FIGURE
14:
BAR GRAPH COMPARING
IHL
PlRCLNIAGl
I GOD
WASTE GENERATED
IN THE EAS
IN IHE TOWN
Ol
FERGUS.
LJ
_J
CDO
(/) LjJ
Ld h-
q: (/)
a.
^o
-r
5^20 +
^
104
HIGH
INCOME
MEDIUM
INCOME
LOW
INCOME
3.3
Christmas
Collection
The
residential refuse from a middle income detached dwelling from the Borough
of
East York (EA 90-117) was sampled
during Christmas week.
The data
are
shown
in
Appendix
C.
As
Blue
Boxes
were
not
set
out
on
the
day
of
the
Christmas
collection,
the
quantities
of these
materials,
generated along
with the
other refuse,
are not known.
On a per capita basis the amount
of food wastes
and boxboard was
greater
during
this
period
than
during
the
period
of,
28-30
November, when
the EA was
sampled
as
part
of
the
Borough
of
East
York
baseline
study.
When
Blue Box materials are removed from the percent waste
composition
calculations
of the November data
for
the same
EA,
the Standard
Errors
tor
the
November
and
Chnstmas
food
waste
data
come
close
to
overlapping
but
in
fact, do
not.
3.4
Schools
in
East
York:
Per
Capita
Generation
Rates
and
Waste
Composition
Table
15
compares
the
per
capita
generation
rates
of
4
primary
schools,
2
junior
high
schools and a
single
senior
high
school
in
East York.
Waste
composition data are given
in Appendix
C2.
Table
15 shows
that food
waste
ranges from
19.6%
to 44.2%,
with an average
of 32.9%.
Waste paper
(total
of
all categories) was the greatest fraction
of the waste stream and ranged
from 41.2%
to
64.8%
of
total waste,
with an average
of 51%.
3.5
Moisture Content
Table
16 shows the moisture content
of combustible materials
in
the
residential
waste from
both
the Borough
of East York and
the Town
of Fergus.
3-5
FIGURE
16:
BAR GRAPH COMPARING THE PERCENTAGE FOOD
WASTE GENERATED
IN THE EAS
IN THE BOROUGH
OF EAST YORK.
LxJ
_l
99o
(/) UJ
UJ I-
^o
oP
5^20 +
^
10 +
HIGH
INCOME
MEDIUM
INCOME
LOW
INCOME
1
603
(1)
117
(6)
1
117
(9)
055
(2)
1
213
(3)
i
168
(5)
i
303
(*)
i-
005
(7)
ENUMERATION AREAS
1 --
Christmas
Collection
2 --
Consecutive weeks
in
study
COo<m
CO
l-GC
OLU
S
_i D
DD
LU
D§
CO
<
I-
LU
LL CO
o|
CO^
z<
^UjUJ
OH^
Z20
t= LU ce
^ ce UJ
UJ<>
ZluO
OCCUJ
OQ.CC
Ol
_l
CO<
»-
CO
CO
CO
in
IT)
00
CM
CVJ
CVJ
00
^
CM
0<--"0«-Hir>CMOi--iCOOtOO"--^OOCMCOO^OOvOOOOOOOCMur)0^^
0«-"VO
O^
CT»OCM
00
CMOCM
OCOi--ICMO^COCM
i--lUO
CMCM
00
CM»--ir^cvj
.-ir-»oo«--<vc>
co
CM
^
00
00
1--t ^
CM
CVJ
«
-
-
o>---0»-<r^cMor^^o»OC»'--'000«-<r«-oocootoooooCTiioocvi
O
CMV
VOCM
inO^VO"-^
Vi--«^CO
VOOO<--'COOCM
coif)
t-H
r-~
«--I
r~~CM
iOCT)CMV>--<
CO
CM
a^
10
ir>
10
---I
<--
I
CO
.-H
«a-
-
O
' O r-i tyi CO
COlOCOOvOi--lOOOCOCMOOiD
CT^OOOm^CMOCO
oovor^v
o«"
motovoco
coocm
oiOf--<oo»--!---i
com
^--H
o
^
CTi«--
I
vovDovr^
cm
vo
10
«3-
r^
«3-
^
CM
CM
Oir>OCMCOCT>OOOOOOr^OOlOCOvOOOr^OOOOOvDOlOOO
O
10
CMCoO"-H«-«voocM
o«--'
-
mor^
cmco»--ivoocm»--»
coio
CT>
CM
^---
t
.--«VO<--I
CMCO»--I
COCTi
CM^HV
CO
lO»-»
m
CM
o»oo
»--ioo>--'
CO
V
t-H
CM
CO
00
OlO^T^^^CMO«T^00OO»-iO^HO^^i--'OOCMOCT^OOOO
CT»
^VCM
r»»CM
CMO'HVOr».
V^HCMCM
IDCMi--tCOlOCO
CO
f^
a»v^
v»-Hiov^
CO
00
^H
CM
CM
^
^ .-< o
«a-
^ CM
CM
o
10
If)
CM
IT)
00
00
«
'Oovoo)r-~oocooooco^oo^oooooo^ir>or^
iiOOvO
r^oio
00
if)o<T>
a)CM«-Hir)0«--'---
^^
CM--I
VOCM
rHVO
0>--<V
---IV
O
0)0
CM 00
CM
CM
CO
.-H
IT)
3
E
3
1/1
Ol-
EE3
E-i-<U
---E<--
33 -f--»-»*-
3«/)C
CSr- C-r-'l-Ei--
Ol
-.-0)10
<!)--- >iOEOO<0Q.C-O.CCO)O>>.^
i/ij-t-j.-O'-- i-^Q.o<o+->a)Ci->-- o
E
ui
3
3 E
C
J- 3
>.
<u
o --
J- XJ >-- x:
I/)
i- Ë
3 ^
O)
Q.
1/1
(U 3
(/)
10 >
-'-
O -M <-- -O
i-ioa)Oiaio^oot-<i»t-nj<oaio-'-£o-'-o
<i:coaQaoo(_)(_>o(->>----i-JSZZ:szci.o.ioi/)
3 E
->- 3
+->
-<-
C T3
o c
i-
(O c
4-> O
-1-
00 I/O I--
E C E
3
Ol 3
-r- +J
-r-
C
01 X)
4-> C C
.- 3
10
co
u o
c
t-
3.6
Metal
Analyses On Vacuum
Cleaner Baa
Contents:
Town
of
Fergus
and Borough
of East York
Tables
17
and
18
gives
the
metal
analyses
conducted
on
the
contents
of
vacuum
cleaner bags
recovered
from
residential waste
in
the Town
of
Fergus
and
the Borough
of
East York.
3.7
BTU Values
for Mixed
Plastics and Disposable Diapers
Table
19
gives BTU
values
for 3
kinds
of mixed
plastic
packaging:
rigid and
flexible
wrap
as
well
as
a
new
(unused)
disposable
diaper.
These
data
supplement the BTU information from Vesilind & Rimer
(ref. 47) and Edgecombe
(pers. commun.)
presented
in Appendix E
of
this
report.
3.8
Yard Wastes
3.8.1
Town
of Fergus
Yard waste was always
collected when
it was placed
out
with the
other waste.
It was weighed
as a separate component
of
the waste
stream.
The raw data
for
yard waste
are
found
in
Appendix
A2.
As
noted
above,
yard waste was
not supposed
to be
placed
at the curb
for municipal
collection
in the Town
of
Fergus.
3.8.2
City
of North Bay
The North Bay waste analysis was conducted
during the month
of February, so
very
little
yard
waste was
expected
to
be
found.
However,
several
bags
of
yard waste, weighing 23.5
kg, were found
in sample 203
for EA
104.
No other
samples contained
yard
waste.
3-6
(xvc * STOnnc LMrrED
e pnnw*r "OM tt^nv^
OOBE « STOPWe LMTtD
EnfantenAfvm: ITT ma^snin
K pdiTiMllr mJlpi* aiWHn^
(b) Fine PapB ' CPO I Ledficr
(CI l*»awina / FV«r»
(TJTr
(San («Bmi
<T)rHJUtM
(b) L>wa aiMnt Conwran
[OFoodC'
DftUibX
vC«ni (TtnwiuMi
(b)9on0nr* C<rMricr>
(OOrw PKOvng
<4*hfTiuwn
(IDBLUEKVITlMSIt)
WENXT BASIS
MtM AN } STWCWfV
0.UO
3.x»
S.0OO
aaoo
am
0.0m
aroo
aToo
aaw
» TOTAL U.IM KK OO^orCNTS M/SCD Bv (
iaas«
1 1
e.200
0.r««
1
1
2.300
O^K
1
1
2.WO
2.i*ikll
2.roo
&^>»||
lOIOO
t.St%||
I.ODO
a7M» M
0-400
aT4«||
2.100
CL4T«||
0.0«t
ao««ii
0.1DO
0.7*%
1
1
a400
ao0%ii
1.600
0.121» II
asoo
O.M«
1 1
aoM
M.91%11
«a 100
a.»«ii
Q.I44
au%
1
1
1.0U
4.40%
1
1
4.MO
II
aon
II
3.91%
1 1
an»
a.*t%
1 1
a«9D
o.m
1 1
aooo
a01% M
0.000
loanmii
iKta
TOTAL
4.ar*ii
2.01%
II
2.33%
II
2.23%
1
1
atM
0.09%
1
1
0.300
II
aaf%ii
%an
(i.»%i|
aaoo
1.3«%||
0.100
ase%
1 1
o-Mo
ol34%ii
ao9t
0.09%
1 1
0.000
II
II
ao7% 11
aoTS
II
a3a%ii
&.toa
II
ai«e
0.10% 11
0.01*
-rwbll
0.390
l.«l%||
0.900
a.M%||
1.090
l.a«%M
<I90
H
100.00% II
IH.9I
TOTAt
1.24%
1
1
1.000
6.TJ%||
1100
Z4«%
1
1
2.200
4.I3%|1
fl.WO
t.00%11
aooo
II
0.23%
II
tL2S%||
II
Q-^TT
0.30% II
a300
II
0.OM
II
aiM
aso%n
aooo
0.00% n
0.130
4.23%||
%.«t
10.11%
3.43%
2.43%
e.«5%
O.M%
ae3%
0.07%
e.10%
aïT%
0l93%
0.04%
0.13%
an%
0.23%
0.04%
ao9%
ao«%
O.M%
0.22%
037%
aio%
0.00%
3.35%
a.03%
S.71%
0.02%
iaae%
aoo%
aa0%
a39%
a 10%
3.34%
2.33%
13.U%
II
aao%
II
3.11%
II
a400
0.400
a.«t«il
a32a
0J7%||
aaoo
as3%i|
aaoo
aot%ii
a 103
II
0l3OO
0.300
3. OS*
a4o%
0.30%
3.00%
10.000
1.400
7.Ï00
M
0.S00
,
II
Kll
10.000
R||
1.137
OD.00%11
I04.M
TOtAl.
All
II
13.13
II
«11
II
tea
II
»ll
II
a-H
11
»||
II
I.T4
II
»ll
II
IBS
II
»||
II
1.10
II
II
a.fT
I
O.IT
II
ooK t rrcmc LMriH)
(b) Fine Pwv / CPOï Li
(A WdM/ flute ( MUi
a 11)
lO'«
<) ras-ieMilUc
(61 LKM» I w"» CartÈintn
(«SMOrr*
(H'XIUCM
(-lOrcr Canttm*»
(nn»»
())Fw>c>« (») Son Dnr* Car^mvi
[b)FooilCoriwran
(c)BM(C«a
(I)r*am(N
(4)NorKF«TOUiIl
(t) Soft Drv* C«n(mn
[«-as
l>»Ori>C«eBiaa(ia
115)1
1 1» BLUE ac» (TCHS (() MMnpm
(b)Lj»n/vvintBonn
( c) FoM Jw* / OVw So(*M
(«FoodCva (Di»Toy»
- n)la
ILMO
1
MWirr o' ra CfMremww
QCVC ft srcH'lE LMfTCD
« pnmtnv rrUtft* OmtKrrji
(b) Fit» Pw" ' CyO ' L«Oo«f
Sus <() Bmt
(D reUiHe
(ll}rnv-ielHit>e
(b) Ugua ft wtn* ContMnan
(O^MdCcniarari
(«SotCnr*
OtiatMH»*
OOmn-riiUtM
(-) Or« CenoHMn
(biSoADnni
(dlMvnrun
E eoi rrus 1 1 ) N*ntn
(b)U«iBfW>n*aoita
(c) Fao3 Jwi I CMw B<
(4|FoMCara (l^lvra
(«I
IDB< >0»» mia
HEMAWSTAUtAfV
PEBCEMT BASIS
3.SO0
0300
(b)Y«rtWWi
tÊimn O r« EnwennvM
QOfC
STOWW LlMTtD
(W Fin»^W« * OO < U
(I) Or« CtfMran
<nn>u
(0OTW
(l)Fw<at> (-) Son Dnr*
(%) Fond Cariu«^n
(4) Nw-fwraiA [4] e«
(tiScnOnra
(dJMMnrun
i] Pwna f ScTfana
aii%ii
i.oûo
Il
4.000
I
4-ae«it
4.900
Il
Ï.400
I
>.4S*1|
«.flOO
QCyC 1 TTtfV^ LIMFTtD
meanaw STwcMno
we)»<TBAStS
MEAN AM) STAHMW
ETVUnOJ*
rr BASIS
(ayncn-itniuit
(b) Uojor t «nn* CjxAEirtn
(c) FaM Canttiflcn
Id] SorOir*
( I)
I --><>»-
(l narwttntH*
{Il OTar Conaincri
(OPIiH
(»F«(fcu l«)$onOnr*C<
(bjFoodCoMinwi
<«A«I>MCV«
[nNon^*i(U(t)B««Cva
(i:
0»)A(nanan
(b) Soft
I
(QMifWun
IS)n>i«ca
(I
(blPVC
(1) Orvna
I f\MM ( RMr^ui f
(10) T*>unn.Mrwmi««w
(i«)li*«caiv(uw*
(iQBLUi Bcn rToniiitM-wM
J.MO
3. 300
2.400
4.200
2.300
z«oo
S.TTH
2.51»
4.39*
laoo»
-*- TO»*L K.l« so CCM^OCNTt [xvco Bv I
u.sr
I
ioo.acm
TOI*L
TOTAL
a3<%
1.19%
10.04%
aoo*
(LO«»
3.»%
ao9%
0.40%
ft.M%
e.46%
0.72%
ao6%
0.7»%
a(n%
0.46%
--.0Î%
a»4%
e..at%
-0&49
roTAt
aae«
a«%
0.00%
0.«4%
I.M%
0.14%
I.M%
«.40%
i.7a%
t.4e%
«.09%
0.04%
a4A%
aisT
atoT
aou
OiMO
3.roo
0.700
awo
aiBs
0.400
a4«%
0.13%
au%
II
(kg)
II
0>«
H
ioaoo%ii
104.»
TOTa».
I.l«
II
Q.ST
H
a.»4%i
APPENDIX B
CITY OF NORTH BAY
APPENDIX B1
CALCULATION OF PER CAPITA WASTE
GENERATION RATES FOR STUDY EAs
APPENDIX B2
WASTE COMPOSITION DATA
ocn ( STomE lwth)
SwtC * Mrrtef
. 20 1
im
(d) WEcM / Rt lie / Wacd
pi> ncrv-reUitM
«ftSofOnr*
(i)reMiH«
OOnon-fcHUtM
(OOViCTContMntn
<OPttl«
00 fmn-raWTVU*
ft>PVC
(taOiyCdlBantnei
II
laroo
1
O0« t STC**** (.WfTtD
MtSCCll>»C(X« iTCWf
NOTE; *" - NO wnOMT fCCCnCD
SwxMNUfMr lK-114
HEaN *r« STAMWV
WEIGKT BASIS
MEAN*M>ST«M>iPD
FïBCENT- B»SIS
[b) nn* Piper / Cn f LM9W
(c) Maguinn I Rr<n
(AWoM r Plulc r UaM
{^)OCC
(b) L<*xi i WITH Comna
(0 Food C<nmrt
«loiB () Son Onr* Cdnunn
(b) Food Ccntairan
(c) Bee Cn
(I) rcwntfM
( qMOM ttvw c«r«M nuM
m iiayifM
APPENDIX C
BOROUGH OF EAST YORK
APPENDIX CI
CALCULATION OF PER CAPITA WASTE
GENERATION RATES FOR STUDY EAs
Town:
Town:
EA:
East York
Schools
APPENDIX C2
WASTE COMPOSITION DATA
tlnirv at W» CftMerf^rt
QC»ï - STC»»«£ L -< rTED
TwnEA?TYOR<
n-; til
- IM
TtuiOrt HrfTtMi 9
(b]FVii Papw I era I Ln
(O Hagtsnei ' FVcn
a (»a<
{[)-
(b) L>«jn 1 wine Corttwwl
(tij ron-fetUtlM
(-] OtMT Canwnan
(b)FoodCcr<t*in(n
(c) Smi Car*
(0 '«wtn*!**
(If) r«n-iikmilM
(«MroioiCwii
(uOAimncar
(b) SonDm ConaiTMri
(OOtwPxkavnq
ft>PVC
(f) ua*d Blvid mu*«
(«Cmwi) Plane
R»Wuunt
(inBLUCBCB>rTEHS(i
l4fBoACvia (i)<«n«a
(OK«Om
(ntvTOui
EJWOflON*
ME lOHT BASIS
ICANATO STWAAn)
PEBCtNT BASIS
II
19-100
I
II
1-600
I
II
*.«»
I
o.««ii
a.400
1
Z4j%ii
t8.r»
I
i.M«n
1.W0
I
2.l««||
4M0
I
Î.M1»
1
1
a'oo
1
l.&9«||
19.000
i.r9»il
''«
13.««%M
*"»
2.77*11
Ï.600
9.3S«
1
1
-«cn
1.35%
II
o.eoT
I
\M%\\
I.7U
I
0.17% II
aaae
i
0.09%
1
1
I
II
am%
1 1
0.U»
i.a«%ll
S.OM
iu««ll
II
a4so
a.m%
1
1
o.*»
(«)Nar>-f<rToui{ijBceC«ra (1)'«UnâUe
II
o-rao
I
a.M%ii
O.IS*
i
0.09%
II
0. 1
a 11%
11
0.31
9.T9%||
9.x»
II
aou
0.97%
1
1
a.nt
0.0W
O.9O0
a IK
90.99%
1
1
«9.*»
a09%ll
a*»
I
0t3I%|l
0.396
i.n%ll
0.190
1
0.14% II
a9i4
ejT%il
ia«oo
I
r.91%11
>.mo
I.«0%|1
<7At
1
9.49% II
9.<9t
II
0.9'*
I
a«f%ii
I
a,«ST
I
as>%
1
ojm
I
&M%ii
o.m
I
o.oT%ii
aoo*
I
II
a44T
I
aM%ii
«.930
II
M.400
I
IT.9>%
11
tl.»90
I
I9.9T%
II
11
>.«ae
I
i.>«%ii
1.790
I
1.01% II
II
i.rao
1
i.M%ii
0.700
I
a9t%ii
II
9.900
I
1.97%
II
1
II
M
I
n
11099
I
9.09% IL
O.«30
I
0.99%
1
).-«
1
o.«9%ii am
I
ii.2t%ii
aoK
I
aai%
1 1
i
1
1.100
I
0.97%
II
0.H0
I
a*«%ii
" WCOr or «.UE aOl rTO«9 tMVOED «V 9 "
I
197.11
I
100.00%
1 1
'
.99%
I
«.000
I
9.94% II
l«-900
1900
I
k||
«.400
.Î1%||
i900
I
3.1*»II
S-ÏW
.«%1|
B.Ï00
I
4.65% II
9.900
.99%|l
1.7O0
I
1.»*ll
l-«»
tl
I
"
0.19%
II
0.0*%
1
1M%II
ft.900
I
0.06%
1
1
I
0.69%
1
1
0.«M
I
a04%|l
I
9.M%II
i.emit
2.TU
II
2-OM
0.95%
1
0.30%
1
0.37% II
1.409
a02%
1
1
0.390
0.09%
1
ai9%ii
a 19%
1
0.014
II
0.096
0.40% II
0999
»ll
99.91% II
57.931
9.31% II
9.900
I
4.99%
I
I
3.004
ao«%
1 1
0.090
0.07% II
9.91% 11
3.900
9.33%
1
1
1.066
0.040
I
ao9%
11
ao99
aiM
I
a99%M
asoD
0990
I
a4l%1l
9.190
9.19%
11
9.400
0.94% II
0.490
3.00%
1
1
1.419
1.49%
1
II
0.796
a39«ii
a900
s.63%
1 1
9.ee«
ao5%ii
acMo
a9i%ii
0.900
2.09%
1
1
9.674
077% II
4.979
ao«%il
0907
9.97%
II
19.600
II
0.390
l.9t%||
9.000
9.43% II
9-»0
ï.14%11
1.400
a.<M%
1
4.900
0."%|1
1.300
n
2.00% II
9.600
e.M%|l
9.S00
a90%ii
090% II am
a 197
«.tl%1l
9.600
ao9%
1
1
ao69
a9i%ii
a9H
ai9%ii
a.69%
1
1
a4oo
ai9%ii am
9.90%
1
1
aioo
3.79% II
a709
0.04%
1 1
aoM
«.99%
1 1
ia.900
a 19% II
asoo
1.37%
I
I
0.990
I197%||
1.000
4.91% II
16.900
3.}3%|l
3.300
9.93%
1
1
7.900
II
0-*6'
0.97%
1
1
0.9OO
a 10% II
0.300
11
0.19%
1
1
9.000
a69%
1 1
3.399
II
ao3%ll
ai93
(L«7%ll
ao9%ii
a79%||
0.309
0.31%
1
1
a399
M
a.900
II
3.906
II
aoa%ii
ai9%ii
0.409
M
0.996
9.94%
II
9.93S
ai6%ii
ai3a
1.47%
II
1.300
a99%ll
0-t46
a73%ii
0.900
a 19%
II
aoi6
1.43% II
6.499
II
1109
ai7%ii
aooa
1.13% II
7.600
0,09%
1
1
aoBi
a 10% II
a97%ii
aa9%ii
0.09%
1
0.99%
1
0.39
OOFC 4 ÏTOWW IMITU)
HtSC&LMCOlA iron
m Fine *>Kiar f CPO
I LMgw
ortlMncCcnWrNrt
on ncn-ialMiBM
(tjOratContanart
(J>^c°u* (t)SonOnr*Ccritiircrt
(blFoodCamsMn
(QBwrCwa
(b) Son Onrk Ccnonan
{«MuraruA
( 1 0) TaHaA-MriMjnjMr
(iDtkyOtfOaovMB
itnBLUEBmntMsii
no rwt- -*?(]»
(b)VwdMww
QORE * STOWC LMrTED
S*MF\£f:
(ij FUN» Pww f C«D ( i.m>rm
(h)OCC
(1)'»
3Mn(i)B4
(C) FoM C«nUin*n
«asononr*
{l)>tll4Ut
(U) nan-r*MtU*
m PU*
(«on*
(4)Nan-F«r>aui(UBi
([) Mum BMnd nine
(-)CwMi / AjW* r FlMryui /
( 1 0) TartivWlatwAAMr
( >-) a.uE eo> rnus u
(4) FoM cars
(I) larroia
** WIÏK»<T CF BLUE K» fTEWS DTVOCD flv ]
(M Lt.4 Dan Uuwgvrar^
II
aoi3
II
TMO
II
II
a«oo
M
aMT
II
-300
II
IA.90a
II
aoi*
O.SM
e.su
1.49% II
igoo
<»«||
2^900
«.«nkii
lasoû
a.»4«
1
1
3.«»
9.61%
1
1
«.XM
i,«9%ii
i.eoo
II
aoi«ii
0.04% II
«.n«n
«.000
ai7«ii
(LtoD
ixoaihii
0.il«ii
(LMe
2.n«M
o-nr
<U3%n
o-osa
unt II
an
aM%
1
1
a.T«e
J.W«||
I. MO
a.**«ii
\«K
o.n%M
acM«ii
aoi%ti
0.0»%
1
1
I
IITf*
TOIAl.
a.SI% II
I.BOO
IO*%ll
S.100
U6%
1
[
ILWO
2.03%
1
1
3-100
3.rs«ir
3-100
a«s%
1
1
1.200
aor%|i
Q.42%11
axmii
O.OMII
tLose
0.0««||
O.IU
«.rT%ii
s.«oe
II
0.09«
a54%ii
(.««
O.M%||
0.009
i.M%ii
ituao
a«0o
t.lW
a 133
atoo
0,017
aor%i|
0.111
II
aia%n
o-zir
0.01%
1
1
'.073
0.79%
1
1
0.330
3.3«%M
iafti%
II
It. 330
UOO
1.300
0.10% 11
(LO)l
14.37%
1
1
91.300
a3T%||
0.111
Mt%ti
aui
«. ie% It
»c«3o
4.>«%ll
4.400
I.M%
1
1
I.MO
a 10% 11 am
«.T«%||
r.mo
aD3%ii
0.070
a4T%ii
ar7fl
0.39%
1
1
a 17%
II
1^00% H
ie.«ao
2.33%
1
1
2430
a»«%||
2«30
a90%ii
1.000
aoa% n
0.07%
1
1
0.99%
1
1
ao9%ii
11
3.S9%
II
10.00%
II
3.3a%ii
a4D0
aoM
acM%ii
aoi%
II
0.03% M
13.09%
1
1
IfttOO
9-M%l|
ija%H
7.iï%M
009% II
aoai
0.17% II
0.15T
3.4)% 11
a.oei
0.04%
II
a0S%ll
0.933
0.43% M
a.400
ao9%ii
a033
1.»%
4.73%
0.19%
a 14%
9.4 1%
0.90%
3.39%
0.71%
19.900
3.000
MEANATCSTAUMfCi
EnROnCNA
WEKJKT BASIS
S-49
II
ZM
II
UCAMWCSTAMMPD
PERCENT a«IS
a40%|l
aa7%ii
aoi%ii
aoi%ii
a47%ii
a 19%
0.34%
ai9%
a09%
aoi»
aoi%
a94%
ao4«
ai3%ii
II
aiMtii
aoo
II
ao>
I
0.39 M
OlM
I
a 13
M
0.09
I
aoa
II
aos
i
a4T
II
oja
I
ao9
H
acB
II
a7«
II
aag
n
a40
II
ai3
II
n
II
as4
II
as*
II
o.oa%ii
0.79%
1
1
a 11%
ao)%
1 1
ao9%
ao9%ii
Wdi* Concovton StlOl
MISCEU>f«CIJ5 fTOiS
(b) Rra Piptr / CPO / Lwlow
m
I
CD'S
(b) Ljojgr a vrtnc Contuncn
(d)S«nDnr«
(()raMiatM
OOnon-rvRruU*
() Otur Conumari
(JtfaroiB ()3anCnrÉCantBn«t
(Q^gmc IDFoMWaiufBodcntBi
( tm T eii«l«tA.a »<cr/FU«a
(11)1
(lOBLUEBCKrTEMSiDNi
(B) u«s" wn aott«
it) Food Jan fCw BoTt«
[A FoM Cam (0 Mrma
UiawCws 0)tarraa
alio
0.4KI
aoM
(LMD
*n4K»«TCFB.UEBairTDnDrvCC&feTi"-
e.60%
aB9«
1
1
>'--(>
TOTAt
aiMbn
0.0»» II
«l%||
33.4CI0
2.enk
1
1
S.000
O.M«|1
a.{*3
a.«e%
1
1
i.DOo
«.!««
1
QOFC a STCfW Liwrrcs
(MOCC
(OFoodOonwran
(-1 OtW Conttir<an
(4)(a>v.F«rraij»(*)Becr Caw ff
on S«n Dm Canuinwt
(gjCoaiMnuK
( M ) MiMHilMd HUW HDUltU Ptmil / SoKWIll
MEANAhOSTAMMfV
Er««RONA
WEIGWTB4SIS
n
».«oo
I
II
2.000
I
II
eooo
I
M.«3%
1
32.300
Z.lim|l
2.900
19% II
1.M0
XST%
1
3.100
3.19%
1
2.I0D
0.31% II
<.M0
aoï%ii
2.41% ri
0.2l(
II
xn*
I
II
ai«r
I
II
0.99i
I
0.»3%|l
l-IM
aos%
II
aim
D.<a%M
0.100
aoe%
1 1
ao90
(b)VHdWnM
OOf* I STCf*»i£ LMfTÏD
MEAN U« STAMMfC
EPROnONA
WEIO^OkSIS
MEAN A^C ?TAM1«W
EfVCnONA
PEHCGfT BASIS
(c1 Miguinc* / Hvcn
{h)C3CC
a I*)B<
(c) Feed Ctmuinvi
(d)Senonr« (ilftUW*
(OJO
vraa (II Son Drv* Conlftiran
(b) food Ctfitunet
(() Saw Ctru
m i**^r<atM
Oi) nen-i«unitM
(OtkndBMndnHVc
(r4Nrten
[lOBLUEBOirTEHSli
[<)*- Cn
(T)l<rTou
o.oeik
Q.OS«
"MKXT OF Slue Ksi rrcm onrocD 8v I
(«M l.a« Dan Mw«g«w4
I
lis.»
I
100.00%
TOTAL
TOTAl
3.100
two
-.«00
}.>IM
5. «00
S.9D0
3.400
CkO»
o.on
Lir%ii
awo
T.tr%
1 1
zMê
0.91%
II
4.*00
«.M%lt
4.100
0.37%
II
ans
kg
1
%«1
11
4.r«%ii
a.»o
l.TB%ll
O.»00
T.go%ii
1500
r.M%ii
0.040
II
0.190
aoT%ii
a 103
-.r««ii
i.«oo
a«.r4%ii
«.MO
a.M«ii
axM
3.»T%
1
1
2.000
l.»9«||
3.S00
i-*«%ll
a«oo
a«««li
i.Tio
o-smn
ano
i.XI%
II
T.«00
2.39%
II
1400
aM%ii
i.«oa
\oo%it
S.IOO
3.30%
II
aMS
0.30%
1
1
ai«
0.09% 11
I. «03
n to%
1
1
acm
0.19% II
a.no
l.«0%||
S.300
0,14%
1
1
o.eio
M
1.100
0.04%
1
1
aoM
«i.9^k
1
1
ao«r
II
4.70%
II
1.300
3.90%
II
IS-CIO
0.40% II
O.«00
I.TI«||
1300
a30% tl
a*»
0.13% 1 1
aaoo
4. 10%
1
1
a.M3
11
o.n%
1
1
1.300
3«.30%|| 3CaM
0.01% II
0.343
I. 10%
1
1
7.900
0.330
0.000
J.S»%11
1300
j,oe%
1
1
2.000
«.31%
II
3.300
j.43%11
3.K»
3.30%
II
0.300
t.19%11
8.100
a30%ii
-.-DO
2.«0%||
0. 14%
1
1
a333
3.91% II
30.330
II
3.390
a*a«
1
1
i.rso
a49%
J
I
t.wo
aor%
1
1
aoM
aoi%ii
0-04%
II
ai4%ii
0.17%
II
aMO
0.03%
1
1
ai<%ii
0.043
II
3.730
IV H
3.000
mi
4.000
lill
3.300
&n%ll
alio
II
l.3»4
0.04% 11
asts
a««%ii
ao4e
0.33%
1
1
a400
II
0.073
0.33%
1
1
0.300
0.13% II
0.300
3«.11»||
Wuw Catrfmtof Slu*
OCWe - STOBRE LfcirrtD
pïEaSTVW*
- 0»H»n*i Co(l«eioo
Cdlackcn D»» TH»Mw Owe^Ttxr ji
(C) OTh ConurMri
(t)P>IHr
(tfCWw
[b)FaodCanUin«rt
(«)Mer>-f«rToui(US«aCws
(
(-lOrgvK IWFoodWuMfncKMnlBi
mWdWOU
(-«)eLijEaairTfus((
WEIGHT BASIS
y&M WO STAMMfD
laoo
1
rt s( ts Entvovnan
got t STOHOE LMfTÏD
(b) FVm Pwc" CTO ' Ltdgv
(4)WDad f Rule
' **aM
(hJOCC
atMraCtfttlno*
(((Sononr*
{i)t«Mii»«
cm nsrwcMUM
(n F«iou» (») Son Oof* toiiKntn
(b)FacidC«iiI«rMn
ilBMCn (DttWriMM
(b) SonDm Ccnwrwi
A)W*n>ati
( If) BLUE an mws () NM^mni
{bjUqjolvAnaBoOM
(OFaa<)Jw«'Orve«l«
(1 non-KiToui
w™
MEAN *N3 STAtOAPD
CPFCRCMA
WEIOHT BASIS
WEANAfOSTAMWC
I
22.900
I
3.roo
[cl MigtJ3n«i
I nrtn
DftiMrwCfVittinan
(OOtafiOm
(1)'*
(4)Ncr>-F«Tou(i}BeaCVB (I)rcuitttti
ft)SoflOi««
miieiMainiPUMc
(OCMMdnuK
ffONltoi
(l«flU£BairTEUS(i)»taM>n
(0 Food JV1 /Ow aoQM
(«F«MCn<t)l«Tiiui
-}BMiCn(n)«t«a
" w«0«I OF «LUE KK rrOK [>rvQa, a V I -
aM%li
aT»
aVVKII
OMO
assoit
t<oo
o.«i%ii
aioo
0. IM II
3.300
2^i«ii
i.n»
ii.imii
«.400
aiMtii
aati
ia.30%
rjoo
ftJOO
-^000
Û.0««
1 1
(LSM
6.K10
2.900
aoM
0.»4
»-l
II
*B
t, 16*
1
1
7. «00
«.32% II
«.TOO
-.«mi
0.100
s.00%11
rsM
2.n%||
LMO
3.30% II
e.n»
aM«
1 1
a«oo
a.M«l|
0.039
o.3a« M
a- tor
Q.«mil
03)0
.M«|J
II
S.BT«
1
1
Ï.200
M
ao«ik
II
M.9I«II
*T.300
aV9«ll
0.039
a.or%
1
1
r.ooo
II
1.44% n am
II
II
aOIHIl
0.031
0.20%
1 1
0.33S
II
aoM
II
t.130
1
APPENDIX D
FLAME TEST AID TO IDENTIFICATION OF PLASTICS
-!-
This table can be used to identify
the plastic used m ngid plastic
containers With only a glass of
water, knife and match, anybody
can determine the plastic with a
very high degree of accuracy
For example,
if you put a piece
of the "unknown" plastic in a
glass of water and
it sank, you
would know the plastic was poly-
vinyl chloride or polystyrene (un-
less the container was a soft drink
or miniature liquor bottle).
If the
plastic sank and didn't burn, then
you could be assured that the
t)0ttle was produced from poly-
vinyl chloride.
Mutti-layer. multi-component
containers cannot be accurately
idenped by this system. How-
ever, these containers are a small
percentage of the total market.
Referring to the list of «Typical
Packaging Containers'* on the re-
verse side of this page makes
it
even easier to identify plastics.
Identifying Rigid
Plastic Containers
Ptêstiea Group. Th0 Dow Ch0micêlCompênf
2040WR Dow Cênfr. MIdlênà. Ml 48674
J*nuëry 1989
APPENDIX E
PUBLISHED BTU DATA
Liasi
<Mm"" > " '»"
C(%)
H,(%) 0,OW
H,(«t
l(%)
/»n<*
«»/- «omM
*/iofW
(ref.
47)
APPENDIX F
WHITE GOODS AND BULK ITEMS
GENERATION RATE DATA
Town;
Town:
City of
York
Population
(1988):
131,537
Year
1989
White Goods
(tonnes)
260
Generaton Rate
(t/capita/year)
0.0020
Town:
Ajax
Population
(1988):
45,046
Year
1989
White Goods
(tonnes)
65
Generation Rate
(t/capita/year)
0.0014
Town:
North York
Population
(1988):
544,560
Year
1988
1989
White Goods
(tonnes)
330*
1100
1
Generation Rate
(t/capita/year)
NA
0.0020
Only part of
the city provided with separate white goods collection
F
- 2
Town:
East York
Population
(1988):
96,497
Year
1989
White Goods
(tonnes)
150
Generation Rate
(t/capita/year)
0.0016
Town: Mississauga
Population
(1988):
385,156
Year
1989
White Goods
(tonnes)
150.9
Generation Rate
(t/capita/year)
0.0004
Town:
Whitby
Population
(1988):
49,948
Year
1989
White Goods
(tonnes)
175
Generation Rate
(t/capita/year)
0.0035
County: Wellington
Population
(1988):
62,992
Year
1989
White Goods Generated
480
cu. yd. /year
(approximately)
F
- 3
APPENDIX G
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ABS--acryl
butyl
styrene;
a
dense
plastic
found
in,
e.g.,
computer
housings,
telephone
casings,
pipe;
absorb--(in
the sense used
in
the present
report)
the uptake
or penetration
of
water
or
other
solvent
into the
interstices
of a chemical
matrix,
i.e.,
not
unlike
the uptake
of water by a
dry sponge;
accuracy-- in
a
statistical
sense,
the term
gives an
indication
of
the closeness
of
the
results,
estimates,
etc.
to
the
"true"
value.
adsorb--the adherence
of water
or
solvent
to the
surface
of an
object,
without
penetration
into the
"interior",
ie., a
film'
of
moisture;
BTU-- British Thermal
Unit; the amount
of heat required to
raise the temperature
of
1
pound
of water
1
Fahrenheit degree
;
in
this case,
the
"potential energy"
or the amount of heat
that would be released from the
material
if
it were
to be
burned
(usually
rated
calories
per
unit weight
of
material
-
81
units:
kiloJoules
per
kilogram);
commercial wastes--discarded materials generated by commercial businesses as
a
result
of normal
activities
in
the workplace;
ferrous--a metal object containing elemental
iron,
giving a
positive' or attractive
response
to a magnet;
MSW--municipal
solid
waste,
usually
defined
as
the
sum
of
residential
and
commercial
solid wastes, and
excluding
industrial wastes;
non-ferrous--a
metal
object
which
does
not
give
a
positive'
or
attractive
response
to a magnet,
e.g.,
copper,
brass,
lead, aluminum,
etc.
G
-
1
OCC--old corrugated
containers;
variously
called,
old corrugated cardboard;
PET--polyethylene
terephthalate;
the
plastic
used
to
manufacture
the common
2
litre pop
bottles;
polyolefin-- in
the
sense
used
here,
a
grouping
of
chemically
related
plastics
whose chemical
building
blocks
are
either ethylene
or
propylene;
precision-- in a
statistical sense, the term gives an
indication
of the
reoeatabilitv
of a
series
of
observations,
estimates,
etc.
The Standard
Error
is one
kind
of
estimate
of
the
precision
or
repeatability
or
"tightness"
of
the
grouping
of
the
observations
( = data);
putrescible--a
material
which
is
biodegradable;
usually
a
term
reserved
for
animal
or vegetable
matter;
PVC--polyvinyl
chloride;
a
plastic
containing
chlorine;
well
known
as
siding,
plastic window sashes and
frames,
pipe and a few
rigid
containers;
residential waste--discarded
materials generated by
individuals
in the course
of
their
daily
activities
at
their
place
of
residence;
in
this
case,
exclusive
of yard
wastes and
leaves;
tare weight--the weight
of an empty
container;
G
- 2
*<>
ISBN 0-7729-8593-6
COMMERCIAL
WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
VOLUME
11
OF THE ONTARIO WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
Report prepared by
:
GORE & STORRIE LIMITED
Waste Management Branch
^/^pl'^'^
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
' "^>
Report prepared for:
'<
'/^ ^
JULY 1991
o
RECrCLABL!
Cette publication technique
nest disponible qu'en anglais.
Copyright: Queen's Printer for Ontario,
1 99
This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes
with appropriate attribution.
PIBS 1608
DISCLAIMER
This
report was
prepared
for
the
Ontario
Ministry
of
the
Environment as
part
of
a
Ministry-funded
project. The views and
ideas expressed
in
this
report
are those
of
the
author and do
not
necessarily
reflect
the
views and
policies
of
the
Ministry
of
the
Environment,
nor
does
mention
of
trade
names
or
commercial
products
constitute endorsement
or recommendation
for
use.
study, m
which
the
crew
unloaded
the
refuse
bins
by
hand
to
determine
the
total
weight
of
the waste
in
the
bin.
5.
During
the
course
of
the
study,
insights
were
noted
regarding
the
effectiveness
of waste management practices
of some
firms
For example,
for
automotive
repair
businesses,
it
appears
that employee's
tend
to
use
the general refuse
bin
for discarding metal waste
materials, despite the
fact
that
a
scrap
metal
bin
has been made
available.
Such
insights, when communicated
to
the management
of
the
firm
provide
an
immediate
opportunity
to
help
that
firm
improve
the
efficiency
of
their
recycling
efforts.
There
is
also
an
indication
that
differences
exist
in
per
employee
waste
generation
rates
in
small
grocery
stores and
in
larger
supermarkets.
The
demonstrated
method
for
estimating
the
rate
of
employee
waste
generation
has
the
potential
to be used
as
a waste management
tool
by
municipalities.
The
distribution
of
the
daily waste
generation
rates
versus
employment data,
exhibited
in the graphs
for each SIC
sector, could enable
municipal waste management personnel
to
prioritize
their
"remedial" waste
reduction
efforts
by
planning
to
visit
those
companies
whose
waste
generation
rates
seem
out
of
line
with
the
general
waste-to-employee
relationship.
Recommendations
The
methods
employed
in
the
commercial
portion
of
the
Ontario
Waste
Composition
Study
have
been
demonstrated
on
a
selection
of
commercial
businesses
in
the
Regional
fvlunicipality
of
Waterloo.
Within
the
commercial
sectors
in
the
Region
there
is
a
relatively
high
awareness
of
waste
diversion
options that
will reduce waste disposal costs and encourage recycling.
Therefore,
XV
The
total
annual
tonnage
received
by
the
two
Region
of
Waterloo
landfill
sites
in
1989 was 439,000
tonnes.
Based
on
the
results
of
the
present
study,
the
commercial
sector
contributed
an
estimated
76.388
tonnes,
or
17.4°o
of
the
total
weight.
- 2.
The most commonly encountered waste
material
in commercial
refuse was
corrugated
cardboard (OCC)
which
ranged
from
a
low
of
4.0°o
to
a
high
of
49.0°o
of
the
weight
of
refuse
generated
by
the
firms
which
were
sampled.
The
wide
range
in
OCC
content
may
be
the
result
of
some
firms
separating used OCC
for
recycling,
possibly
in
anticipation
of the proposed
ban
on
the
landfilling
of OCC
within
the
Regional
fylunicipality
of Waterloo
in
1991.
Variations observed
in the composition
of other waste streams may be due
to recycling
activities,
either under the auspices
of company-wide programs
or by conscientious employees who took
materials
to
recycling
locations
in
the
municipality
or home
to
their own
Blue
Boxes.
3.
The
statistical
reliability
of the waste composition
data
for some
of the SIC
groups
IS questionable because
of
the small number
of waste samples
that
were
sorted.
Nevertheless,
the
data
indicate
the
general
proportion
of
matenais
in
the
waste
streams
from
the
16,
two-digit
SIC
groups
that
comprise
the commercial
business community
in
the
Region.
Waste from
65 businesses was
sorted.
4.
The
installation
of
a truck-mounted
scale, used
to determine
the weight
of
refuse
in
2
to
8
cubic
yards
refuse
bins,
enabled
us
to
obtain
waste
quantity data from an
additional 80 commercial businesses.
For estimating
the per employee waste generation
rates,
this method
is more
efficient than
the
labour
intensive
method,
used
in
the
waste
composition
part
of
the
xiv
INFORMATION FOR THE READER
The
results
of
the
Ontario Waste Composition
Study appear
in
three
volumes.
Volume
I
contains
the
results
of
the
residential
portion
of
the
Ontario
Waste
Composition
Study. The emphasis m Volume
I
is
on
the
development and
testing
of
a method
that
municipalities can
use
to
estimate
per
capita
generation
rates
of
residential
refuse. The
field work
for Volume
I
took
place
in
East
York,
Fergus, and
North
Bay,
Ontario.
Volume
II
contains
the
results
of
the
commercial
portion
of
the
Ontario
Waste
Composition
Study,
which
are
presented
herein.
Waste
generation
data
for
two
light
industrial businesses are
also provided
in Volume
II.
The emphasis m Volume
II
IS
on
the
development
and
testing
of
a
method
that
municipalities
can
use
to
estimate
per employee waste
generation
rates
and,
further,
to estimate the
quantity
of waste generated from
all commercial
sources. The commercial component
of
the
study
took
place
in
the
Regional
lylunicipality
of
Waterloo.
Volume
III
is
a
"user
friendly"
manual
that
outlines
the
procedures
for
conducting
residential and
commercial waste
composition
studies
in
municipalities
of
Ontario.
(')
ABSTRACT
Volume
II,
the
Commercial Waste
Composition
Study,
is
the
second
of
the
three
volumes comprising
the
Ontario Waste Composition
Study.
The
commercial
study
was
conducted
in
the
Regional
Municipality
of
Waterloo
between May
15
and
August
31,
1990.
The
study
focuses
on
developing
a
cost
effective
method
for
conducting
waste
composition
assessments,
estimating
per
employee
waste
generation
rates
in
commercial
businesses
and
estimating
the
waste generated
by
the
entire commercial
sector m
a
municipality.
Statistics
Canada,
as
part
of
their
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(SIC),
has
disaggregated
the
universe
of economic
activity
in Canada
into
18
divisions.
The
same
classification
is used
for
all
of
Statistics Canada's economic
surveys. The SIC
provides
the
basis
for
the
selection
of commercial
activities
to be
studied, and
for
the
extrapolation
of sample
results
into
municipal
totals.
Within
this
universe
of
activity,
the commercial waste composition
study focuses on
SIX
divisions whose
activities
take
place
within
the
private
sector
and
serve
local
communities.
As these commercial
activities are located
within the communities they
serve,
the
number
and
size
of
these
activities
can
be
readily
predicted
from
a
knowledge
of
the
size and
characteristics
of
the
residential
population.
Statistics
Canada
further
disaggregates
these
six
divisions
of
commercial
activity
into
27,
two-digit SIC
codes, each
representing
a
familiar group
of
retail
or
service
activities.
In
order
to
get
the most
information
from
a
limited number
of
samples,
these
two-digit groups were
further aggregated and
disaggregated.
The
idea
here
was
to
aggregate
those
groups
that
appeared
to
have
similar
waste
generation
patterns, and
to disaggregate those
that had
varied
rates
of waste
generation.
For
example,
the automotive group was disaggregated
to
reflect
fundamentally
different
{")
kinds
of
operations
in
dealerships,
garages
and
gas
stations.
Among
financial
services,
only banks were
sampled.
Waste
composition
inforniation
(65
separate
collections)
and
per
employee
waste
rates
(212
samples)
were
obtained
for
representative
commercial
businesses.
Per
employee waste
generation
rates were
estimated
from
regression
analyses
or
data
averaging.
Estimated
average
employee
waste
generation
rates
for
each
disaggregated
commercial
activity were
multiplied
by
total
Regional employment
in
the
activity
to
obtain
estimates
of
waste
generation
for
the
activity.
The
latter
estimates
were
summed
to
give
a
total
estimate
of waste
generated
by commercial
businesses
in
the
Region.
The
study
did
not
include
schools
(see Volume
I),
hospitals and
other
health
care
facilities, government
offices
or wholesale
activities.
However, two
"light"
industries
were
sampled.
(lit)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
No.
INFORMATION FOR THE READER
(i)
ABSTRACT
(ii)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(iv)
LIST OF TABLES
(vli)
LIST OF FIGURES
(x)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(xii)
1.0
INTRODUCTION
& LITERATURE REVIEW
1-1
1.1
Introduction
1-1
1.2
Literature Review
1-5
2.0
METHODOLOGY
2-1
2.1
Overview
2-1
2.2
Connmercial Employment
in
ttie
Regional
Municipality
2-2
of Waterloo
2.2.1
Defining Commercial
Activity
2-2
2.2.2
Extrapolation
of Sample
Data
to
a
2-4
Municipality
2.2.3
Statistics Canada Employment
Data
2-6
2.2.4
Regional
Municipality
of Waterloo
Planning
2-6
Information
2.3
Field
Work: Methods
2-7
2.3.1
Personnel
2-1
2.3.2
Contacting
Businesses
2-7
2.3.3
Scheduling Waste
Collection
2-8
2.3.4
Special
Documentation
2-8
2.3.5
Equipment Used
in
the Waste
Study
2-9
2.3.6
Waste
Collection Methods
2-10
2.3.7
Sample
Sorting and
Data Management
2-11
2.3.8
Data Obtained
for
Per Employee Waste
2-12
Generation
Rates
2.4
Estimates
of Average
Per Employee Waste
2-13
Generation
Rates
2.4.1
Estimates From Average Waste Weight
Per
2-14
Employee
Data
2.5
Estimation
of Waste
Generation
by Commercial
Sector
2-15
in
the
Regional
Municipality
of Waterloo
2.6
Sources
of
Potential
Error
in Employee Waste
2-16
Generation
Estimates
(iv)
3.1.8
Table
of Contents
cont'd...
Page
No.
3.2.12
SIC 92
- Food and
Beverage
Service
Industries
3-14
3.2.13
SIC
96
- Amusement and
Recreational
Service
3-14
Industries
3.3
Waste Generation
Estimates
for
Other SIC Groups
3-14
3.4
Sources
of
Potential
Error
in Employee Waste
3-15
Generation
Estimates
3.5
Estimation
of Commercial Waste
Generation
in
the
Regional
3-16
Municipality
of Waterloo
4.0 DISCUSSION
4-1
4.1
Overview
of
the Method
4-1
4.2
Evaluation
of
the Method
4-3
4.2.1
Waste
Composition
of Commercial
Businesses
4-3
4.2.2
Per Employee Waste
Generation
4-4
4.3
Graphical
Presentation
of Waste
Generation
Versus
4-5
Employment
4.4
Usefulness
of
Landfill
Data
in
Estimating
4-6
Commercial
Refuse
Quantity
4.5
Verification
of
the Employee Waste
4-7
Generation
Data
4.6
"Light
Industry"
4-8
5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5-1
5.1
Conclusions
5-1
5.2
Recommendations
5-3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
(vi)
LIST OF TABLES
Following
Page
No.
TABLE
1
COMPARISON OF WASTE COMPOSITION
1-6
INFORMATION FOR THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR
PUBLISHED DATA (PERCENT OF TOTAL)
TABLE
2
LIST OF
SIC DIVISIONS
2-2
TABLE
3
LIST OF THE
13
SIC CODE MAJOR STUDY GROUPS
2-3
TABLE
4
WASTE COMPOSITION DATA FIELD SHEET
2-11
TABLE
5
ESTIMATE OF COMMERCIAL WASTE GENERATION
2-15
IN THE REGION OF WATERLOO
(AS STUDIED)
TABLE
6
ACCURACY
IN WASTE ESTIMATION
- SOURCE OF
2-16
POTENTIAL ERROR
TABLE
7
AVERAGE WASTE COMPOSITION
(%) DATA FOR
3-1
COMMERCIAL SECTORS
TABLE
8
ESTIMATION OF WASTE GENERATION BY
3-10
COMMERCIAL
SIC SECTORS
TABLE
9
ESTIMATES OF COMMERCIAL WASTE GENERATION
3-17
TABLE
10
COMPARISON OF PER EMPLOYEE WASTE GENERATION
3-18
RATES: RHYNER & GREEN
(REF. 14) AND PRESENT
STUDY
TABLE
11
SIC GROUP
28, WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-10
(KG EMPLOYEE DAY) FOR THE PRINTING,
PUBLISHING, AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES
TABLE
12
SIC GROUP
56, WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-11
(KG EMPLOYEE DAY) FOR THE METALS, HARDWARE,
PLUMBING, HEATING AND BUILDING MATERIALS
INDUSTRIES (WHOLESALE)
TABLE
13
SIC GROUP
60, WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-11
(KG EMPLOYEE DAY)
FOR THE SMALL MID-SIZE
FOOD STORES (RETAIL)
vri
List
of Tables
cont'd...
Following
Page
No.
TABLE
14
SIC GROUP
60, WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-11
(KG EMPLOYEE DAY) FOR THE LARGE FOOD
STORES
(RETAIL)
TABLE
15
SIC GROUP
61, WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-11
(KG EMPLOYEE DAY) FOR THE SHOE, APPAREL,
FABRIC AND YARN INDUSTRIES
(RETAIL)
TABLE
16
SIC GROUP
62, WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-12
(KG EMPLOYEE DAY) FOR THE HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE,
APPLIANCES, AND FURNISHINGS
(RETAIL)
TABLE
17
SIC GROUP
631, WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-12
(KG EMPLOYEE DAY) FOR THE AUTOMOBILE DEALERS
TABLE
18
SIC GROUP
633, WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-12
(KG EMPLOYEE DAY) FOR THE GASOLINE SERVICE
STATIONS
TABLE
19
SIC GROUP
635, WASTE GENERATION DATA
(KG EMPLOYEE DAY) FOR THE MOTOR VEHICLE
REPAIR SHOPS
3-13
TABLE 20
SIC GROUP
65, WASTE GENERATION DATA
(KG EMPLOYEE DAY) FOR THE OTHER RETAIL
STORE INDUSTRIES
TABLE
21
SIC GROUP
70, WASTE GENERATION DATA
(KG EMPLOYEE DAY) FOR FINANCE AND INSURANCE
INDUSTRIES
3-13
3-13
TABLE 22
SIC GROUP
91, WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-13
(KG EMPLOYEE DAY) FOR THE ACCOMMODATION
SERVICE INDUSTRIES WITHOUT RESTAURANTS (MOTELS)
TABLE 23
SIC GROUP
91, WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-14
(KG EMPLOYEE DAY) FOR THE ACCOMMODATION
SERVICE INDUSTRIES WITH RESTAURANTS (HOTELS)
VIM
List
of
Tables
cont'd..
Following
Page
No.
TABLE 24
SIC GROUP
92, WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-14
(KG EMPLOYEE DAY) FOR THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE
SERVICE INDUSTRIES (LICENSED FOR ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES)
TABLE 25
SIC GROUP
92, WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-14
(KG EMPLOYEE DAY) FOR THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE
SERVICE INDUSTRIES (UNLICENSED)
TABLE 26
SIC GROUP
96, WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-14
(KG EMPLOYEE DAY) FOR THE AMUSEMENT AND
RECREATIONAL INDUSTRIES
IX
LIST OF FIGURES
Following
Page
No.
FIGURE
1
MAP OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF
1-3
WATERLOO
FIGURE
2
WEIGHING COMMERCIAL
BIN REFUSE
IN
2-11
A CRIB MOUNTED ON AN ELECTRONIC
DIGITAL SCALE
FIGURE
3
REMOVING REFUSE FROM
BIN
2-11
FIGURE
4
SORTING AT LANDFILL SITE
2-11
FIGURE
5
SIC GROUP
28, GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION
3-10
DATA FOR THE PRINTING, PUBLISHING, AND ALLIED
INDUSTRIES
FIGURE
6
SIC GROUP
56, GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-11
FOR THE METALS, HARDWARE, PLUMBING, HEATING
AND BUILDING MATERIALS INDUSTRIES (WHOLESALE)
PIGURE
7
SIC GROUP
60, GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-11
FOR THE SMALL MID-SIZE FOOD STORES (RETAIL)
FIGURE
8
SIC GROUP
60, GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-11
FOR THE LARGE FOOD STORES
(RETAIL)
FIGURE
9
SIC GROUP
61, GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-11
FOR THE SHOE, APPAREL, FABRIC AND YARN
INDUSTRIES
(RETAIL)
FIGURE
10
SIC GROUP
62, GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-12
FOR THE HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, APPLIANCES,
AND FURNISHINGS
(RETAIL)
FIGURE
11
SIC GROUP
631, GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-12
FOR THE AUTOMOBILE DEALERS
FIGURE
12
SIC GROUP
633, GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-12
FOR THE GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS
List
of
Figures
cont'd.
Following
Page
No.
FIGURE
13
SIC GROUP
635, GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-13
FOR THE MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR SHOPS
FIGURE
14
SIC GROUP
65. GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-13
FOR THE OTHER RETAIL STORE INDUSTRIES
FIGURE
15
SIC GROUP
70, GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-13
FOR THE DEPOSIT ACCEPTING INTERMEDIARY
INDUSTRIES
FIGURE
16
SIC GROUP
91, GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-13
FOR THE ACCOMMODATION SERVICE INDUSTRIES
WITHOUT RESTAURANTS (MOTELS)
FIGURE
17
SIC GROUP
91, GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-14
FOR THE ACCOMMODATION SERVICE INDUSTRIES WITH
RESTAURANTS (HOTELS)
FIGURE
18
SIC GROUP
92, GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-14
FOR THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE INDUSTRIES
(LICENSED FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES)
FIGURE
19
SIC GROUP
92. GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-14
FOR THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE INDUSTRIES
(UNLICENSED)
FIGURE 20
SIC GROUP
96, GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION DATA
3-14
FOR THE AMUSEMENT AND RECREATIONAL SERVICE
INDUSTRIES
XI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The
two-fold
purpose
of
the Commercial Waste Composition
Study was
to:
1.
develop
a
simple,
cost
effective and
reliable method
for determining
the
composition
and
per
employee
generation
rate
of
waste
from
commercial sources
in Ontario
(the study concentrated on that portion
of
the
commercial
waste
stream
that
can
be
closely
related
to
residential
waste;
that
is,
both
waste
streams
stem
from
the same
processes
of
consumption); and
2.
apply the method and obtain current information on the characteristics
of commercial waste
streams.
A
review
of
relevant
literature
and
consultation
with
experts
in
the
fields
of
employment, commercial structure, demographics and waste management indicated
that
commercial
waste
generation
is
related
to
the
number
of employees
at
a
particular commercial
establishment.
Commercial
activity
in Canada
is organized by the Standard
Industrial Classification
(SIC) established by
Statistics Canada.
This
classification was used as
the basis
for
reporting waste composition and
per employee
generation
rate
data.
Before
the
field
study
began,
the
commercial
business
SIC
codes
were
reviewed
with
respect
to
retail/service
activities
to
determine
whether
certain
sectors
could
be
grouped
together.
The
Census
of Canada
(1986)
gathered
information
about
occupation,
type
of
employment
and
place
of
work
from
a
twenty
percent
(20°o)
sample
of
households.
These
data
provide
information
about
the number
of employees
in
36
different commercial sectors
within each
of the urban census areas
in Ontario.
This
kind
of
information was
gathered
for
the
Regional
Municipality
of
Waterloo,
including
the
Cities
of
Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge, and
the Townships
of
xij
Woolwich, Wilmot. Wellesley and
North Dumfries.
The
field study was undertaken
in
the Region between May
15 and August
31,
1990.
A
representative
sample
of
businesses
from
the
SIC
groupings
were
identified
and
approached
by
the
study
team
to gam
permission
to
include
them
in
the
study.
Data were
then
gathered
on
the
composition
of
the
waste
stream
from
each SIC grouping, and an estimate
of the average generation
rate
of
total waste
per employee was made
for
each
of
the
SIC
groupings.
Sixty-five
businesses
were
analyzed
for
both
waste
composition
and
per employee
waste
generation
rates.
Eighty
additional
companies were sampled
only
to
obtain
per employee
waste generation
rates.
Some companies
of the
latter group were sampled twice
for a
total
of 212 samples forming the per employee waste generation
data base
of
this
study.
The
relationship
between
waste
generation
and
employment was
completed
by
regression
analysis when
the
characteristics
of
the
data
set.
(eg.
sample
size)
permitted.
In
other cases
an
average
of
the waste
generation
data
is
reported
where
regression
analysis was deemed
inappropriate.
Estimated
average
per
employee
waste
generation
rates
for
each
commercial
activity were
multiplied
by
the
total
Regional employment
in
the
activity
to
obtain
estimates
of
the waste
generation
for
the
activity throughout
the
entire
Region.
Conclusions
1.
Waste composition and per employee generation
rates have been estimated
for
the
commercial
businesses
in
the
Regional
Municipality
of
Waterloo.
The methods used
in
the present
study provides
direct
estimates
for 52°o
of the
total employment
in commercial business
in
the Region and
indirect
estimates
for 100%.
Thus, estimates
of the waste generated by a segment
of
the commercial
sector
of
the
municipality have been made
for
the
first
time.
XIII
we
cautiously
regard
the
qualitative and
quantitative
data
presented
herein
as
a
best
estimate
under
constantly changing
circumstances.
This
report
has
developed
a
procedure
for
estimating
the
amount
of
waste
generated by commercial
activities
within Ontario urban areas and began
with the
process
of
integrating
the
complex
data
inputs
required.
What
are
the
next
steps?
The
study has employed
a two-stage
estimation process:
(1)
the development
of
ratios
of
waste
generation
per
employee;
and
(2)
the
estimation
of commercial
employment
composition
for
the
municipality
as
a
whole.
Each
step
poses
different
problems.
The
following recommendations
are
submitted:
1.
The waste
generation
and
composition
data base
will
require many more
samples
in
order
to cover
the
full range
of commercial
activities.
No one
study
will
have
the
resources
to
undertake
a
complete
evaluation;
the
research
results
must
be
accumulated
over many
studies
and
evaluated
over
time.
Fortunately,
there
is no
inherent reason
that
a business
in any
part
of
the
province
cannot
be
used
to
estimate
waste
generated
elsewhere-unless
local waste management
policies
differ
significantly.
This means that each study should use the same SIC
identification
to code
commercial
activity and
the same methodology
for measuring waste output
and composition.
A central agency
(e.g.,
the
fvlinistry
of Environment) may
have
to
take
the
responsibility
for
organizing and
evaluating
the
data.
2.
It
will
also
be
necessary
to
monitor
any
changes
over
time
in
waste
generation
that may
reflect
innovations
in
policy,
technology
or
corporate
behaviour.
The
date
of each sample must
be
retained and or
it may
be
necessary
to
identify sample
locations
that can
be
restudied
over
time
in
order
to
minimize
sampling
error.
XVI
3.
To
better understand the
effect
of recycling behaviour on the data gathered.
It
IS
recommended
that
employees management
of
participating
firms
be
asked
to describe the nature and extent
of any source separation
recycling
activities.
4.
The
immediate
priorities
for sampling can
be
identified
from
the
results
of
this
study.
Those
commercial
activities
that
employ
large
numbers
of
people must
be
further
investigated
in
order
to
improve
sample
size and
reveal
any
significant
variation
within
the
SIC
groups;
this
includes
the
diverse set
of office and
financial
activities.
Conversely, those
activities with
a
high
rate
of
waste
generation
per
employee,
such
as
food
stores
and
restaurants, must be sampled repeatedly because
of their imporlance
to the
overall
waste
generation.
Those
sectors
where
the
observed
sample
variance
(standard
deviation)
is
high
require
larger
samples
to
improve
overall
accuracy,
possibly by
isolating subgroups
within
the
SIC.
Activities
that
generate
policy-relevant
waste
materials
should
be
given
special
attention.
5.
The
future
development
of
employment
estimates
requires
two
divergent
approaches.
First,
substantial
savings
may
result
from
a
centralized,
standardized
analysis
of
employment
that
applies
the same
set
of
data,
techniques
and
projections
to
ail
urban
areas-much
as
the
Ontario
Statistical
Centre
has developed
a common
set
of
population
forecasts.
At
the
same
time,
municipalities
have
better
information
about
local
peculiarities
and
exceptions
to
the
employment
structure.
These
special
cases,
e.g., community colleges,
tourist attractions, shopping concentrations,
as
well as manufacturing
activities, may
require
special
attention
by a
local
agency.
XVII
SECTION
1
INTRODUCTION & LITERATURE REVIEW
1.0
INTRODUCTION & LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1
Introduction
In
recognition
of
a
pressing need
to
improve
the way
in
which
waste
is managed
in
Ontario,
the
Ontario
Ministry
of
the
Environment
has
initiated
programs
and
established
specific
goals
designed
to
ensure
the
development
of
innovative
and
integrated waste management systems.
For example, the
Ministry has issued Terms
of Reference and assisted
in the funding
of Waste Management Master Planning
for
municipalities.
Specific
objectives
for
diverting
significant
amounts
of
waste
from
disposal
through
reduction,
reuse and
recycling
activities
(25°o
by
1992 and
50°o
by 2000)
have
also been announced
by
the Government
of
Ontario.
In order
to
effectively
plan and design waste management systems
that
will achieve
those
goals,
reasonably
accurate
estimates
of
the
types
and
quantities
of
waste
must be
available.
For example,
the
design
of
material
recovery
facilities
that
will
receive and process waste must be compatible with
the range
of wastes
anticipated
to be
received
by
the
facility.
The
Ministry
of
the
Environment
contracted
Gore &
Storrie
Limited,
in
association
with Décima Research
Limited,
to develop and
test methodologies
that would
assist
waste management
planners and
municipalities
in
deriving
reasonable
estimates
of
the
material
composition
and
generation
rate
of
wastes
from
residential
and
commercial
sources.
The
results
of
that
study
are
presented
in
three
volumes:
Volume
I
-
Residential
Volume
II
- Commercial
Volume
III
- Procedures Manual
The
results
of the commercial
portion
of
the
Ontario Waste Composition Study are
presented
herein, and describe
the development and
field
trial
of
a methodology
for
estimating
the
type and
quantity
of waste generated
by
a
variety
of
different types
1-1
of commercial
enterprises;
i.e.,
those
firms
in
the
private
sector
that
provide goods
and
services
for
consumers.
Although
these
activities may
be
concentrated
at
a
small number
of locations
within the urban
area, such as "downtown",
or
a regional
mall, the aggregate amount
of commercial
activity
is very closely related
to both the
number
of households and household income
in the urban
area.
Commercial waste,
in
this sense, can be
closely
related
to
residential waste.
Both waste streams stem
from
the same processes
of
consumption.
The
Study
focused
on
the
commercial
activities
that
are
most
closely
linked
to
residential
requirements.
The waste generation from
office
buildings
is an
important
component;
but
it
is
difficult
to
distinguish
offices
that serve
local
residents
(e.g.,
a
lawyer)
from
those
that
serve
the
province
as
a
whole
(e.g.,
an
insurance
firm).
Wholesale
activities,
while
part
of
the
commercial
waste
system,
also
serve
larger
spacial
units.
They
are
too
varied
in
their
size and
function
to
fit
into
the
present
sampling framework.
They must be
studied elsewhere, when
a community
studies
the
entire
waste
stream
in
their
area.
A
review
of
relevant
literature
and
consultation
with
experts
in
the
fields
of
employment,
commercial
structure,
demographics and waste management
indicated
that commercial
waste
generation
is
related
to
the number
of employees
at
a
particular commercial
establishment.
The
plan
for
the Study was developed
during
the
winter
of
1989 1990.
The
study
uses
the- extensive
information
on
the
amount
and
composition
of
commercial
employment provided
by
Statistics Canada and
local government agencies
to define
a sampling framework
for
the
field
work.
Commercial
activity
in Canada
is
organized
by
the Standard
Industrial
Classification
(SIC)
established
by
Statistics Canada.
This
classification was used
as
the
basis
for
reporting waste composition and per employee generation
rate
data.
Before the
field
study began,
the commercial
business SIC codes were
reviewed
with
respect
to
retail
service
activities
to
determine
whether
certain
sectors
could
be
grouped
together.
1-2
The
Census
of
Canada
(1986)
gathered
information
about
occupation,
type
of
employment and place
of work from a twenty percent
(20°o) sample
of households.
These
data
provide
information
about
the
number
of
employees
in
36
different
commercial
sectors
within each
of
the
urban census areas
in
Ontario.
Figure
1
is
a map
of
the
field
study
area
which
is
the
Regional
Municipality
of
Waterloo,
including
the
Cities
of
Kitchener,
Waterloo
and
Cambridge,
and
the
Townships
of Woolwich, Wilmot, Wellesley and North
Dumfries.
The
field
study was
undertaken
in
the
Region between May
15 and
August
31,
1990.
A
representative sample
of
businesses
from
the SIC groupings were
identified and
approached
by
the
study team
to gam
permission
to
include
them
in
the
study.
Data were
then
gathered
on
the
composition
of
the
waste
stream
from each
SIC
grouping,
and
an
estimate
of
the
average
generation
rate
of
total
waste
per
employee was made
for
each
of
the
SIC
groupings.
Sixty-five
businesses
were
analyzed
for
both
waste
composition
and
per
employee
waste
generation
rates.
Eighty
additional
companies
were
sampled
only
to
obtain
per
employee
waste
generation
rates.
Some companies
of
the
latter
group were sampled
twice
for
a
total
of 212 samples forming
the
per employee waste
generation
data base
of
this
study.
This
report
establishes
a
methodology
for
measuring
waste
generation and
waste
composition
for commercial
activities, as defined above.
For
a number
of reasons,
the
study
of waste generation
by these
activities
is a much more complex problem
than
that
of
residential
activities
reported
in
Volume
1
of
the
Ontario
Waste
Composition
Study.
First,
very
little
published
research
is
available
for commercial
activities
(none
for Canada
in
recent
years) and
therefore
the
research team
had
little
a
priori knowledge
of expected
values
or
variance
to
guide
the
design
of an
efficient sampling framework.
Second, as apparent
in
the discussion
of
the
results,
commercial
activities
are
characterized
by
very
high
variance,
relative
to
the
residential
sector.
That
variance
is
observed
in
waste
generation
both
within and
among
the
various
retail
and
service
sectors.
There was
also
a
wide
range
in
1-3
FIGURE
1
MAP OF THE REGIONAL
MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO
TOWNSHIP
OF
WELLESLEY
/
TOWNSHIP
OF
WOOLWICH
CITY
OF
WATERLOO
TOWNSHIP OF
WILMOT
CITY
OF
7)
r \^-
{
\
KITCHENER
S
%
y\
^
CITY
OF
;
/-'
CAMBRIDGE
1
/__.r-^
r
I
TOWNSHIP
OF
'«
NORTH DUMFRIES
O
^Mm^^^ms^^^mM
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO
DEPARTMENT of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
10
_l
SCALE
(kDomctcfi)
store
size (measured m
level
of sales or employment) within these sectors
that must
be
taken
into
account.
These
variations
mean
that
a
much
larger
number
of
samples
are
required
in
order
to
provide
the same degree
of
reliability
obtained
in
the
study
on
residential
waste
generation.
Third,
while
detailed
descriptions
of
household
characteristics
are
provided
by
the Census
of Canada
,
together
with
a
variety
of
forecasts
of
growth and change
provided
by
market
research
firms and
government agencies,
it
is
difficult
to
identify even
the base
population
for a sample
of
commercial
activities.
It
is
not common
for
a
single
data
source
to
provide
counts or
lists
of the number
of supermarkets
or barber shops
within
a
municipality.
Sample
locations
must
be
identified
in
the
field;
extrapolations
to
obtain
municipal
or
regional
totals now and
in
the
future
require
elaborate assumptions and
indirect
procedures.
Nonetheless,
the
report
describes
a workable
method,
and
provides
sufficient
data
to support an
overall estimate
of waste generation
for the Region,
together with
the
major components
of
the waste
stream.
While many more
sample
points
will
be
required
to
increase
the
precision
of
estimates
of
waste
streams
for
specific
commercial
activities,
studies
at
the
municipal
level
benefit
from
the
effect
of
aggregation
in
which
hundreds
or
thousands
of
activities
are
averaged
together.
The
report
also
provides
a methodology
for
future
studies
that overcomes each
of
the
difficulties
identified
earlier.
Data
on
commercial
waste
generation
and
composition
are now
available
to
guide
the
design
of waste
sampling
procedures.
The
identification
of
high waste
generation
activities
in
this
study
permits
agencies
to target waste reduction and recycling programs on these
activities.
The
difficulties,
due
to
varying
store
size
and
unavailable
data
on
the
population
of
stores,
have
been
overcome
by
focusing
on
number
of
employees
as
the
key
measure
that
connects
the sample
observation
to
the
overall
data
analysis and
ultimately
to
the
aggregate waste generation by the
municipality.
The number
of employees
in each
SIC code
is
listed
by
Statistics Canada
in
their
data
base.
It
would
have
been
possible
to
restrict
the
study
to
just
a
few
well
chosen
SIC
groups
in order
to achieve greater confidence
in the waste estimates.
However, we
1-4
chose a broader study
in order
to assess
the variances encountered m
various SIC
groups.
This
choice
benefits
subsequent
workers who
can
target
their
efforls
to
develop and enhance a data base
of waste
generation
for commercial
activities
in
Ontario.
1.2
Literature Review
The
Bird
&
Hale
report
(ref.
2)
has
been
used
as
the
baseline
study
for
waste
composition
information on
the
municipal
solid waste stream
in
Ontario.
In
the
Bird
&
Hale
study,
the
average
annual
composition
of
municipal
solid
waste
entering
landfill
sites, transfer
stations and
incinerators,
in Toronto, was derived from samples
obtained
during
spring,
summer,
winter
and
fall.
Twelve
visits were made
to
six
sites
between
October,
1976
and
September,
1977,
with
two
visits
apiece
at:
Commissioners Street Incinerator, Ingram Incinerator,
Dufferin Incinerator, Beare Road
Landfill
Site,
Bermondsey
Transfer
Station
and
Wellington
Incinerator.
Sample
weights
of
municipal
solid waste
ranged up
to 400
lbs.
(180.7
kg).
Municipal
solid waste has been
traditionally defined as a combination
of waste from
residential and
commercial
sources,
so
the
Bird &
Hale study-which
collected and
reported on
this combined
municipal
solid waste data-does
not serve as a
suitable
baseline
for
the
present work which
focuses
on
the
commercial
activities
that
are
related
to
residential
consumption.
The
earliest
studies
of the composition
of commercial
solid waste were reported by
Peter
f\/1iddleton
&
Associates
(ref.
11).
They
briefly
described
three
studies;
Louisville
(1970),
Proctor
&
Redfern
(1972)
and
Proctor
&
Redfern
(1975),
each
based on
questionnaires
sent
out
to commercial
businesses.
The
Louisville
study
reportedly
divided
the commercial
sector
into
18
different
categories
but
regrettably
this
detail was
not
provided
in
the mam
report
or
appendix.
The same
is
true
of
the
two
Proctor
&
Redfern
reports.
The
questionnaires
reportedly
contained
information
on
the
categories
of
commercial
businesses,
but
the
information was
reportedly
lost
(ref.
11).
1-5
Franke
(réf.
5)
described
the
general
composition
of
the commercial waste stream
in
Cologne, Germany
(1980 81
data)
and
Evans
(ref.
4)
reported
the
weight
and
volume
of
components
in
the
waste
streams
from
"retail",
restaurants
and
office
towers
in Toronto (1984
data).
More
recently, Rhyner & Green
(ref.
14) compared
published
literature
data on
per
capita
or
per employee waste
generation
rates
for
residential, commercial,
industrial and construction demolition wastes with actual waste
data
that
they
were
obtaining
at
county-owned
landfill
sites
in
Brown
County,
Wisconsin.
Annual
solid waste
generation
estimates were
calculated
for
a number
of SIC codes
in the commercial
sector.
Rhyner & Green's estimates
of the annual
generation
of
commercial
refuse,
using
a
daily employee
generation
rate
of
0.73-
0.77
kg
and
county
employment
data,
was
within
15°o
of
the
"actual
quantity".
Table
1
summarizes
the
available
information
on
the
composition
of
commercial
waste
streams,
from
sources
reported
above.
A
key
paper
that became
the
basis
for
the
data
gathering
procedures
developed
in
the
present
study was
published
in
1971
by DeGeare &
Ongerth
(ref.
3).
The
authors explored the relationship between waste generation
in
clothing, drug, grocery,
hardware
stores, and
restaurants
as
a
function
of
a number
of
variables
indicative
of
the
physical
and
operational
characteristics
of
commercial
establishments.
For
example:
(1) number
of
hours open
per week;
(2) number
of
business days open
per week;
(3)
average
annual gross
receipts;
(4)
physical
area
of
store,
in
square
feet;
(5) average
inventory
in
dollars;
(6) equipment
value,
in
dollars;
(7) number
of
delivery days
per week; and
(8) number
of employees.
Number
of employees and
store
hours
were
the
two
variables
that
gave
the
best
prediction
of
the
waste
generation
rate
for premises
in
the commercial
sectors under
study.
DeGeare and Ongerth,
using
"multiple stepwise regression
analyses", demonstrated
that the generation
of commercial
solid waste was found
to be most
closely
related
to
the
number
of
employees,
hours
open,
and
type
of
establishment
involved.
Graphs
illustrating the correlation between actual and predicted waste quantities from
the DeGeare and Ongerth
study
are reproduced
in Appendix
A.
1-6
Two
points
will
clarify
the
relationship
between
waste
generation
and
connpany
employment.
First, employment
is
a
function
of
the
intensity
of
retail
activity;
i.e.,
a
small
store
with
few
customers
will
require
a
smaller
sales
staff
than
a
larger
store
that serves
a
large
clientele.
Second,
the
items
sold
by
stores
are
delivered
in
bulk,
in packages,
cartons, and
other
containers,
with
the
individual items placed
on
shelves
or
otherwise
displayed.
Taken
together, we
see
that as
the
size
of
a
store's
staff
increases
to
serve
increasing numbers
of
customers
(and
sales),
the
quantity
of goods
delivered
to the
store
will grow
in response
to customer demand
and
the
amount
of
bulk
packaging
and
related
administrative
wastes
will
also
increase.
The focus on waste generation per employee
that
is evident
in the
literature
fits well
with another reference
that examines consumer behaviour and commercial
structure
(Jones
&
Simmons,
ref.
8).
This
reference
demonstrates
that
the
amount
of
commercial
activity
is
highly predictable from
information about the
size and income
level
of the
market.
Given the number
of households and average income
level
in
any
city,
it
is
possible
to
project
first,
the
patterns
of consumer
expenditure,
from
toothpaste
to bank
deposits,
in
great
detail; and
second,
to
calculate
the
level and
composition
of
commercial
activity.
Furlhermore,
the
different
measures
of
commercial
activity
(i.e.,
number
of
stores,
floor
area,
retail
sales,
number
of
employees)
are
all
closely
interrelated.
Employment
happens
to
be
the
most
frequently
measured
and
readily
obtained.
It
provides
the
key
link
between
the
samples
from
the
field
work
and
the
larger
municipal
waste
system
When
one
determines the waste generation per employee
for a SIC group,
this generation
rate
can
be
extrapolated,
via
Statistics
Canada
data
on
total
employment
in
the
SIC
sector
to get
the waste generation
rate
for
the
entire company.
It
is
then
possible
to determine whether
a
reasonable amount
of waste
is
being
disposed
at
a
given
company
as
compared
to
an
average
waste
generation
rate
for
a
company
of
similar
size
in
the same SIC
sector.
1-7
The
authors
would
like
to
point
out
that
they
discovered
a
paucity
of
information
penaining
to
this
subject and
have made
every
attempt
to
locate and examine
all
relative
material.
1-8
SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
2.0
METHODOLOGY
2.1
Overview
The general approach used
in
the
study
included
the
following
steps:
A.
Selection
of Commercial
Businesses
The
commercial
business
SIC
codes
were
reviewed
with
respect
to
retail service
activities
to
determine
whether
certain
activities
could
be
grouped
together.
Although
the
commodities
or
services
provided
by
businesses
may
differ,
similarities
in
the
waste
streams
permitted
aggregation
of
sectors, and
reduced
the
requirement
for
field
work.
B.
Development and
Implementation
of
the Waste
Samplina
Program
(1)
Information
on
the
composition
of
the
waste
stream
from
each
SIC
group was
obtained.
(2)
An average generation
rate
of
total waste per employee
for each
of the
commercial groups was estimated.
Waste was collected from a number
of premises
in each SIC group,
attempting
to
cover a
range
of small
and
large companies.
The
relationship between waste generation and
employment was
assessed
by
regression
analyses when
sample
size
permitted.
C.
Development
of
a Region Employment
Profile
for Commercial
Activities
Statistics
Canada
employment
data
and
the
Region
of
Waterloo's
planning
information were analyzed
to generate an estimate
of the
total
number
of
people
employed
in
the
commercial
groupings
for
which
waste
generation
estimates were
obtained.
2-1
TABLE
2:
LIST OF SIC DIVISIONS
Division
A
Agricultural
and
Related
Service
Industries
Division
B
Fishing
and Trapping
Industries
Division
C
Logging
and
Forestry
Industries
Division
D
Mining
(Including Milling),
Quarrying
and
Oil
Well
Industries
Division
E
Manufacturing
Industries
*
Division
F
Construction
Industries
Division
G
Transportation
and Storage
Industries
Division
H
Communication
and Other Utility
Industries
*
Division
I
Wholesale Trade
Industries
*
Division
J
Retail
Trade
Industries
**
Division
K
Finance
and
Insurance
Industries
**
Division
L
Real
Estate Operator
and
Insurance
Industries
**
Division
M
Business Service
Industries
**
Division
N
Government Service
Industries
Division
Educational
Service
Industries
Division
P
Health
and
Social
Service
Industries
Division
Q
Accommodation,
Food
and
Beverage Service **
Industries
Division
R
Other Service
Industries
**
*
Low emphasis
in
study
** High emphasis
in
study
D.
Estimation
of Waste
bv Commercial
Activities
in
the
Region
Regional employment was
multiplied by
the employee waste generation
rate
for each SIC group
to estimate
the
quantity
of waste generated by
each
of the commercial
activities.
The sum
of
the waste estimates
for
the groups gave
an
estimate
of waste
generation
by
a
large segment
of
the commercial
sector
in
the
municipality.
2.2
Commercial Employment
in
the
Regional
Municipality
of Waterloo
2.2.1
Defining Commercial
Activity
Statistics
Canada,
as
part
of
its
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(SIC),
has
disaggregated
the universe
of economic
activity
in Canada
into
18 groups
(ref.
15).
Thus,
the
classification
provides
the
basis
for
the
selection
of commercial
activities
to be
studied, and
for the
extrapolation
of
the sample
results
into
municipal
totals.
The same
classification
is used
for
all
of
Statistics Canada's economic
surveys.
It
enables us
to apply data from
the Census
of Canada ,
or the monthly Labour Force
Survey
,
to
the
task
of
estimating waste
generation
for
aggregations
of commercial
activities.
Within
this universe
of
activity,
the commercial
study focused on
six
divisions:
J,
K,
L,
iyi,
Q,
and R
(Table
2).
The
activities
in
these
divisions
take
place
within
the
private
sector and serve
local
residential communities.
Thus they are located
within
the communities
they
serve,
and
the number and
size
of these
activities
are
quite
predictable
from
a
knowledge
of
the
size
and
characteristics
of
the
residential
population.
Within
these
six
divisions.
Statistics
Canada
identifies
hundreds
of
smaller
groups
of
specialized
activities each
of
which
includes
a
large number
of
stores
that
provide
similar goods
and
services
and
operate
in
the same
fashion.
Given a base population
of
activities, these stores can be sampled and extrapolated
to
provide
overall
estimates
of waste
generation.
2-2
TABLE
3:
LIST OF THE
13 SIC CODE MAJOR STUDY GROUPS
Major Group
Description
17
-
Leather
and Allied
Products
Industries.
28
-
Printing,
Publishing
and Allied
Industries.
48
-
Communications
Industry.
56^
-
Metals,
Hardware
Plumbing,
Heating
and
Building Materials
Industry,
Wholesale
60
-
Food,
Beverage
and
Drug
Industries,
Retail.
61
-
Shoe,
Apparel,
Fabric
and
Yarn
Industries,
Retail.
62
-
Household
Furniture,
Appliances
and
Furnishings
Industries,
Retail.
63
-
Automotive Vehicles,
Parts
and
Accessories
Industries,
Sales
and
Service.
65
-
Other
Retail
Store
Industries
(i.e.
Florist
Shops,
Jewellery-
Stores
etc.).
70
-
Deposit Accepting
Intermediary
Industries
(i.e.
Banks,
Trust
Companies)
.
91
-
Accommodation Service
Industries.
92
-
Food
and Beverage Service
Industries.
96
-
Amusement
and
Recreational
Service
Industries.
1 Retail
hardware
and building
supplies
are designated
as wholesale activities
in
the
SIC classification
In
contrast, the primary manufacturing and wholesaling divisions are fewer
in number
and
far
more
diverse
in
size
and
specialization.
This
is
because
they
are
not
directly
tied
to
or
restricted
by
the
size
and
requirements
of
local
markets;
i.e.,
those
in
close
spatial
proximity
to
the
manufactunng
or
wholesaling
activity.
A
factory may
produce goods
tor markets
across
the
continent
using processes and
materials
that are
quite
different from
a neighbouring plant-even
if the
plant has the
same
industrial
classification.
Some
municipalities have many
factories; others have
virtually
none.
Waste
generation
by
such
activities must be
studied
on
a
site-by-
site
basis.
While
many
educational,
health,
and
local
governmental
services
serve
local
residents,
some
activities,
such
as
universities
or
major
hospitals,
have
been
excluded from
this
study.
As
well,
the
lawn and
yard maintenance
service
sector
was
not sampled
in
the
present
study.
The
six
divisions
in
this
study
include
32.8
percent
of
the
total employment
in
the
Regional
Municipality
of
Waterloo.
Divisions
J
and
Q,
which
were
sampled
most
thoroughly,
include
18.1
percent
of
the
total.
Commercial
activities
are numerous
and
represent
a
significant component
of
the economic
base
of
every community.
Statistics
Canada
further
disaggregates
these
six
divisions
of
commercial
activity
(which
are
included
in
the
study)
into
27,
two-digit SIC codes, each
representing a
familiar
group
of
retail
or
service
activities.
In
order
to
get
the
most
information
from
a
limited number
of samples,
these
two-digit groups were
further aggregated
and disaggregated as shown
in Table
3.
The general
principles
applied here were
to aggregate those groups
that appeared
to have
similar waste generation
patterns,
and
to disaggregate those
that had
varied
rates
of waste generation.
For example,
the automotive group
(SIC
63) was
disaggregated
to
reflect
fundamentally
different
kinds
of
operations
in
dealerships,
garages
and
gas
stations.
Group
64
was
estimated
from
the
results
for groups
61
and
62.
Among
financial
services,
only
banks
were
sampled.
Hotels
and
restaurants
were
each
disaggregated
to
see
if
2-3
different waste generation
patterns could be
identified.
The
final
results
will
identify
furtfier sub-groups
wfiichi
are discussed
later.
In
addition,
a
limited number
of samples
explored economic
activities
lying
outside
\he
targeted
divisions.
Building
supply
stores
(SIC
56)
were
sampled
witfiin
\he
framework,
but
are
formally
classified
as
wholesale
activities
within
the
SIC.
They
are excluded from the expansion
of the sample
for the municipal
total.
The
printing
and
publishing
manufacturing group
(SIC
28) was
also
sampled.
2.2.2
Extrapolation
of Sample Data
to a
Municipality
The
problem
of
extrapolating
the
results
from
the
waste
generation
samples
to
project
the
waste
generation
for
an
entire
area
or
regional
municipality
is
complicated
by
the
lack
of
information
that
describes
the
overall
magnitude
of
commercial
activity.
There
is
no
Census
of
Retail
and
Service
Activity
,
or
its
equivalent.
Instead, data on commercial employment obtained from
several
different
sources
must
be
adapted
to
the
problem.
It
should
be
underlined
that
the
procedures used
for
this
extrapolation may
vary from place
to
place, depending on
the
mix
of
information
that
is
available.
The
starting
point
is
the Census
of Canada,
1986
(soon
to be superseded
by
the
1991
version)
for
the
residential
population.
For
a
twenty
percent
sample
of
households,
each
person
over
15
is
asked
about
employment:
e.g.,
what
kind
of
firm?
These data are coded
to the SIC
categories.
For each Census
Metropolitan
Area (CMA) we know how many people work
in which
kinds
of
activities
is known.
Unfortunately
people do
not
always work
in
the same
municipality where
they
live.
If
the
municipality
is
isolated from
other
places
(e.g., Timmins)
the assumption can
be made
that
the
residents work
in
the same
municipality
that
they
reside;
if
it
is
embedded
within
a
larger economic
region
(e.g.,
the
City
of Toronto
or
the
City
of
Waterloo)
further adjustments must be made.
One could
shift the scale
of analysis
from
the
smaller
area
municipality
to
the
region
as
a
whole
(e.g.,
the
Greater
Toronto
Area,
the Region
of Waterloo)
or one
could
turn
to
other sources
of data
2-4
on employment.
The
Ministry
of
Transportation
has compiled
journey-to-work
data
for the major urban
regions
in
Ontario
that
indicates how many people work
in one
community
(e.g.,
the
City
of
Cambridge)
and
live
in
another
(e.g.,
the
City
of
Waterloo),
but these
data
are
not broken down
by
SIC.
Or
there may be
regional
employment surveys that
indicate how many jobs
of various kinds are found
in each
component
municipality-although
they
do
not
always
use
the same
breakdown
of
commercial
activities
as
Statistics
Canada's
SIC.
The
problem,
then,
is
complex;
and may
require
local
expertise.
In
the
present
study
in
the Region
of
Waterloo,
the
starting
point was
the Census
of Canada
material,
augmented
by
the
Region
of
Waterloo employment
survey
to
provide more
spatial
data, and
Statistics Canada's
Labour Force
survey,
to
provide
a temporal
update.
The amount
of
spatial
or temporal
detail
required
will depend
on
the
application
of
the
information.
While
there was
no
alternative
to
the
use
of employment
data
to
link
the
waste
generation sample
to
the
projections
for
the
municipalities,
the
relationship between
employment and
the volume
of commercial
activity
is
very
strong
(ref.
8).
Sales,
floor
area,
and
employment
are
consistently
linked
together
very
closely.
In
the
present work, employment
is simply the
total number
of workers,
both
part-time and
full-time--as
defined
by
Statistics
Canada.
The
ratio
of
part-time
to
full-time
employees
is
consistent across each
SIC
sector, and
the number
of each
type
of
employees
should
vary through time
with
the
level
of
sales.
Both employment and
sales
vary
slightly
from
season
to
season
(depending
on
the
type
of
commercial
activity).
Early summer
data
(as used
herein)
provide
a
reasonable
proxy
for
the
annual
levels as
indicated by
indices
of
seasonality computed
by
Statistics Canada
(see
ref.
16).
These
indices
allow
us
to
calibrate
the
seasonal
effects
at
other
times
of
the
year.
2-5
2.2.3
Statistics Canada Employment Data
The Census
of Canada.
1986 gathers information about occupation, type
of
firm and
place
of
work
from
a
twenty
percent
sample
ot
households.
A
special
tabulation
of these
data
provided
information
about
the number
of employees
in
36
different
commercial
sectors
for each
CfvIA
in
Ontario.
The
basic
tabulation
is
by
place
of
residence, which
is
not
a problem
for
a
regional
municipality as
a
whole,
but
other
"journey-to-work"
tabulations
indicate
how
this
employment
is
allocated
by
municipality
within
the
Region.
These
data
can
be
updated
by
reference
to
the
monthly survey
of "The Labour Force"
which estimates employment
for each Ct^A,
including
Kitchener-Waterloo.
2.2.4
Regional
Municipality
of Waterloo
Planning
Information
The
Regional
f^unicipality
of
Waterloo,
encompassing
the
cities
of
Kitchener,
Waterloo and Cambridge, and four smaller Townships of Woolwich, Wilmot, Wellesley
and
North
Dumphries,
is
located
about
110
kilometres west
of
Toronto and
about
60 kilometres northwest
of
Hamilton.
The population
of the Region (1988
Municipal
Directory
information)
was
342,030.
Information
from
an
employment
survey
conducted by the Region's Planning Department provided additional information about
the number
of
firms
and employment
in
commercial
activity
in
each
of
the
local
municipalities
within the Region
in
1989.
The
sectoral categories
differ
slightly from
those
used
by
Statistics
Canada
so
the
data
could
not
be
used
directly
in
the
estimate
of
waste
generation.
Instead,
the
information was
used
to
estimate
the
share
of
Regional waste
that
is generated
by each
municipality.
2-6
2.3
Field Work: Methods
2-3.1
Personnel
The
field
crew
consisted
of
three
people;
two
were
university
graduates
in
environmental
science
and
one was
a
college
student
in
mechanical
engineering
technology. A
basic
background
in
science
or
engineering was deemed
desirable
because
of
the
quantitative
aspect
of
the
work.
The
commercial
portion
of
the
Ontario
Waste
Composition
Study
was
an
exercise
in
quantitative
analysis
of
commercial wastes conducted under
field conditions, using
skills learned
in technical
courses
that
are
part
of
science and
engineering
education.
The
crew
received
instruction
on
recognizing
the
categories
of
plastic
and
paper
from
R. Buggein
(Superintendent
of IndustrialCommercial Waste
Reduction), Region
of
Waterloo.
Because
the
focus
of
the waste
composition
study was
on method
development,
the crew was
instructed
to be
critical
of
their
procedures.
The crew
was encouraged
to
set aside
all
materials
that were
difficult
to
categorize,
describe
them
in
writing and
include them
in
a
'miscellaneous'
category
(see
Section
2.3.7
below).
2.3.2
Contacting Businesses
The
field crew had considerable
familiarity with a variety
of businesses
in the Region
of Waterloo and they were
able
to recommend many companies
to
contact
for the
study;
the Yellow Pages
in
the phone
directory were also
consulted
for
the names
of
firms.
The decision on how best to approach businesses was
left up to the
field
crew,
after
considering
two
alternatives:
(a)
contact
by
telephone
and
(b)
direct
company
visits.
The
field
crew
quickly
realized
that
the
most
practical
and
efficient
method
of
obtaining
permission
from
local
businesses
to
participate
in
the
study was
from
a
personal
visit from the crew members themselves.
The approach
of contacting
ihe
2-7
firms
by telephone was very time consuming and was
inlierently very
unsuccessful.
In
the
direct
approach,
store owners
or managers
could
see
first
hand, who
they
would be dealing
with.
The waste study could be discussed
in
detail and questions
could be answered and the
logistical problems
at each
location could be assessed.
A business card from the Region's Recycling
Office
legitimized the crew's
intentions
and a
rapport between
the
field crew team and
the business could be
established.
In
fact, more than 90°o
of the businesses
directly approached agreed
to
participate
in
the
study.
2.3.3
Scheduling Waste
Collection
One objective
of the study was to obtain a "snap shot"
of the composition
of waste
generated
in
a week
by commercial
businesses.
Therefore,
waste
collections
for
the
study were
tailored
to
the waste
collection
for each
business.
In
the
simplest
case
(i.e., once
a week
collection),
the crew
visited
the company
12
to
18
hours
before
the
bulk-lift
refuse
bin
was
scheduled
for
dumping
and
removed
the
accumulated
waste.
Whenever Monday was
the
collection
day,
the
crew
had
to
make
their
collection on Sunday.
Many
businesses
had
to
be
visited
3
or more
times
in
order
to
obtain
a week's
worth
of
waste.
In
some
cases,
businesses
stored
their
waste,
especially
if
the
putrescible
content was
low,
in
order
to save
the crew
repeated
trips.
2.3.4
Special Documentation
A
letter from
the
Ministry
of the Environment authorized
the
collection
of the waste
from
commercial
businesses
for
purposes
of
the
composition
study.
The
private
waste
hauler
participating
in
the
study
requested
and
received
a
letter
from
the
Region
confirrhing
the
confidentiality
of
the waste
information
obtained
in
the
study.
The
procedure
to
obtain
Ministry
approval
for
solid
waste
sample
collection
by
municipalities
undertaking waste composition
studies
is as
follows:
2-8
A
letter requesting
Ministry approval
for temporary
collection
of
solid waste samples
sfiall be
mailed
by
tfie
interested
municipality
to:
Mr. Dave Crump
Operations
Coordinator
Operations
Division
Ministry
of
the
Environment
14th
Floor,
135
St.
Clair
Ave., West
Toronto,
Ontario
M4V 1P5
The
letter
shall
include,
but
not be
limited
to the
following
type
of
information:
Background and
reasons
for
undertaking
the
study.
Study
objectives.
Study
approach.
Contractor's name.
Collection
area.
Approximative number
of samples
to be
collected.
Approximative
weight
of each
sample.
Estimated
duration
of
the
project.
2.3.5
Equipment Used
in
the Waste Study
The following
list
of equipment includes a rented
vehicle and purchased equipment:
one
- 4.3
m.
(14
ft.) cube van
(for
collection
of bagged
refuse);
one
- electronic
platform
scale
(150
kg
capacity,
Accu Weigh
Model
PAK-
150
(electronic,
battery
operated
scale
with
digital
read-out),
Exact
Weight
Scale
Inc.,
Toronto,
Ontario);
one
-electronic bench
scale
(500 g
capacity,
Accurat, model 3670)
2-9
one
- chicken
wire
"crib":
1.2
m.
(4
ft.)
x
1.2
m.
(4
ft.)
x
1.3 cm.
(1/2
in.)
plywood base;
0.6 m.
(2
ft.)
highi chicken
wire and
2.5 cm.
(1
in.)
x
5.1
cm. (2
in.)
furring
sides.
Nailed
to
the
underside
of
the
crib
floor was
a square frame which
permitted
the
crib
to be
centred on
the bed
of
the
platform
scale;
the
crib was used
for weighing
the refuse as
it was
being
collected from
the
firms;
40
-
30
litre polyethylene garbage cans; these were used as containers
into
which
sorted
refuse was
placed;
one
- broad-mouth aluminum
shovel; used
for
cleaning
up
spills;
one
- broom;
used
for
cleaning
up
spills and sweeping
out
the
vehicle;
one
- staple gun and
0.95 cm.
(
3 8
in.)
staples
for
construction and
repair
of chicken
wire
dividers and
crib;
one
- claw hammer;
5.1
cm.
(2
in.) common
nails: used
in
the
construction
of
the
crib.
Personal
Safety
Equipment:
a)
Certified
steel
toe
safety
boots
b)
Coveralls
c)
Orange
safety
vests
d)
Hard
hats
(at
the
landfill)
f)
Rubber
safety
gloves
g)
Particle
filter masks
(dust
in garbage
bins)
h)
Complete
first
aid
kit
(in
truck)
i)
Tetanus polio
vaccination
(optional:
diphtheria,
Hepatitis A and
B).
2.3.6
Waste
Collection Methods
In the Regional
Municipality
of Waterloo,
private waste haulers are usually contracted
to remove the waste from commercial businesses, except
in
the downtown
core
of
Kitchener and
Waterloo where waste
collection was
three
times
per week
or
daily,
respectively.
The commercial
haulers provided
bulk-lift
refuse
containers
of various
sizes
(2
to
8 cubic
yards)
in which
a
firm's waste was accumulated and picked up
2-10
as
required.
In most cases, wastes were
placed,
loose,
into
the
bulk
bins;
several
businesses used
connpactor
type
bulk
refuse
containers.
Waste
sampling
procedures
varied depending
on
whether
the
waste was
loose
or
compacted.
In the former case,
the
entire contents
of the container were unloaded,
weighed
in
a
chicken
wire wood
"crib" mounted on
a
scale
(see
Figures
2 and
3)
and
placed
in
4'
x
4'
x
4'
heavy
duty
corrugated
containers
("gaylords")
in
the
back
of
a
cube
van
and
taken
to
the
Waterloo
landfill
site
(parking
lot
of
the
Recycling
Office)
for
sorting
(see
Figure
4).
Unloading waste from
a compacted entanglement
of
loose and bagged
refuse
in
a
6
or
8
cubic
yard
bin
was
very
difficult.
It
was
decided
that
only
half
of
the
contents
of
the
bin
could
be
conveniently
and
efficiently
unloaded
and
weighed,
given the arduous task and the time requirement.
The weight
of the
entire
bin was
estimated on
a volume
basis from
the weight
of the sample
that was removed,
i.e.,
usually several hundred
kilograms.
All
loose waste was
set aside
for soning; bags
of
refuse were
randomly
placed
into
two
piles,
with
an
equal number
of
bags
in
each
pile.
One
pile was randomly
selected
for
sorting,
the
other
pile was returned
to the
bin.
(See
Section
2.3.4)
2.3.7
Sample
Sorting and Data Management
The commercial waste composition data sheets (Table
4) were used
for logging the
weights
of
the
various waste
materials encountered
in
the
samples.
After
sorting
the waste
into
categories,
each
category was weighed and
its
relative
contribution
to the
total sample weight was determined,
i.e.,
percent
of
the waste
composition.
Waste
materials
that
could
not
be
easily
categorized,
were
separately
identified
(described and weighed) on
a "miscellaneous"
table, accompanying the main waste
composition table
for each sample.
The
total weight
of materials
in the "main" and
"miscellaneous"
lists
equalled 100%
of
the sample
weight.
2-11
TABLE
4:
WASTE COMPOSITION DATA FIELD SHEET
TiMn
:
SIC;
Sdsplt
I
:
Col IfCt Ion anti:
Ninillry
of
thf
En«irona«nl
Wdttt Coapoiltion
Studr
GORC
l SlOWlf
tlxlICO
Il
I
II
I
II
(l)
Piptr
(4)
H«vspr1nt
(b)
Fin»
Pap«r
/
CPO
/
led^tr
(c) tHqa:ln»i
/
f ly»ri
(a)
Wj.ed
/ PUsUc
/ Niied
(<)
ftoiOodri]
(f) Knfl
(9)
Wjl lpdp«r
(h)
OCC
(i)
Tissues
fx--^
---'--.:;j<>.-ar^*;'
FIGURE
2:
WEIGHTING COMMERCIAL WASTE
IN A CRIB
MOUNIED ON AN ELECTRONIC DIGITAL SCALE
FIGURE
3:
REMOVING WASTE FROM A COMMERCIAL WASTE BIN
FIGURE
4:
SORTING A WASTE SAMPLE AT THE LANDFILL SITE
SECTION 3
RESULTS
3.0
RESULTS
3.1
Waste Composition
of Commercial Groups
A
brief summary
of the
principal components
in the waste streams from each
of the
two-digit SIC commercial groups
is
presented
in
the
following
sections.
Each
SIC
group
IS
listed
separately.
A complete waste composition
for each
of
the samples
is
included
in Appendix
B.
Table
7 summarizes
the waste compositions
of
the
16
SIC
groups.
The
principal
components
of
the
waste
streams
sampled
are
in
the
following
sections.
Where more than one sample was taken, the mean percentage
is shown
("n"
indicates
the number
of samples
sorted).
3.1.1
SIC
17-Leather and
Allied
Products
Industries
SIC
1712--footwear manufacturer
(n = 1)
The
principal
components,
by
weight,
of
the
waste
sampled
from
footwear
manufacturing
firms
were:
textiles/leather/rubber
48.2%
wood
13.7%
OCC
12.0%
3-1
2.3.8
Data Obtained
for Per Employee Waste Generation
Rates
Two sampling methods were used
to determine
the
quantity
of waste generated
at
each
firm.
In
the
first
method,
the
field
crew
weighed
the
waste
in
the
refuse
containers
before
putting
the
waste
in
the
cube
van
for
removal
to
the
Waterloo
landfill
site
for
sorting.
As
noted above,
the frequency
of waste
collection
at each
firm
was
obtained
from
the
owner
or
manager.
The
field
crew
obtained
the
employment
figure
for each
business
at
the
time
of
the
interview
or
by
telephone.
When
it was not possible
to obtain the number
of
full- and
part-time personnel from
each
firm, we used
the
figures
for
total employment were used
in
the
regressions
of employment versus waste
quantity.
This
is compatible
with the data gathered by
Statistics Canada.
The
first
method
enabled
us
to
get
waste
quantity
information
from
small
and
medium
size
businesses.
The
method
was
very
labour
intensive
and
time
consuming
but worked
well
for
small
loads
of
loose
waste.
The method was
not
satisfactory
for
refuse
compacted
in
6
to
8
cubic
yards
containers.
The
latter
containers were
frequently encountered
at some
of
the
larger
locations.
The second procedure was
applicable
to
all
bulk
containers
irrespective
of
bin
size
or degree
of waste compaction.
A scale
initially developed
to weigh loads
of sand
and
gravel
carried
in the scoop
of
a
front end
loader has been adapted
for use on
overhead
(front-end)
loading garbage
trucks.
The
scale works
off
of
the
hydraulic
lift system
that
raises and
lowers
the arms
of
the
bin
hoist.
A Wray-Tech
Model
WT4000 6000
(obtained
from Woolsey
Equipment
Sales
Ltd.,
Ottawa) was
installed
on an overhead packer truck and calibrated
with the assistance
of the Toledo Scale
Company,
Hamilton,
Ontario.
The
bulk
waste
weighing
procedure was
a
two-step
process.
First,
the
bin
and
waste contents were weighed.
Then the contents
of the
bin were dumped
into the
truck
and
the
empty
bin
was
weighed.
The
weight
of
the
bin
contents
was
2-12
determined
by
subtracting
the
weight
of
the empty
bin
from
the
weight
of
the
bin
plus
contents.
Again,
employment
data
were
obtained
for
these
firms,
either
by
telephone
or
directly
visiting
these
firms
after
the waste had been
collected.
As
noted
above,
participants
in
the
study
were
assured
of
confidentiality
of
the
waste generation and composition information.
(NOTE: no locations
will be
identified
by name
in
this
report).
Bin
collection
frequency
was
determined
from
the
hauler's
records
and
a
daily
generation
rate
(kg day)
of waste was determined
for each
firm.
At
the conclusion
of
the
field
work,
the
employment
and
waste
generation
data
were
plotted
on
separate
graphs
for each
of
the commercial
groupings.
The
length
of
the
"work
week" was
different
for
different SIC groupings.
Some businesses are open 7 days
a
week
(restaurants,
hotels,
etc.)
and
some
for
6
days
(supermarkets,
banks,
automobile
dealerships,
etc.).
Some
printing
shops
were
the
only
commercial
businesses
included
in
our
study
that operated on
a
5-day work week.
2.4
Estimates
of Average Per Employee Waste Generation Rates
Each sample observation provided
information on the number
of employees and the
total weekly waste generation
for the establishment.
This permits two
different kinds
of
statistical
generalization.
First,
it
is
possible
simply
to
divide
the
total waste
by
the number
of employees
to
obtain an estimate
of waste generation
per employee.
Several
of
these
estimates
can
then
be
used
to
determine
average
values
and
standard
deviations.
Second,
more
information
can
be
extracted
by
plotting
total
waste
against
employment
for each
observation.
This
provides:
(1)
a
visual
pattern
of
the
overall
variability
in
the
results, an
evaluation
of the
relation between waste generation
per
employee and
size
of
store
(e.g.,
are
big
stores more
or
less
efficient
with respect
to waste
generation?);
(2) a measure
of the waste
reduction
efficiency
of
individual
2-13
stores
relative
to
the
group;
and
(3)
an
evaluation
of
the
effectiveness
of
the
sannple
selection
in
relation
to
store
size.
By
fitting a regression
line to the graph we obtain another measure
of the
regularity
of
waste
generation,
i.e.,
the
regression
coefficient
r^.
Another
estimate
of
the
relation
between
waste
generation
and
number
of employees
is
the
slope
of
the
regression
line
(b).
In
the
next
step
in
the
analysis,
estimates
of waste
generation
per employee
are
used
to
estimate
total
waste
generation
within
the
study
area.
Either
the mean
value
of waste
per employee
or
the
regression
slope
(b)
could be
selected.
The
regression slope was used as long as
it was adjudged
reliable; otherwise the mean
value was
used.
The
reliability depends
on
both
the
regression
coefficient
(over
0.5) and
the
scatter
of
observations on
the
graph.
A sample
with
a
wide
variety
of
different
stores
sizes was deemed
acceptable.
Those where
the
observations
were
clustered
together
around
the same
size
store were
rejected.
In
the
ideal
case, where there
is
perfect
correlation between waste generation and employment,
the
intercept
(a)
is
expected
to
be
zero
and
the mean
value
should
equal
the
regression
slope
(b).
For
further
discussion
of
regression
analysis
the
reader
should
consult Modern
Elementary
Statistics
(ref.
6).
2.4.1
Estimates From Average Waste Weight Per Employee Data
For each
SIC
group
of commercial
business,
the
daily waste
weight
generated
at
each
firm was
divided
by
the number
of employees
to
obtain
the
weight
of waste
per employee per day.
An average estimated waste generation
rate
{ ±
1
Standard
Error) was
calculated
for the SIC
sector
from
the sample
data.
2-14
2.5
Estimation
of
Waste
Generation
by
Commercial
Sector
in
the
Regional
Municipality
of Waterloo
The
estimation
of
commercial
waste
generation
for
the
Regional
Municipality
of
Waterloo
combines
two
kinds
of
information.
First,
various
employment
data
are
used
to
estimate
total
commercial employment
and employment
for
various
types
of
commercial
activity
in
municipalities
within
the
Region.
Second,
the
field
work
provides
estimates
of
the
amount
of
waste
generated
per
employee
by
type
of
commercial
activity.
By combining these two
kinds
of
information
the
final estimate
of
commercial
waste
generation
is
obtained
for
the
Region
and
its
area
municipalities.
Consider
the breakdown
of employment
by
municipality
(Table
5).
Note
first,
the
great
size range among
spatial
units.
Kitchener
is approximately ten times
the
size
of Woolwich and almost 100 times
larger than Wellesley.
It
is much more important
to
make
accurate
estimates
for
the
larger
places
than
for
the
smaller
ones.
Second,
the share
of employment
in commercial jobs ranges from
30.2
percent
in
industrial Cambridge
to
41.7
percent
in
Kitchener
with
its downtown
concentration.
(Note:
Familiarity
with
the
local
economic
structure
is
required
to
make
minor
adjustments
to
Statistic Canada employment
information where
needed).
For the Region
as
a whole,
the share
of commercial jobs was 32.8
percent
in
the
1986
Census
and
38.7
percent
in
1989
according
to
the
Region's
Planning
Department--a
difference
that
reflects
variations
in
definitions
in
the
two
data
sets.
Despite
these
differences,
the
regional employment
survey
permits
us
to
estimate
the
share
of
regional commercial employment
to be
allocated
to each
municipality
(see
the
fourth column
titled %
Jobs
in Table
5).
This should
assist m
estimating
the
share
of commercial waste
generation.
2-15
TABLE
5
ESTIMATE OF COMMERCIAL WASTE GENERATION
IN THE REGION OF WATERLOO
(AS STUDIED)
Place
All
1989
Jobs^ Commercial"
Regional
Share
% Jobs
Waste
(kg./wk.x
10^)
Woolwich
2.6
Sources
of
Potential
Error
in Employee Waste Generation
Estimates
Table 6
lists the kinds
of errors
that
will
affect the accuracy
of the employee waste
generation
estimates
presented
herein.
An
estimate
of
the
magnitude
and
"direction"
of
the
error
is
also
given.
2-16
co
ta>
a>
1/)
Xio
ai>
o
t<0
o
O
to
in
1/1 a:
<c o
3 OC
>- <
= UJ
(_) t--
o o
< Q-
n3
QJ
4_) ^-^
X3 C >S
3
QJ ^_-
--- O
s-
C
Q. o
en
i_
03
l*-
S-
S O
OU
VO
CD<
O
Q.
(d
-t->d
a.
s-o
4->
OJ
1/1
o
O)
SECTION 3
RESULTS
Paper
Newsprint
2.69%
0.60%
Fine Paper/CPO/Ledger
1.21%
70.88%
Magazines/Flyers
0.13%
Waxed/Plastic/Mixed
1.24%
8.99%
Boxboard
1.21%
2.15%
Kraft
3.52%
4.06%
Wallpaper
OCC
12.01%
4.00%
Tissues
2.28%
0.65%
Glass
Beer
refillable
non-ref illable
2.07%
Liquor
& Wine containers
Food Containers
2.07%
0.29%
Soft Ortnk
refillable
non-refillable
0.13%
Other Containers
Plate
Other
Ferrous
Soft Drink
Containers
0.15%
0.06%
Food Containers
0.18%
Beer Cans
returnable
non-returnable
Aerosol
Cans
Other
0.45%
Non-ferrous
Beer Cans
returnable
non-returnable
American
Soft
Drink Containers
0.07%
0.04%
Other Packaging
Aluminum
0.08%
Other
Plastics
Polyolefins
1.24%
1.02%
PVC
Polystyrene
2.90%
0.08%
ABS
PET
Mixed Blend
Plastic
0.01%
Coated
Plastic
Nylon
-
Vinyl
0.13%
Organic
Food Haste/Rodent
Bedding
4.55%
3.83%
Yard Waste
Wood
13.66%
0.09%
Ceramics/Rubble/Fiberglass/
Gypsum Board/Asbestos
Diapers
Textiles/Leather/Rubber
48.23%
0.61%
Household Hazardous Wastes
Paints/Solvents
0.28%
1.05%
Waste Oils
Pesticides/Herbicides
Dry Cell
Batteries
Kitty
Litter
Miscellaneous
0.8^%
TOTAL
100.00%
3
TABLE
;
AVERAGE
UAS1E COMPOSIJION
(ï)
DATA FOR
COHHERCIAL
SIC GROUPS
Paper
3.1.2
SIC
28-Printing,
Publishing and
Allied
Industries
SIC
2819--printing
(n = 3)
The
principal component,
by
weight,
of
the waste sampled from
printing,
publishing
and
allied
industries was:
fine paper
71.0%
(some
of
the
fine paper was contaminated
with
ink)
3.1.3
SIC 48-Communications
Industry
SIC 4813--combined
radiotélévision
firm
(n = 1)
The
principal
components,
by
weight,
of
the
waste
sampled
from
communication
firms
were:
fine paper
35.1%
coated
paper
16.4%
food waste
14.4%
The
firm had cooking
facilities
for employees;
staff worked
in
shifts and were on the
premises throughout any 24
hour
period.
3.1.4
SIC 60~Food, Beverage and Drug
Industries
(Retail)
a)
SIC
6011 --large supermarket
(n = 1)
b)
SIC 6012-mid-size
grocer
(n = 3)
c)
SIC
6019-specialty food
(n = 1)
3-2
The
overall waste composition
for the three kinds
of food stores was consistent,
but
there were
large
variations
in
the
relative
proportions
of
the components.
The
principal
components,
by
weight,
of
the
waste
sampled
from
the
three
types
of
food
stores
were:
.
a)
large
supermarket:
food waste
53.0%
OCC
36.3%
b)
mid-size
grocers:
newsprint
27.1%
boxboard
14.6%
OCC
10.2%
food
8.2'î
c)
specialty
food
store:
OCC
75.0%
3.1.5
SIC 61 -Shoe,
Apparel,
Fabric and Yarn
Industries
(Retail)
a) SIC
61 11 --shoe
(n = 2);
b) SIC 6149~mens womens
clothing
(n = 4);
c) SIC
6151-fabnc.yarn (n=2)
The
major components,
by
weight,
of
the waste sampled
for SIC
61
group
were:
OCC
28.7%
boxboard
15.3%
3-3
In
addition,
the
following
observations
were
made
regarding
the
principal
waste
components,
from
specific
types
of
retail
establishments:
a) shoe
stores:
newsprint
^4A°o
boxboard
26.6%
OCC
38.7°o
b) mens womens
clothing
industries
(retail):
newsprint
19.7%
OCC
22.3%
c)
fabric yarn
industries
(retail):
boxboard
15.5%
OCC
31.3%
tissues
15.3%
3.1.6
SIC 62-Household
Furniture/Appliance and
Furnishings
Industries
(Retail)
a)
SIC
621
1 --household
furniture appliances furnishings
(n = 1)
b)
SIC 6212-household
furniture,
no
appli. furnishings
(n = 1)
c)
SIC
6223-appliance,
television,
stereo
repair shop
(n = 1)
d)
SIC
6231 -floor
covering
store
(n = 1)
e)
SIC
6239--other
furnishings,
e.g.,
linen,
glassware
(n = 1)
On average, the major components, by weight,
of the waste steams sampled
in
this
SIC group were:
OCC
48.9%
textile/leather/rubber
11.7%
3-4
3.1.7
SIC
63-ALJtomotive
Vehicles,
Parts
and
Accessories
Industries
(Sales
and
Service)
a)
SIC
6311 --dealerships
(n = 6)
b)
SIC
6331 -service
stations gas
bars
(n = 3)
c)
SIC 634-parts accessories
{n = 1)
d) SIC 635-vehicle
repair
{n = 3)
The waste streams
for SIC group 63 contained an assortment
of vehicle accessories
and
parts,
e.g.,
gaskets,
cables,
air
filters,
mixed
automotive
plastics,
spark
plugs,
lubricants, and
paint
spray cans
(aerosol).
A number
of waste
materials were
not
included
in
the
survey
because
they were
not
recovered
from
the
general
refuse
disposal
bins.
Nevertheless,
they
are
part
of the
solid waste stream generated by
this
SIC
sector.
These wastes appeared
to
be
stock
piled
for
separate
disposal,
e.g.,
tires,
oil solvents
in drums,
scrap
metal, and
lead acid
batteries.
These items
were
not quantified
in the present study and could be included
in subsequent work.
The
principal
components,
by
weight,
of
the
waste
streams
for
the
SIC
63
group
of
industries sampled
were:
a)
dealerships:
ferrous
25.8%
OCC
14.8%
b)
service
station:
polyolefins
25%
OCC
14.3%
newsprint
12.8%
3-5
c)
parts, accessories:
OCC
13.8%
ferrous
22.2%
textile leather rubber
19.6°o
miscellaneous
16.8°o
(used
auto
parts,
filters,
etc)
d)
vehicle
repair:
wood
10.1°o
miscellaneous
22.4°o
(used
auto
parts,
filters,
etc)
3.1.8
SIC 65-Other
Retail
Industries
a)
SIC 6521 --florists
(n = 3)
b)
SIC 6542-bicycle shop
(n = 1)
c)
SIC 6562-watch,
jewelry
repair
(n = 1)
d) SIC 6591 -second hand
store
(n = 1)
OCC and
food/plant wastes were
the dominant components
of
this SIC
group. The
following
outlines
specific
SIC
groups
which
were
sampled
and
their
respective
principal components,
by
weight:
a)
florists:
organic
material
50.25%
OCC
18.51%
b)
bicycle
shop:
OCC
53.6%
textile/leather/rubber
23.6%
c)
watch/jewelry
repair:
OCC
35.1%
newsprint
24.2%
fine paper
12.1%
3-6
d) second-hand
store:
Fine paper
17.0%
box board
13.3%
polyolefins
13.3%
food
wastes
13.3%
3.1.9
SIC 70--Finance and
Insurance
Industries
a)
SIC
7021 --chartered banks
(n = 3)
b)
SIC
7031 -trust company
(n = 1)
c) SIC
7051 -credit
union
(n = 1)
The
principal
component,
by
weight,
of
the
waste
sampled
from
finance
and
insurance
industries was:
fine paper
53.0°o
It
is
significant
to
note
that
the
trust company sampled produced no
fine
paper;
in
fact,
this
firm produced
little waste.
The
total sample weight was 4.45 kg
of which
52.1%
was
food
waste.
This may
be
the
result
of
confidential
documents
being
shredded and removed
from
the
building.
Future
studies may consider addressing
this
diversion method
of waste
paper.
3.1. 10 SIC 91 -Accommodation
Service
Industries
a) SIC
91 11 -hotel motor
hotel
{n = 4)
b) SIC 9112-motel
(n = 2)
The presence
or absence
of
restaurants
partially determined
the
relative
proportion
of
food
wastes
generated
in
this
group; some
establishments
had
efficiency
units
so
food would
also be processed cooked
at
those
locations.
3-7
The
average
principal
components,
by
weight,
of
the waste
streams
of
the
hotels
and
motels sampled
were:
food waste
19.0%
OCC
10.3%
(ranged: 1%
to
35'^o)
newsprint
14.4°o
3.1.11 SIC 92--Food and Beverage Service
Industries
a)
SIC 9211 -licensed
restaurants
(n = 3)
b) SIC
9213--take-out
restaurants
(n = 3)
c)
SIC--hamburger
take-out sit-down
restaurants
(n = 3)
The
principal components, by weight,
of the waste sampled from food and beverage
establishments
were:
a)
licensed
restaurants:
food waste
54.8%
glass
21.5%
OCC
8.8%
b)
take-out
restaurants:
food waste
57.6%
OCC
9.4 /o
newsprint
6.6%o
c)
"hamburger"
take-out'sit down
restaurants:
food waste
28.3%
OCC
28.0%
coated
paper
7.3%
3-8
3. 1.1 2 SIC 96-Amusement and
Recreational Service
Industries
a) SIC 9621--movie
theatre
(n = 1)
b) SIC
9691 --bowling
alley
(n = 1)
c) SIC 9692-amusement
park
(n = 1)
d) SIC 9699-horseback
riding
(n = 1)
The
four
kinds
of amusement
activities
are
very
different from each
other and
the
composition
of
the
waste
streams
have
little
in
common.
However,
paper,
food
waste and
plastics were predominant.
Over
the
sector,
the food waste component
accounted
for
an
average
17.7%
of
the
refuse
weight.
The
theatre
generated
a
high
percentage
of
coated
paper
(15.8%);
wood
waste,
in
the
form
of
wood
shavings
(animal
bedding)
from
the
riding
establishment was 45.6%.
3.2
Per Employee Waste Generation
Rates
3.2.1
Overview Data Handling
For each company
participating
in the study, a
daily, per employee waste generation
rate was determined
(kg
per employee
per
day).
The
weight
of waste
generated
by a company
during one "work week" was divided by the number
of days
in
their
"work week",
either
5,
6
or
7.
The weight
per day was
divided
by
the
total
number
.of employees
in
the
firm.
An
estimate
of
the employee waste
generation
rate
per day
for each
SIC
group,
or
sub-grouping, was
obtained
by
averaging
the
information
for
all companies
in
the same SIC group
or
sub-grouping.
(kq'wk)
=
weight
per day
6
weight
per day
=
employee
generation
rate
per day
total
no.
of employees
3-9
sum: employee
generation
rates
=
average employee
generation
n
(no.
of employees)
rate
per day
For each
two-digit
SIC
group
or
sub-grouping,
the
daily waste
generation
rate
for
each
firm was
also
plotted
against
the number
of
employees.
Linear
regressions
were calculated
for the data and the
resulting
coefficients representing the employee
waste
generation
rate
(the
coefficient
b
in
the
regression
equation:
y
=
a
+
bx)
were
compared
with
the
estimates
of
daily
waste
generation
for
the
SIC
sector,
determined
by
the
averaging
method.
In the
following Sections
(3.2.2
to
3.4),
the per employee waste generation data are
briefly evaluated
with
respect
to the parameters
of sample
size, data
scatter on
the
graph,
regression
coefficient
and
other
anecdotal
information
which
affected
the
decision
to use
either
(1) the regression
coefficient,
b,
or
(2) the calculated average,
for
the
SIC
sector
estimate
of
the
rate
of
waste
generation
by employees
in
that
sector.
Table 8 summarizes the
estimation
of waste generation presented
in Sections
3.2.2
to
3.4 and
should be
referred
to
for the numerical
calculations
of the per employee
waste
generation
rates.
Figures
5
to
20,
showing
the
distribution
of
the
sample
data
for each
SIC
sector,
are
indicated
in
each
sub-section
heading.
Numbered
data
points on these
figures
indicate sample
numbers.
3.2.2
SIC Group 28-Printing,
Publishing and
Allied
Industries (Table
11 &
Figure
5)
Printing
is
considered
a
"light
industry".
Although
the
regression
coefficient was
0.61, many
data
points
were
clustered
at
the
low employment
end
of
the
scale.
An average
of
all the data should be used as the waste generation estimate
for the
group,
i.e.,
4.9
kg/employee/day.
3-10
s
:
-Ile
c
*
«4
O
9
I;
:
9
Cf
3
m
O
O -
I
i
a a o
«
«
«
a a a
:
:
:
a
g
3
u «
19 OH
Kti
Q, 9 ^
-a
J3
il ^
A
-
c
c
c
3
I
'
s
^s
I
i
OOOOOO
OOO
O
O
OOO
O
»
ff.
f* O
r-
<
OOOOOOO
OOO
O
mokr-iaoo
oooi-<>«
o
1
r-
r> o o
O
O
OOO
O
O
O
OOO
o
r-l
-A
O
<0 O
«
M
O
O
1^
r«
<-i
o
O
O
r«
O A O
«D
> « O O o
-
-
»
-
c
1
i
£
c c
-
c
'
.
5
c
c
-
«
>
c
- £ £
-D O
- o
-
c
u
-
->
«
I
4J ^
-4
o
'
~ 3 Ï
. Ï
:
Î J'
o
C
4J
TABLE
1 1
SIC GROUP 28, WASTE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPLOYEE/DA Y) FOR THE PRINTING, PUBLISHING
AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES
Sample #
3.2.3
SIC
Sector 56
-
Metals,
Hardware,
Plumbing,
Heating and
Building
Materials
Industries
(Wholesale)
(Table
12 &
Figure
6)
Although
this
SIC
group
is
considered
as
wholesale
by
the
classification
system,
retail
hardware and
building
supply
stores
have
general
retail
activities
as
part
of
their
business.
Because
the
regression
coefficient,
r
=
0.97,
was
strong,
the
regression
estimate
for
the waste
generation
rate was
used;
5.7
kg employee day.
3.2.4
SIC Group 60
Food,
Beverage and Drug
Industries,
Retail
(Tables
13 &
14,
Figures 7 &
8)
Per employee waste
generation
rates
for
small mid-size
markets and
variety
stores
is lower than
that generated by larger
"chain-store" supermarkets.
For smaller mid-
size
stores
(Figure
7),
the
estimated
rate
was
7.7
kg employee. day;
for
larger
markets
(Figure
8),
the
average
rate
was
12.2
kg employee day.
The
regression
coefficient
for
the
small
store
was
0.869
and
0.49
for
the
large
markets.
Regression
analysis
did
not
give
a
reasonable
estimate
for
supermarket
waste
generation because
of
the
scattered
distnbution
of
the
data.
We
have
attributed
2 3
of
the
employment
in
this
group
to
small
and
mid-size
stores;
1 '3
to the larger supermarkets.
The waste generation estimate
for the group
is:
2 3
X
7.7
kg/employee/day
+
13
x
12.2
kg/employee day
=
9.2
kg/employee day.
3.2.5
SIC Group 61
- Shoe,
Apparel,
Fabric and Yarn
Industries,
Retail
(Table
15 &
Figure
9)
The
regression
coefficient
of
.0587 was judged
to be
marginally acceptable,
giving
an
estimate
of
the waste
generation
rate
of
0.6
kg employee day.
3-11
TABLE
1 2
SIC GROUP 56, WASTE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPLOYEE/DAY) FOR THE METALS, HARDWARE,
PLUMBING, HEA TING AND BUILDING MA TERIALS
INDUSTRIES (WHOLESALE)
Sample #
TA B L E
1 3
SIC GROUP 60, WA STE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPLOYEE/DA Y) FOR THE SMALUMID-SIZE
FOOD STORES (RETAIL)
Sample #
TABLE
1 4
SIC GROUP 60, WASTE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPLOYEE/DA Y) FOR THE LARGE FOOD
STORES (RETAIL)
Sample #
TA B L E
1 5
SIC GROUP 61, WASTE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPLOYEE/DA Y) FOR THE SHOE, APPAREL,
FABRIC AND YARN INDUSTRIES (RETAIL)
Sample #
3.2.6
SIC Group 62
- Household
Furniture,
Appliances, and
Furnishings
Industries,
Retail
(Table
16 &
Figure
10)
A
single datum
tor
a
large company biased
the
regression
analysis
so
the average
ot
all
the
data
are
used
to
estimate
the
waste
generation
rate
which was
1.49
kg employee day.
3.2.7
SIC Group 63
- Automotive Vehicles,
Parts and Accessories
Industries, Sales
and
Service
3.2.7.1
SIC Group 631
- Automobile
Dealers
(Table
17 &
Figure
11)
The
study
sample
was
relatively
large
(n = 14)
and
included
firms
with
a
large
number
of
employees.
The
regression
coefficient,
r
=
0.86,
showed
a
strong
correlation
between
waste
generation
and employment.
Based
on
the
regression,
the waste
generation
is
estimated
to be
0.87
kg employee day.
Why
use
the
regression
value
of
0.87
kg employee day and
not
the sample mean
(1.4 kg/employee day), when
all
but two
of
the
sample
data
are
greater
than
0.87
kg/employee/ day?
In
practical terms, these two estimates do
not
differ
significantly
from each
other; the data plotted
in
Figure
1
1
suggest a strong
relationship between
employment
and
waste
generation
(regression
coefficient,
r
=
0.74).
Additional
sampling would
strengthen
this
relationship
further.
3.2.7.2
Group 633
- Gasoline Service
Stations
(Table
18 &
Figure
12)
The sample
size was
too
small
(n = 3)
to use
the
regression
estimate.
Therefore,
the
sample
average
(0.36
kg employee day)
was
used
as
the
waste
generation
estimate.
3-12
TA B L E
1 6
SIC GROUP 62. WA STE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPLOYEE/DA Y) FOR THE HOUSEHOLD
FURNITURE, APPLIANCES AND FURNISHINGS (RETAIL)
Sample #
TABLE
1 7
SIC GROUP 631, WASTE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPLOYEE/DA Y) FOR THE AUTOMOBILE DEALERS
Sample #
TA B L E
1 8
SIC GROUP 633, WA STE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPLOYEE/DA Y) FOR THE GASOLINE SERVICE
STATIONS
Sample #
3.2.7.3
Group 635
- Motor Vehicle Repair Shops
(Table
19 &
Figure
13)
The wide range
of weights over a very
small employment range can be accounted
for by
the waste management
practices
of many
firms.
Although scrap
metal
bins
were
usually on
the company's
premises,
metal
items were
routinely
discarded
in
the
general garbage
bin.
Regression
analysis was
not applicable
to the
cluster
of
data.
Therefore,
the waste
generation
estimate
of
4.6
kg employee/day was obtained
from
averaging
the
data.
3.2.8
SIC
Group 65
-
Other
(Miscellaneous)
Retail
Store
Industries
(Table
20 &
Figure
14)
The regression
coefficient,
r
=
0.365, was
indicative
of the wide scatter
in the data.
Therefore,
the average
of
the sample
data
(4.94
kg employee'day) was
used.
3.2.9
SIC Group 70
- Deposit Accepting
Intermediary
Industries (Table 21 & Figure
15)
The
regression
of
the
data gave an
acceptable
regression
coefficient
of 0.825 and
thus a
regression
estimate
of
0.16
kg employee day.
3.2.10 SIC Group
91
- Accommodation
Service
Industries, Accommodation
Wrthout
Restaurants
but
with many
Efficiency
Unrts
(Table 22 &
Figure
16)
The
regression
coefficient was
too
low
to
accept
the
regression
estimate.
The
average
of
the
sample
data
gave
a
waste
generation
estimate
of
6.2
kg/employee/day.
Although there was no restaurant associated with the
facilities, the
high
waste
generation
rate
is
attributed
to
the
efficiency
units
where
long
term
residents were
living and
cooking
meals.
This
type
of accommodation becomes
a
residential
dwelling and
must be
treated
as
a
special waste
stream.
3-13
3.2.11 SIC
Group
91
-
Accommodation
Service
Industries,
Accommodation
with
Restaurants
(Table 23 &
Figure
17)
The
regression
coefficient
was
too
low
to
accept
tfie
regression
estimate.
The
average
of
the
sample
data
gave
a
waste
generation
estimate
of
1.7
kg employee day.
The
larger number
of employees
at these
facilities
led
to a lower
per employee wastes
generation
rate
than
for premises
with
efficiency
units.
For
SIC
Group
91
as
a
whole,
we
assumed
that
hotels
with
restaurants
might
account
for two
thirds
of
the employment
for
this
group.
3.2.12 SIC Group 92
- Food and Beverage Service
industries Licensed
(Table 24 &
Figure
18) and
Unlicensed
(Table 25 &
Figure
19)
for
Alcoholic Beverages
The
regression
analyses
for
the
licensed
and
unlicensed
restaurants
were
similar
(regression
coefficient,
r
=
0.77), so the data were combined and analyzed together
giving
a
regression
coefficient,
r
=
0.77.
The
regression
estimate
tor
waste
generation
for
the combined
data was
3.0
kg employee day.
3.2.1 3 SIC Group 96-Amusement
and
Recreational
Service
Industries
(Table 26 &
Figure 20)
The
data
were
clustered
at
the
employment
end
of
the
scale,
so
use
of
the
regression value was
not appropriate.
The sample average
of
2.1
kg employee day
was used
as
the waste
generation
estimate.
3.3
Wastes Generation
Estimates
for Other SIC Groups
SIC Group 64 (General
Retail Merchandising
Industries)
includes department
stores.
A waste
generation
estimate
for
these
firms was
the average
of
the
estimates
for
similar
retail SIC Groups
61
and
62;
i.e.,
1.14 kgemployee/day.
3-14
TABLE 19
SIC GROUP 635,
IV
(KG/EMPLOYEE/D/
REPAIR SHOPS
Sample #
TABLE
1 9
SIC GROUP 635, WASTE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPLOYEE/DAY) FOR THE MOTOR VEHICLE
REPAIR SHOPS
Sample #
TAB L E 20
SIC GROUP 65, WA STE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPLOYEE/DA Y) FOR THE OTHER RETAIL
STORE INDUSTRIES
Sample #
TA B L E 2 1
SIC GROUP 70, WA STE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPLOYEE/DA Y) FOR THE DEPOSIT ACCEPTING
INTERMEDIARY INDUSTRIES
Sample #
TABLE 22
SIC GROUP 91, WASTE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPL O YEE/DA Y) FOR THE A CCOMMODA TION
SERVICE INDUSTRIES WITHOUT RESTAURANTS
(MOTELS)
Sample #
TABLE 23
SIC GROUP 91, WASTE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPLOYEE/DA Y) FOR THE ACCOMMODA TION
SERVICE INDUSTRIES WITH RESTAURANTS
(HOTELS)
Sample #
TA B L E 24
SIC GROUP 92, WAS
(KG/EMPLO YEE/DA V
SERVICE INDUSTRIE
BEVERAGES)
Sample #
TABLE 24
SIC GROUP 92, WASTE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPLOYEE/DA Y) FOR THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE
SERVICE INDUSTRIES (LICENSED FOR ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES)
Sample #
TABLE 25
SIC GROUP
i
(KG/EMPLOy
SERVICE INC
Sample #
TABLE 25
SIC GROUP 92, WASTE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPLOYEE/DA Y) FOR THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE
SERVICE INDUSTRIES (UNLICENSED)
Sample #
TABLE 26
SIC GROUP 96, WASTE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPLOYEE/DA Y) FOR THE AMUSEMENT AND
RECREATIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES
Sample #
For
SIC
Groups
71
to
77
(Finance,
Insurance
and
Business
Service
Industries)
wastes
generation
data
were
obtained
from
a
study
that was
conducted
for
the
Ontario
Ministry
of
Government
Services
(personal
communication:
Ms.
Marook
Sidhwa,
Regional
Coordinator
-
Toronto
East,
Waste
Management
Program,
November,
1990).
The
average
wastes
generation
rate
was
reported
as
1.34
lb employee day
or
0.61
kg employee day.
Because
of the
similarities
in
activity, the waste generation estimates
for SIC Groups
97
to
99
(Personal
and
Household
Service,
Membership
Organizations
and
Other
Service
Industries) were
estimated
to
be
the same
as
that
for
banks
(SIC Group
70).
As
earlier
discussed.
Table
8
provides
a
summary
of
the
estimation
of
waste
generation
by commercial
sectors
as
discussed
above.
3.4
Sources
of
Potential
Error
in Employee Waste Generation
Estimates
Error
in the estimates
of waste generation
for a
municipality can occur
in two ways.
First,
the
labelled Waste Survey
in
Table
6
is
derived
from
the
evaluation
of
ratios
of waste generation per employee (Section
3.2.1).
The error occurs
in the sampling
procedure, due
to
store-to-store differences m
the
ratios;
this
error can be reduced
by
increasing
the sample
size.
The
results
presented
in Table
8
suggest
that
the
standard
deviation
ranges from
10
to 30%.
Difficulty
in
identifying
and
clahfying
the
correct
type
of
business
SIC
can
also
contribute to
that
error, and
is more
difficult
to evaluate.
The
error depends on the
significance
of
identifiable
differences
in
subtypes
of commercial
activities,
perhaps
segmented by location or brand names or product mix.
A store
incorrectly
identified
could
lead
to
a
sizeable
error
in
a
small
sample.
In
this
study,
local
business
directories
provided
the SIC
for
the
businesses.
Measurement
errors,
e.g.,
weight
of waste,
should be
relatively
minor.
3-15
The second form
of error (possibly embodied
in the remainder
of Table
6)
is
related
to
the
estimation
of
total
commercial
activity
in
various
sectors,
based on
various
data
sources.
Each
data
source
has
its own
problems.
Unlike
the waste
study
data, these
errors cannot be reduced
by
increasing the sample
size.
Census data
are comprehensive,
but begin with the undercounting bias
that averages
this percent
across
the
population
as
a
whole.
There
may
be
other
systematic
errors
in
reporting
the
SIC;
such
as,
whether
the person
is
actually
working,
or
the
location
of
the
work
place,
fvlost
of
the
error
in
the
Labour
Force
survey
is
derived
directly from
the sample
size,
since there
is
not
detailed
information on
location
or
SIC.
The
regional employment
survey
provides
greater
spatial
detail
but
carries
a
high
level
of
error due
to non-response and
errors
in SIC or number
of employees.
Local governments are not professional data gathering agencies and employers
are
not
required
to
respond.
The present study
is thus an
exploratory one, and the sampling
errors
in
the waste
survey
predominate.
As more
information
is
integrated
from
additional
work,
and
samples become
larger and more
precisely targeted, these waste survey errors can
be reduced and made small,
relative to the problems
of employment estimations and
projections.
3.5
Estimation
of Commercial Waste
Generation
in
the
Regional
Municipality
of
Waterloo
Table 9 disaggregates the various SIC categories from
Statistics Canada
to conform
to
the groups used
in
the
present
field
study.
Note
that much
of
the commercial
activity can
simply be grouped together as
office employment.
The
field
study has
focused
on
the
variance
in
waste
generation among
retail
and
service
activities.
The
table
also
contains
estimates
of
total
regional
employment
for
each
of
the
commercial
sectors.
To
obtain an
estimate
of
the
Region's employment from
the
CMA
data
in
the
Census
we
simply
multiplied
by
1.028
to
reflect
the
slight
differences
in
the
spatial
definition
of
the
study area
(i.e.,
the
Region's
boundaries
are
slightly
larger than those
of
Statistic Canada
for
the
Region).
To
convert
the
3-16
1986 employment
to
1990 employment, we
multiplied
by
the estimated commercial
employment growth
of
15
percent.
The
application
of growth
rates
in
this manner
does
not
account
for
fluctuations
occurring
as
a
result
of
economic
fluctuations,
such as
during a periods
of
recession. The
joint
effect
of these two adjustments
is
18.2 percent.
These employment estimates are combined with the waste generation
per employees
to
estimate
total commercial waste
for
the
SIC
group
listed.
Finance and
service
industries have been
estimated
to produce
nearly 40%
of
the
total commercial waste.
This may be due
to the
high number
of people employed
in
these
sectors
with
the
Region.
The
data
in
the
right
hand
column
of
Table
9
are
estimates
of
weekly
waste
generation
rates
(kg employee week)
for
13
commercial
SIC
Groups.
The
weekly
per employee waste generation
estimate
for each SIC group was
multiplied
by
the
total
regional
employment
for
the
group
to
obtain
the
weekly
waste
contribution
(kg/week) from
the SIC group.
These
calculations are shown
in Table
8
(note:
the
kg/wk
are
presented
in
1,000s,
i.e.,
the
actual
values
are
1,000
times
higher than
the number entered
in
the
table;
e.g., 342
x
1,000
=
342,000.
The
total estimated weight generated by the commercial
sector
is
1,469,400 kg wk,
or
approximately
1,469
tonnes wk
(76,388
tonnes year).
In
1989,
the
total
waste
landfilled
in
the
Region
of Waterloo was 439,000
tonnes.
Waste
from commercial
sources
is
therefore
estimated
at
76,388 439,000
x
100
or
17.4=^0
of
the
total
tonnage.
Table 5
relates the
size
of the commercial work force
in each area
municipality with
the
proportion
of
waste
generated
by
the
respective
municipalities
in
the
Region.
Kitchener,
Waterloo
and
Cambridge
account
for
approximately
92°/o
of
the
commercial waste generated
in
the
Region.
3-17
TABLE
9
ESTIMATES
OF COMMERCIAL WASTE GENERATION
Activity
Employment
CMA
(1986)
Region*
(1990)
Waste Generation
kg./empl ./wk.
Total
Waste
kg./wk.
X
10-^
Retail
Table
10
presents
a
comparison
of
the
per
employee
waste
generation
rates
estimated
in
the
present
study and
those
estimated
by Rhymer & Green
(ref.
14).
A
discussion
of these
results
is
provided
in
Section
4.0.
3-18
TABLE
10
COMPARISON OF
PER EMPLOYEE WASTE GENERATION
RATES:
RHYNER & GREEN
(REF.
14)
AND PRESENT STUDY
^
SECTION 4
DISCUSSION
4.0
DISCUSSION
4.1
Overview
of the Method
Waste Composition
Table
7
summarizes
the
waste
streams
from
the
16,
two-digit
SIC
commercial
sectors.
Because
these
are
average
percentages
of
the
composition
of waste
samples
collected
from
more
than
one
company,
the
total
will
not
add
up
to
100%.
It
is apparent
that paper predominates
as
the
major
category
of waste.
In most cases, OCC
is the
largest
fraction
of the paper waste.
Food waste from
restaurants and markets
is
a
significant
portion
of
the waste streams from these
businesses.
The
waste
composition
data
are
presented
as
percentages
of
the
total
composition and indicate the
relative
proportion,
i.e., the general picture
of various
waste
materials generated
by commercial businesses.
However,
to be
useful
to
waste management personnel
in
municipalities,
the waste composition
data must
be accompanied
by
quantitative
information
on
waste
generation.
For example,
if OCC
is
identified
as
a
significant
percentage
of
the
waste
from
a
particular
commercial
business
the
following
questions must be
addressed:
1)
How many
similar
businesses
are
there
in
the
municipality?
2)
How much OCC
is generated by
all
of those businesses
in the
municipality?
3)
What percentage
of
the waste stream
is represented
by OCC
in the
other commercial groups?
4)
What
is
the
total tonnage
of cardboard
from
all groups?
4-1
Waste
Quantity
DeGeare & Ongerth
(réf.
3) reported
a
relationship between the
quantity
of waste
generated
by commercial businesses and
business employment.
In
about
50°o
of
the
two-digit
SIC
groups
that we
studied,
reasonable
regression
coefficient
values
(r)
for
the
relationship between
waste
generation
and employment were
obtained
(Table
8).
In
the
case
of
the
remaining
SIC
sectors,
one
or
more
reasons
were
proposed
to
explain
the
poor
regressions;
e.g.,
sample
size
of
businesses
was
too
small;
data
were
clumped;
interfering
waste
management
practices;
etc.
In these cases the average per employee waste generation
rates
were used
in
calculations
rather
than
the
value
for
'b'
(slope)
in
the
regression
equations.
On the basis
of the DeGeare-Ongerth
relationship,
the waste generation
rates
for
retail commercial
activities were estimated on
a Region-wide
scale,
using
suitably
adjusted
Canada
Census
data
for
the
Regional
Municipality
of
Waterloo
(see
Section
2.0).
Referring
to
the OCC example above
(i.e., where
a
relatively
high
proportion
of
OCC
is
identified
in
the
commercial
waste
streams
in
a
municipality)
waste
management
planners can
estimate
the
quantity
of OCC generated
by
all
of
the
commercial
groups
in
a
municipality,
once
they
know
the
following:
(1)
per
employee waste
generation
rate
for each SIC
group;
(2)
the
total employment
in
the
commercial
groups
within
the
municipality;
and
(3)
the
quantity
of OCC
in
each
of
the waste streams
that were
studied
as
part
of
this waste composition
study,
i.e., those commercial
activities
that are
related
to
residential consumption.
(Note:
this
forms
the
basis
of
estimates
in
data base
projections.)
4-2
4.2
Evaluation
of the Methods
4.2.1
Waste Composition
of Commercial Businesses
Timing
of
the
Study
If
the waste
composition
study had
been
conducted
two
or
three
years
ago
in
the
Region
of
Waterloo, we
could
probably
have
stated
with
certainty
that
the
composition
of
the
waste
stream
had
been
adequately
assessed
by
our
study
methods.
Presently
however,
waste
reduction
and
waste
diversion
are
being
more
frequently practised as company
policy
or by conscientious employees who
take
recyclable
materials
from
places
of
work
to
recycling
locations
in
municipalities
or home
to
their
Blue Boxes.
We expect
that these
activities have
reduced
the
quantities
of
some
materials
that
otherwise
would
have
been
discarded
in
the
bulk
refuse
containers.
The
impact
of
these
waste
diversion
activities would be greater
in companies
with fewer employees than
in those
with
larger
employment.
We
cautiously
regard
the
composition
data
as
a
best
estimate under constantly changing circumstances.
This study did
not attempt
to
quantify the amount
of
materials
being
diverted
from
a company's waste
stream;
the
waste
composition,
therefore,
does
not
include
those
materials
which were
being
diverted
(if
any) through any
outside
agencies.
Because
of
the
scope
of
the
work,
it
was
not
possible
to
design
a
waste
sampling
program
that
would
permit
the
collection
of
a
sufficient
number
of
samples
so
that
statistical
analyses
could
be
applied
to
the
waste
composition
data.
It
must be
pointed
out
that
this
study was
a
prerequisite
study;
the
level
of
variance
between
the
estimated
and
actual
waste
composition
is
not known,
fvlore
field work must now be done
in
other
municipalities
to augment
the
data
contained
herein.
4-3
Waste Composition
Variability
Does
one
expect
a
large
variation
in
the
composition
of
the
waste
streams
generated by commercial businesses throughout the year?
Given the "predictable
character"
of
retail
activities carried on
within each SIC group, there
is no reason
to
expect
a
significant
variation
in
the
composition
in
the
waste
generated
by
business
within
a
given
sector.
It
is
expected,
however,
that
there may
be
variations
in
the
quantity
of
waste,
with
increases
occurring
at
certain
times
of
the
year,
e.g.,
Christmas
holidays,
year-end
inventory,
etc.
However,
as was
pointed
out
earlier
(see
Section
2.0),
retail
activity
is
dependent on consumer
habits.
Consumer waste
generation
is
reportedly
consistent,
varying
+ -10%
of a
yearly average over three quarters
of
the
time
(cf.
Vesilind &
Rimer,
ref.
17).
The
implication
of
this
consistency
is
that seasonal
variations
in
residential
refuse
generation
patterns
will be
mirrored
in many
of
the commercial
retail
sectors.
Financial
institutions may
also
exhibit
predictable
fluctuations
in
waste
composition
and or
quantity,
that
may
be
correlated
with
cyclic
business-related
activities.
4.2.2
Per Employee Waste
Gerieration
Waste
Collection
Unloading waste from
refuse
bins by hand was
unpleasant,
time consuming and
very
awkward,
particularly
for
compacted
refuse.
Nevertheless,
this
method
enabled
us
to
obtain
the
total
weight
of
refuse
discarded
by
65
of
the
businesses
surveyed
in
the
study
with
four samples
from
"light
industry".
The
remainder
of
the
refuse
weight
data
from
80 companies were
obtained
using
a
scale
mounted
on
a
garbage
truck
(see
Section
2.0)
and
10
samples
were
"dedicated"
loads
from
single
businesses,
with
load
weights
from
landfill
scalehouse
data.
A number
of
firms were sampled
twice
during
the
study.
The
total number
of samples was 212
(Table
8).
4-4
The
truck
collection
route varied each day
but,
in general,
the Monday route was
the same each week, Tuesday
routes were
similar,
and
so
forth.
Occasionally,
additional pick-ups were radioed
to the
driver,
for example, businesses scheduled
for
"on-call"
collections,
sporadic
customers
which
require
pick-ups
once
every
three
to
four
weeks,
etc.
The
truck-mounted
scale
greatly enhanced
the
data
collection
expectations
initially envisaged
for
the
study.
It
should
be
noted
that
the weighing
procedure
significantly
increased
the
length
of
time
that
the
driver
had
to spend
at commercial customers on
the
collection
route.
Per Employee Waste
Generation
The economic slow-down has been
correlated
with
a
reduction
in
the amount
of
refuse entering the Region
of Waterloo
landfill
sites (personal communications,
R.
Martiuk,
Director
of Solid Waste).
Notable reductions
in construction refuse
reflect
the low number
of new houses being
built.
In
theory,
a
reduction
in commercial
sales
will
be
followed
by
a
reduction
in
the
retail
work
force.
The
relationship
between waste generation and employment
will go through a period
of adjustment
until
the
SIC
sector-specific
waste
generation
versus
employment
ratio
is
re-
established.
At
the
present
level
of
sophistication
of
this
study,
it
was
not
judged
important
to
account
for these
potential
perturbations
in
the work
force.
4.3
Graphical
Presentation
of Waste
Generation
Versus
Employment
Potential Method
to
Evaluate Company Waste Management Performance ?
Graphs
of the study data
for waste generated by businesses, versus employment
(Figures
5
to
20),
display the variance
of "waste management performance"
that
has
been
encountered
in
the
sample
of
businesses.
In
theory,
the
waste
generated
by businesses
should be
closely
correlated
with employment and
the
data
should
tend
to
fall
about
an
imaginary
linear
projection
line.
If
there
are
data
that
are
greatly
removed
from
the
linear
tendency
of
the
majority
of
the
sample
points,
those
businesses may
be
targeted
for
investigation
with
respect
to
their waste management
practices.
For example,
a business
with
exceptional
4-5
waste
minimization
efforts
wtH show
up
as
a
data
point
that
is
well
below
the
general
linear grouping
of businesses;
a business
with poor waste management
policies
will show up
as
a
data
point
that
lies
well above
the
linear grouping
of
businesses.
Therefore,
municipalities
are
advised
to
plot
the
employment waste
generation
ratios
in
order
to
"get
a
feel"
for
practical
problems
that
they
can
address
in
specific companies.
A simple average
of employee waste generation
rates would
suffice
if
rates,
alone, were
important.
While
the
per employee waste
generation
rates
are
simply taken
as
the
values
of
b'
(slope)
in Table
8, one may
legitimately modify these
rates, based on the
number
of employees
in a given
firm.
In
other words, one may divide
the value
for
a'
(kg day)
by
the number
of employees
in
a
firm and add
this
quotient
(in
units
of
kg employee day)
to
the
value
of
b'.
As employment
increases,
the
impact
of the
a' (employment) on the value
of
b'
will decrease.
No company-
specific adjustments were made
to waste generation estimates because we were
interested
only
in
an
average
estimate,
representative
of
the
SIC
group
as
a
whole,
i.e.,
the
value
of
b'
alone.
4.4
Usefulness
of
Landfill Data
in
Estimating Commercial Refuse
Quantity
Generally,
there
are
three
systems
for
the
collection
of waste
from
commercial
sources and
delivery
to
landfill
sites:
(1)
residential garbage
trucks and
(2)
front
end
(or
over-head)
packer
trucks
and
(3)
"dedicated
loads"
from
large
supermarkets
and
large
malls.
Residential
garbage
trucks
frequently
make
collections
from
commercial
businesses
as
part
of
their
daily
routing
through
a
municipality.
The
load
is weighed
at the scalehouse and
the weight
is
normally
recorded
as
"residential".
The
fraction
of
the waste
collected
from commercial
businesses cannot be
accurately determined under these circumstances.
4-6
Haulers using
front end packer trucks frequently make between 25 and 50 refuse
collections
from
customers
before
proceeding
to
a
waste
facility.
A
typical
collection
route
for
one
of
tfiese
trucks may
include
stops
at:
schools,
senior
citizen's
fiomes,
commercial
businesses,
industries,
fiospitals,
condominiums,
apartment
hiouses,
malls,
etc.
It
is
apparent
that
no
matter
what
category
is
chosen
to
designate
the
"source"
of
the
waste, when
the
load
is weighed
at
a
disposal
facility,
the
choice
will
not
reflect
the
heterogeneity
of
the waste
in
the
truck.
It
is
normal
for
these
loads
to
be
recorded
as
either
"commercial"
or
"industnal".
Given the nature
of the waste
delivery systems from generator
to
transfer
station
or
landfill
site,
most
of
the
scalehouse
data
do
not
give
a
reliable
picture
of
commercial
and
industrial
waste
generation,
and
to
use
that
data
in
estimating
waste composition would be misleading.
Yet, scalehouse "records" are the basis
for
the
widely
held
generalization
that
residential
waste
is
"40°o"
of
the
total
waste
stream
and
commercial and
industrial waste accounts
for
"60°/o".
There
is good reason
to doubt the accuracy
of
this
or any
other percentages
that
rely
on scalehouse weight
data.
The method
that we have developed
in the present
study
will
enable
municipalities
to
make
a
reasonable
estimate
of
the
waste
generated by the commercial business
sector.
The method described
in Volume
I
of the Waste Composition Study can be used
to estimate
the
residential waste
stream.
4.5
Verification
of the Employee Waste Generation
Estimates
In the absence
of an
alternative method
to
directly estimate
the employee waste
generation
rates,
one
must
defer
to
a
comparison
of
the
data
with
published
literature
values.
Such
a comparison
is
given
in Table
10.
With
the
exception
of
the
generation
rates
for
the
financial
operations,
the
results
compared
favourably
with
those
of
Rhyner
&
Green
(ref.
14),
especially
it
one
were
to
estimate
limits
of
±10
to 30%
around
both
sets
of
data.
4-7
The
following
verification
metfiod
is
suggested
in
future
studies.
Using
small
"strip
malls",
estimate
the
total
waste
generation
rate
for each
business,
using
the SIC
per employee waste generation
rate estimates
(from
this
study) and
the
employment
figure
for
each
business.
Compare
the
estimated sum
of
waste
generated
for
the
entire sample
mall
with
the
actual
weight
of
waste
produced
by the
mall.
4.6
' Light
Industry
"
The Standard
Industrial
Classification system uses the term
"industry" throughout
(e.g.,
"Retail Trade
Industries"),
but no categorical
distinction or definition
is given
to the term
"light",
with respect
to any
kind
of
industry.
Commercial businesses
are
also
called
industries,
so
one
cannot
look
to
the
SIC
code
to
assist
in
distinguishing
"light"
industry from
"heavy"
industry.
Semantic
arguments
and
clear
problems
of
nomenclature
aside,
an
arbitrary
decision
was made
to
call
the
shoe
manufacturing
industry
(SIC
17)
and
the
printing
industry
(SIC
28)
"light
industry".
No
special methods were
applied
to
the
data
gathering
procedures
for these businesses and
therefore
the
data
are
considered
tentative.
This
study
describes
sampling
procedures
for
commercial
activities
that
closely
serve
the
residential
sector.
Longer
term
sampling
procedures
are needed
to assess
industrial waste stream
characteristics.
4-8
SECTION
5
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
Conclusions
1.
Waste
composition and
per employee
generation
rates
have been
estimated
for the commercial businesses
in the Regional
Municipality
of Waterloo.
The
methods used
in
the
present
study
provides
direct estimates
tor
52°o
of
the
total employment
in commercial business
in the Region and
indirect estimates
for
100%.
Thus,
estimates
of
the
waste
generated
by
a
segment
of
the
commercial
sector
of
the
municipality have been made
for
the
first
time.
The
total annual tonnage received by the two Region
of Waterloo
landfill
sites
in 1989 was 439,000 tonnes.
Based on the
results
of the present
study,
the
commercial
sector
contributed
an
estimated
76,388
tonnes,
or
17.4%
of
the
total
weight.
2.
The
most commonly
encountered
waste
material
in
commercial
refuse was
corrugated cardboard (OCC) which ranged
from
a
low
of 4.0%
to
a
high
of
49.0%
of
the
weight
of
refuse generated
by
the
firms
which were sampled.
The wide range
in OCC
content may be the
result
of some
firms
separating
used OCC
for
recycling,
possibly
in
anticipation
of
the proposed ban on
the
landfilling
of OCC
within
the
Regional
Municipality
of Waterloo
in
1991.
Variations observed
in
the
composition
of
other waste streams may be due
to
recycling
activities,
either
under
the
auspices
of company-wide programs
or by conscientious employees who took materials to recycling locations
in the
municipality
or home
to
their own
Blue
Boxes.
3.
The
statistical
reliability
of
the waste
composition
data
for some
of
the
SIC
groups
is
questionable because
of
the
small number
of waste samples
that
were
sorted.
Nevertheless,
the
data
indicate
the
general
proportion
of
5-1
materials m the waste streams from the
16, two-digit SIC groups that comprise
the
commercial
business
community
in
the
Region.
Waste
from
65
businesses was
sorted.
The
installation
of
a
truck-mounted
scale,
used
to
determine
the
weight
of
refuse
in 2
to
8 cubic yards
refuse
bins, enabled us
to
obtain waste
quantity
data
from
an
additional
80
commercial
businesses.
For
estimating
the
per
employee waste generation
rates,
this method
is more
efficient than the labour
intensive
method, used
in
the waste composition
part
of the
study,
in which
the crew
unloaded
the
refuse
bins by hand
to determine
the
total
weight
of
the waste
in
the
bin.
During the course of the study,
insights were noted regarding the effectiveness
of waste management
practices
of some
firms.
For example,
for automotive
repair businesses,
it appears
that employee's tend
to use the general
refuse
bin
for
discarding
metal waste
materials,
despite
the
fact
that
a
scrap
metal
bin
has been made
available.
Such
insights, when communicated
to the management
of the firm provide an
immediate opportunity to help that firm improve the efficiency
of
their recycling
efforts.
There
is
also
an
indication
that
differences
exist
in
per
employee
waste
generation
rates
in
small
grocery
stores and
in
larger
supermarkets.
The
demonstrated
method
for
estimating
the
rate
of
employee
waste
generation
has
the
potential
to
be
used
as
a
waste
management
tool
by
municipalities.
The
distribution
of
the
daily
waste
generation
rates
versus
employment
data,
exhibited
in
the graphs
for each
SIC
sector,
could
enable
municipal
waste
management
personnel
to
prioritize
their
"remedial"
waste
reduction
efforts by planning
to
visit those companies whose waste generation
rates seem
out
of
line
with
the
general waste-to-employee
relationship.
5-2
5.2
Recommendations
The methods employed
in the commercial
portion
of the Ontario Waste Composition
Study
have
been
demonstrated
on
a
selection
of
commercial
businesses
in
the
Regional
Municipality
of
Waterloo.
Within
the
commercial
sectors
in
the
Region
there
is a
relatively high awareness of waste diversion options that
will reduce waste
disposal
costs
and
encourage
recycling.
Therefore,
we
cautiously
regard
the
qualitative and quantitative data presented herein as a best estimate under constantly
changing
circumstances.
This
report
has
developed
a
procedure
for
estimating
the
amount
of
waste
generated
by commercial
activities
within
Ontario
urban
areas and began
with
the
process
of
integrating
the complex data
inputs
required.
What are the next steps?
The
study
has
employed
a
two-stage
estimation
process:
(1)
the development
of
ratios
of
waste
generation
per
employee;
and
(2)
the
estimation
of
commercial
employment composition
for the
municipality as a whole.
Each
step poses
different
problems.
The
following recommendations
are
submitted:
1.
The
waste
generation
and
composition
data
base
will
require
many
more
samples
in
order
to
cover
the
full
range
of commercial
activities.
No one
study
will have the resources to undertake a complete evaluation; the research
results
must
be
accumulated
over
many
studies
and
evaluated
over
time.
Fortunately,
there
is
no
inherent
reason
that
a
business
in
any
part
of
the
province cannot be used
to estimate waste generated elsewhere--unless
local
waste management
policies
differ
significantly.
This means
that each
study
should use
the same SIC
identification
to code
commercial
activity and the same methodology for measuring waste output and
composition.
A
central agency
(e.g.,
the
fy^Iinistry
of Environment) may have
to
take
the
responsibility
for
organizing and
evaluating
the
data.
5-3
2.
It
will
also
be
necessary
to
monitor
any
changes
over
time
in
waste
generation
that
may
reflect
innovations
in
policy,
technology
or
corporate
behaviour.
The
date
of
each
sample
must
be
retained
and or
it may
be
necessary to
identify sample locations that can be restudied over time
in order
to
minimize
sampling
error.
3.
To
better understand
the
effect
of
recycling
behaviour on
the data gathered,
It
IS recommended that employees, management of participating firms be asked
to describe the nature and extent
of any source separation recycling
activities.
4.
The immediate
priorities
for sampling can be
identified from the
results of
this
study.
Those commercial
activities that employ large numbers
of people must
be
further
investigated
in
order
to
improve
sample
size
and
reveal
any
significant
vanation
within
the
SIC
groups;
this
includes
the
diverse
set
of
office and
financial
activities.
Conversely,
those
activities
with a
high
rate
of
waste
generation
per
employee,
such
as
food
stores
and
restaurants,
must
be
sampled
repeatedly
because
of
their
importance
to
the
overall
waste
generation.
Those
sectors
where
the
observed
sample
variance
(standard
deviation)
is high require
larger samples
to improve
overall accuracy,
possibly
by
isolating subgroups
within
the
SIC.
Activities
that generate
policy-relevant
waste matenals
should
be
given
special
attention.
5.
The
future
development
of
employment
estimates
requires
two
divergent
approaches.
First,
substantial
savings
may
result
from
a
centralized
standardized
analysis
of
employment
that
applies
the
same
set
of
data,
techniques and
projections
to
all urban areas-much as the
Ontario
Statistical
Centre has developed
a common
set
of
population
forecasts.
At
the
same
time,
municipalities
have
better
information
about
local
peculiarities
and
exceptions
to
the
employment
structure.
These
special
cases,
e.g., community
colleges,
tounst
attractions,
shopping
concentrations,
5-4
as
well
as
manufacturing
activities, may
require
special
attention
by
a
local
agency.
5-5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Gore &
Storrie Limited wish to acknowledge the assistance provided by the Regional
Municipality
of Waterloo
for the commercial portion
of the Ontario Waste Composition
Study.
Mr.
Dick
Buggein
of
the
Region
co-ordinated
the
field
work
and
wrote
significant
portions
of
the
text.
The concept
for
the
field
study was developed
following
the
advice
of
Dr.
Virginia
Maclaren
that
led
to
extensive
discussions
with
Dr.
Jim
Simmons
(both
faculty
members
in the Geography Department,
University
of Toronto).
Dr. Simmons worked
with
the Canada Census employment
information
and accessed
other employment
data
bases
in
order
to
develop
a
picture
of employment
in
the
retail
commercial
businesses
in
the
Regional
Municipality
of
Waterloo.
Dr. Simmons
also
assisted
in
the
evaluating
the
field
data
and
writing
portions
of
the
text.
The
project
clearly
benefitted
from
Dr.
Simmons' many
crucial
contributions.
The
field
crew;
David
Fox
(Gore
&
Storrie
Limited),
Ritchard
Stevenson
and
Lisa
Morgan
(both
from
the
Region
of
Waterloo)
were
responsible
for
contacting
the
companies,
organizing
an
often
complicated
waste
collection
schedule
and
sorting
the
waste.
They
were
a
dedicated
crew
and
their
efforts
are
greatfully
acknowledged.
A considerable
portion
of
the
field work was conducted
with
the
participation
of
Big
Bear
Services,
Waterloo,
Ontario, and
the cooperation
of Messers. Bob
Knarr, Gary
Bell and
Bruce
Storrer.
Report
preparation
assistance was
provided
by
David
Fox,
Brock
Harrington,
Rob
Flindall,
Debra
Hayes
and
Chris
Taylor
of
Gore
&
Storrie
Limited,
with
additional
support
from Adam
Buggein and
Barbara
St.
Hill.
The
Project
Managers
for
Gore
&
Storrie
Limited
were
Les
MacMillan
and
Jeff
Flewelling.
We
greatfully
acknowledge
the
strong
ongoing
support
and
assistance
of
Messrs.
Neal
Ahlberg,
Brendan
Killackey
and
Dan
lonescu,
Waste
Management
Branch,
Ministry
of
the
Environment.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
1. AMS
(1973)
Applied
Management
Sciences
Inc.
The
private
sector
in
solid
waste
management;
a
profile
of
its
resources
and
contribution
to
collection
and
disposal.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Publication
SW
-
51d.1
,
U.
S. Government
Printing
Office, Washington,
D.C.
(Cited
by
Rhyner &
Green,
1988).
2.
Bird &
Hale.
1978.
Municipal
Refuse
Statistics
for
Canadian
Communities
of
over
100,000
(1976-1977).
37
pp.
(EPS
File
No.
4672-1).
3.
DeGeare,
T.
V. &
J.
E.
Ongerth.
1971.
Empirical
analysis
of commercial
solid
waste generation.
Jour.
Sanitary Engineering
Division.
Proc. Amer. Soc.
Civil
Engineering. 97(SA
6): 843
-
850.
4.
Evans,
B.
W.
1985.
How
garbage
analysis
can
reduce
collection
costs.
Biocvcle
.
March:
30
-
33.
5.
Franke,
B.
1987.
Comparing
solid
waste management
options:
a
case
study.
Unpublished
manuscript.
Institute
for
Energy
and
Environmental
Research.
Takoma
Park, MD 20912.
15 pp
+
6
figures.
6.
Freund,
John
E.
1984.
Modern
elementary
Statistics.
6th
Edition.
Prentice-Hall,
Englewood
Cliffs,
N.J.
xii
+
561
pp.
7. Golueke,
C.
G.
1971.
Comprehensive
studies
of
solid waste management,
third
annual
report.
NTIS
Report
PB
213
576,
National
Technical
Information
Service,
U.
S. Department
of Commerce. Washington,
D.
C.
(Cited by Rhyner
&
Green,
1988).
8.
Jones,
K.
&
J.
Simmons.
1987.
Location,
Location,
Location.
Methuen
Publications,
Agincourt,
Ontario.
Canada,
xix
+
438
pp.
9.
Liblit,
E.
R.
1990.
Commercial
recycling
in
Babylon, New
York: how
the
other
half
operates.
Resource
Recycling
9(11):
48-52.
10.
Louisville.
1970.
(Cited
by
Peter
Middleton &
Associates
but
not referenced
in
their
report).
11.
Peter
Middleton
&
Associates
Limited.
1975.
Composition
and
Quantity:
a
critical
evaluation
of
existing
data.
A
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Management
Study by
the
Pollution Probe
Foundation.
86
pp.
12.
Proctor
&
Redfern
Ltd.
1972.
Hamilton-Wentworth Waste Management
Study.
First and Second
Interim Report
, May and October.
(Cited by Peter Middleton
&
Associates).
1
13.
Proctor &
Redfern
Ltd.
1975.
(Cited
by
Peter
Middleton & Associates
but
not
referenced
in
their
report).
14.
Rtiyner,
C.
R.
&
B.
D.
Green.
1988.
The
predictive
accuracy
of
published
solid
waste
generation
factors.
Waste
f^anaqement
&
Research
6;
329
-
338.
Smith,
F.
A.
1975.
A
solid waste estimation procedure:
materials flows
approach.
Environmental Protection Publication SW
-
147, U
S. Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.
(Cited
by Rhyner &
Green,
1988).
15.
Statistics Canada.
1980.
Standard
Industrial
Classification.
Ottawa
16.
Statistics
Canada.
1985.
Seasonal
Variation
in
the
Canadian
Economy:
Retail
Trade.
Categories
16-502.
17.
Vesilind,
P.
A.
&
A.
E.
Rimer.
1981.
Unit
Operations
in Resource Recovery
Engineering
.
Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood
Cliffs,
N.
J.
x
+
452
pp.
I
I
I
!
I
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A
Results of an Empirical Analysis of Commercial Solid Waste Generation Undertaken
bv T.V. DeGeare and
J.
E. Ongerth (1971)
(ref.
3)
sou
400
300
na
100
-200
-300
_
-
-
-
-
3
4
5
$
7
Y
PREDICIEO
(IU/«k
»
lO-î)
FIG. 3.-ACTUAL VKIISUS PREDICTED SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES (nestaurant.
Grocery, and Clothing Stores)
I
J3
-a:
:=)
t--
>-
-1
r~]--
I--
r
- DRUG
A HARDWARE
.012345
Y PREDICTED
(Ib/wk
x
10"^)
FIG.
4.-ACTUAL VERSUS PREDICTED SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES (Drug and Hard-
ware Slorca)
APPENDIX B
Winijtry
of
the Environaent
Mâstc Composition Study
GORE
1
STORRIE
LINITEC
**unicipdl
1 ty
:
Region
of
bdlerloo
SIC:
1712
SIC code description:
Sample
I
:
1
#W12
(footwear
Collection
Dales:
July
1990
industry)
iWPLE
I:
II
kg
I
1 -t
(1)
Paper
(a)
«evspnnt
Ministry
of
the Environaent
Udste Cocposilion
Study
GORE
S
SIORRIE
LIHIIEL
Hunt J jpâl ity
:
Region
of Waterloo
SIC:?819
Saaple
f
:
1-3
Collection
Dates ;JtJLY-AuGUSI
1990
SAMPLE
1:
Ministry
of
the Cnvironaent
Waste Coapo&ition Study
GORE
i
STORRIE
irHlTEQ
HISCELUUEOUS
ITEMS
HunicipdHty:
Region
of Waterloo
SIC:2819
Saaple
9
:
1-3
Collection Dates; JUlV-AUbUST
1990
SIC
code descnpt ion:
#2B19
(other coaaercial
printing
industry)
(I)
Paper
(i)
Hewsprint
Kiniitry
of
the Enwiron«ent
Waste
Composition
Study
Gû«f
t
STORRIE
LIMITED
SIC
code
description;
#4813
(coatiined
radiovtele-
Nonicipal ity:
Region
of Waterloo
vision broadcasting
SIC:
4ai3
Industry)
Saaple 1:1
Collection
Dates:
June
1990
HISCELUoaOUS
ITtXS
NOTE:
---
. K WEIGHT RECORDED
SAMPLE
1:
KlRlttrit
of
th« tntironmtnt
Wilt» Coaposition
Sludy
GÛ«
(
StOW!l(
lINIItO
II£W
Kunkipjl Itjr:
Rr^ion
of
Waterloo
SIC
Code:
6011.
6012.
6019
S3*pl(
I:
1-S
Coll«tlon
Odtts:
May.
June,
July
1990
HI RtCORDfD
SIC
I 6019
SAWU
I
II
k,
I
I
,rt
(1)
flfxr
MmUtrr
or
th* [nwironaenl
W41tt Coapolinon Slwdr
COM
I
SIORAIE UKIItO
Municipiitt;:
Rr^ior
of Wdlrrloo
SIC Code
6011.
601?.
6019
llmt\t
I.
I'S
CollKtlO" Oitfi;
«Jr.
J»n».
Ju'r I'M
(Kripl>0«;
«inislrj
of
the tnvironient
Waste Coaposition
Study
UX^f
I
NISCtLLAKfiXjS 1U«
NOIE:
---
-
HÛ
rftlGHl MCORDEO
Nunicipality:
Region
of
k*aterIoo
SIC
code:
6111.
6149,
6151
Saiple
I:
1-8
Collection
Dates:
June,
July
1990
SIC»
IE AN
jllj A PERCEMt
%MiPa
I;
I
1
k9
1 W«
11
(»)
Il
(1)
Paper
(a)
Newsprint
(b)
Fine Paper
/ CPU
/
Ledger
(c)
Hdga2ines
/ El/ers
(d)
Ha.ed
/ Plastic
/ Nued
(e)
Bo«board
(f)
Itraft
(g)
Ual Ipaper
(h)
OCC
(i)
Tissues
(10.455
I
0.227
I
0.227
16.136
0.042
4.636
4.545
(2)
Glass
(a)
Beer
22
II
1«.61I||
3.90111
<-5?ï||
39
1-65III
15.26111
1.64%
I
10
II
g
28.65x||
'--
.
6-3"ll
(i)
refillable
(ii)
non-ref
1
1
lable
(b)
Liquor
i Wine Containers
(c)
Food Containers
(d)
Soft
Drink
(i)
refillable
(ii)
non-ref
I liable
(e)
Other Containers
(f)
Plate
<g)
Other
II
I
0"l||
I
0.818
I
1,
0.3n\\
11
I
I-581II
0.45l|
0.04II
II
(3)
ferrous
(a)
Soft
Drink Containers
(b)
Food Containers
(c)
Beer
Cans
(i)
returnable
(ii)
non-returnable
(d)
Aerosol
Cans
(e)
Other
-II-
II
II
0.227
II
II
0.032
II
II
-II
0«J||
O.I6lii
0.
O.OlI
(4)
Non-Ferrous
(a)
Beer Cans
(i)
returnable
||
[ii)
non-returnable
||
(i
1
i
) Aaencan
j
|
(b)
Soft
Drink
Containers
||
0.016
(c)
Other
Packaging
||
(d)
Aluainua
j
(e)
Other
0.02ï||
II
I
D.
n
I
0.25III
0.011
(5)
Plastics
(a) Polyolefms
(b)
PVC
(c)
Polystyrene
(d)
AfiS
(e)
PET
(f) Ki.ed
Blend Plastic
(g)
Coated Plastic
(i)
Nylon
(1)
Vinyl
II
l-"3
11
11
0.136
II
II
II
I
3.r
I
0-
I
2.151
I
0.281
(6) Organic
(a)
Food Haste
/ Rodent
Bedding
||
0.591
|
1.
(b)
Tard Uaste
(7) yood
----
2.241
I
2.361
(8)
Ceraaics
/ Rubble
/ Fiberglass
/
Gypsua Board
/ Asbestos
II
(9)
Diapers
(10)
Ie«tiles/Leather/Rubber
II
0.545
I
l.i
(1
0.151
||
3.182
I
t.i
(11) Household Hazardous
(a)
Paints
/
Solvefiti
jj
Wastes
(b) Waste Oils
||
(c)
PestlcidesAlïrticides
jj
(12) Dry Cell
Batteries
(13)
Kitty litter
II-
2.021
(14)
Miscellaneous
II
II
I"--
3.801)1
II
45.61
jlOO.O
II
---
iOO.OOlil
TOTAL
)-
kg
SAXPLt
I
1
ITEM
2
ple»iglass
light
bulbs
letrapaks
electrical
*.ire
coated wire
hanger
tetrapaks
tetrapaks
I
Instant
start
ballasts
Synthet ic
canvas
tetrapaks
krtlGHT
(kg)
2.500
2.500
0.030
0.IS6
0.186
0.160
0.046
O.OM
0.266
0.044
0.044
10.000
0.500
0.030
10.530
Biniilry
of
the Environl«nt
UdSte Coapositlon Stud>
Municipality:
Reqion
of
Waterlo<
SIC
code:
6111. 6H9.
eiSl
Suple
«:
1-8
Collection
Dates:
June,
July
1990
SIC
coijt description:
CO«C
I SIODDIE IIHIUD
#«111
(shoe
stores)
#*M9
(other clothing
stores
le. leisure wear;
COflblnation -ensNwoaens}
#6151
(fabric
and yarn
stores)
SICI
6H9
S«W>LE
1:
1
II
^9
1
11
2
I
«.rt
II
k,
I I.
3
11
*
k9
I
I wt
1
1
k,
I I
irt
Il H
I «"t
II
k9
I
I «t
7
I «-<
kj
I
I »t
(a)
MewSprint
(t)
fine
Paper
/ CPO
/
ledger
(c) Magazines
/ flyers
(d) wa>ed
/ Plastic
/ Nued
(e)
Bo-board
(()
«raft
(9) wallpaper
(h)
OCC
(i)
Tissues
{!)
Glass
(a)
Beer
(I)
refillable
(il)
non. refillable
(b)
Liquor
I Uine Containers
(c)
food Containers
(d)
Soft
Drink
(i)
refillable
(ii)
non-ref niable
(e) Other Containers
(f)
Plate
(g) Other
I10.4SS
I
0.2ÎÏ
I
" "'
I
|ie.U6
j
I
0.062
22-9?I||
O.SOl
0.501
I
39.Ï61I
2.500
0.545
0.591
6,22/
0.091
(3)
ferrous
(a)
Soft Onnk
Containers
(b)
food Containers
(c)
Beer Cans
(I)
returnable
(Is)
noh-rclumable
(d)
Aerosol
Cans
(e)
Other
(4)
Non-ferrous
(a)
Beer
Cans
(I)
returnable
(ii)
non-returnable
(ill) American
(b)
Soft
Drink
Containers
(c)
Other
Packaging
(d)
Aluainul
(e)
Other
(5)
Plasti
(a)
Polyolefins
(b)
P»C
(c) Polystyrene
(d)
ABS
(e) HI
(f) Hi>ed Blend Plastic
(g)
Coated Plastic
(I)
«ylon
(1)
Vinyl
(6) Organic
(a)
Food Waste
/ Rodent
Bedding
(b)
tard Udste
4.6je
I
10.1>S||J1.318
4.545
I
9.971
I
1.455
0.618
I
1.791
I
5.37II
1. 171
1-271
13. 3n
0.201
67.291
3.131
0.227
I
0.5O1II
II
0.032
I
0.071
I
II-
(B) Ceramics
/ Rubble
/ fiberglass
/
Gypsua Board
/ Asbestos
(9) Diapers
(10)
Tentiles/Leather/Rubber
(II) Household iujardous
(a)
Paints
/ SolvHits
Wastes
(b) waste
Oils
(c)
Pestlcidcs/Her«icides
(12)
Dry
Cell
Batteries
1.773
I
3.B9III
1.091
I
II
0.136
I
0.30111
0.091
I
il
I
I
i
I
I
II
I
II
II'
2.341
0.201
0.591
1.301
(13)
nitty titter
(14) MttcclUneous
0.545
I
1.20J
1.1B2
I
6.9B1
I
0.091
I
0.201
0.045
I
0.101
I
2.500
45.61
IIOO.OOIJJ
46.55
|I00.00IJ
0,136
2.091
1.227
0,909
3.500
0.091
8.971
0.727
0,391|
6,0OI|
3.521
2.6I1I
10.04SJ
0.261
25.74l|
2.0911
3,409
0.591
0,227
0.136
0,545
0,455
0.136
48,811
8.461
3.251
1.951
7.S1I
6.511
1.951
O.eaO
I
2.5211
0.236
I
0.6ei|
I
I
I
I
0.114
I
0.33II
I
I
I
I
0.346
I
0.99II
0.058
I
0.17l|
4.909
0,364
14,081,
1. 041
1.091
5.727
I
3.131
I
16.431
2.372
I
6.811
5.37l||
0-11
34.85
0.531
1100,001
0.364
0.455
5.211
6.511
1.409
0.500
1,864
0,045
0.091
0.045
1.455
0.045
23.881
8. 471
31.581
0,771
1,541
0.771
24.651
0.771
1.045
0.818
0,136
0.591
4.545
0,045
6,045
0.409
5,591
4.381
0.731
3.161
24.311
0.241
32.331
2.1911
1,182
I
6.931|
0.227
1.33l|
0.O91
I
0,S3l|
3-455
I
20,26ti
0.045
0.271|
I
I
7.318
I
42.9311
3.455
I
20-261
0-182
0.091
2,601]
I
1,301|
0.227
I
3.25«|
I"
lOtAl
kg
I-
I_
6.98 jlOOOOlii
5.90
|100
0.036
I
0.l9l|
0,091
0.045
I!"
II
II
I.51III
II
II
II
--- II-
.54111
II
I.771II
II
II
II
II
II
II
0.091
I
0.49l|
I
1.B18
I
9.721
2.273
12.161
77111
-"II
-- II
I
!-
I
0.022
I
0.37l|
0.073
I
0.391
0.004
I
0.021
lOTAL
kg
TOIAl
kg
||
0.266
I
1.421
Il
I
I.OOlll
18. 'C
1100. 001
0.06]
I
0.37li
I
I
I
0,013
I
0.081
I
I
I
0.545
I
0,045
3.201
0.271
I
0.018
I
O.lll
0.044
I
0.261
17.05
1100.001
1.364
0,409
0.136
0.500
5.000
1.591
9.063
2.951
0,891
0.301
1.081
10.831
3.451
I9.63l||
4,773
I
10.34III
-ll
455
227
|l
0.931Î
0,491
0-090
0-091
0-201|
0.2OII
0,030
0,045
0.061
0.101
6,727
0.545
14.571
1.181
0.909
I
1.971
I
0.B64
I
I.B7I
22.81111
100.001
lOIAL
k9
lOIAt
'9
lOTAl
'9
lOIAL
kg
lOIAt
kg
KA»
Ministry
of
the [nwironaent
Waste Coaposition
Studji
GOR£
1 SIORRIf
LIKITED
Municipality:
Region
of Waterloo
SIC
Code:
6211.
6212,
6223,
6231,
6239
Saaple
1:
1-5
Collection
Dates:
JUNf-/UX(JST
1990
SAMPte
f:
Ministry
^f
the ^nvironaent
Wdste Cottposition Study
GORf
I
SlOnitlC
tlnlTED
Hume ipd) ity:
fiegion
of Uaterloo
SIC
Code:
6?11.
6212.
6223.
6231.
Supit
I:
l.S
Collection
Dates:
JUNE-AUGUST
1990
>623I
»6239
with dppliancesVfumllhinqs)
(household furniture slores-
-ithout
appliâ(ices\furnishin9S)
(ippliance. television. radio and
sterio repair
shops)
(floor covering
stores)
(other furnishing
stores
I.e.
Iinen;9lassi>are etc.)
6212
SIC
# 6239
'9
1
II
'9
2
I «>
3
I «rt
4
I «"
5
I «-«
(a)
Bevsprint
(b)
Fine Paper
/ CPO
/
Ledger
(c) iWgaiines
/
Flyers
(d)
Ha>ed
/
Plastic
/
Hi.ed
(e)
Boiboard
(f)
Kraft
(9) Uallpaper
(h|
OCC
{0
Tissues
(2)
Glass
(a)
Beei
(1)
refillable
(li)
non-ref |1 lable
(b)
Liquor
&
l^ine Containers
(c)
Food Containers
id)
Soft
Drink
(i)
refillable
(H)
non-ref illable
(e) Other Containers
(f) Plate
(g) Other
(3)
Ferrous
(a)
Soft
Drinli Containers
(b)
Food Containers
(c)
Beer Cans
(i) returnable
(it)
non-returnable
(d)
Aerosol
Cans
(e) Other
(4)
Mon-Ferrous
(a)
Beer Cans
(i)
returnable
(ij)
non-returnable
(Hi) African
(b)
Soft
Drink
Containers
(c) Other Packaging
(d) Aluainul
(e) Other
0.136
1.273
0.4SS
O.OSO
0.1B2
0.032
2.2i2
0.005
2.19III
20.<OI|
;.28i|
1.281J
2.9UI
O.SII
35.9311
o.oaii
0.136
6.773
2.955
2.227
3.86<
69.513
2.636
0.061
3.121
1.36s
1.021
i.7n
31.9B1
1.211
(a) PolyoWins
(b)
PVC
(c) Polystyrene
(d) ABS
(e)
PET
(f) Niied Blend
Plastic
(g)
Coated Plastic
(i)
Nylon
(i)
Vinyl
0.836
0.<25
0.391
0.201
0.227
0.003
(6) Organic
(a)
Food Waste
/ Rodent
Bedding
(b) Tard Haste
(B)
Ceramics
/
Rubble
/
Fiberglass
/
GypsuB Board
/ Asbestos
(9) Diapers
(10)
leitiles/Leather/Rubber
(11) Household Hazardous
(a)
Paints
/ Solvents
Uasi»
It)
buste Oils
(c) Pestlddes/Merbicides
(I?)
Dry
Cell
Batteries
3.6<1
0.051
D.177
5<.636
0.381
0.171
0.081
25.141
0.059
0.031
0.031
0.011
10.414
3.273
4.791
1.511
0.091
I
1.461
(13) Kitty Litter
(14) Hiscellaneous
22.500
I
10.351
1.236
I
0.571
0.981
I
0.451
2.791
1.909
i.eiB
0.955
2.541
24.664
0.093
2.441
1.671
1.591
0.831
2.221
21.711
0.081
0.398
0.229
0.351
0.201
0.366
I
0.321
I
0.337
0.291
0.009
0.049
0.011
0.041
8.611
0.201
0.773
0.671
O.S64
I
0.751
0.062
I
0.051
66.203
I
57.801
0.021
I
0.011
6.24
100.001
217.36
100. DOS
11.6011
0.035
I
0.031J
3.818
15.161
2.591
I
10.291
114. S4
IIOO.OOII
25.18
100. OOl
\
63.75
100.^
1.409
0.636
0.136
3.182
0.273
51.352
0.455
2.211
1.001
0.211
4.991
0.431
80.551
0.711
2.045
3.21J
0.079
0.121
0.015
0.078
1.000
0.364
0.021
0.121
1.571
0.571
0.727
I
1.141
0.091
I
0.111
TOTAL
TOTAL
kg
TOTAL
kg
TOTAL
'9
TOTAL
k9
HE Alt
RANGE
ON A
ON A aElûtiT
yElGHI
BASIS
BASIS
MEAN
ON A PERCENT
BASIS
nEAN
1
Ministry of
the Fnvironient
HASte Coaposition Study
GORf
t
STORRIC
LIMITED
Municipality;
Region
of Waterloo
SIC
Code:
6311
Suple
«:
1-6
Collection Ojtes:
Nay,
June.
July.
1990
SAMPLE
i:
kg
I wt
(IGHT
(l<9)
0.067
(1)
Paper
(a)
Hevsprint
(b)
fine Paper
/ CPO
/
Ledger
(c)
Magazines
/ flyers
(d)
ba>ed
/ Plastic
/ Mned
(e)
Boiboard
(f)
Kraft
(g)
Wallpaper
(h)
OCC
(i)
Tissues
-tmiïlry
of
thf tnwlronaenl
Waste Coapotitlon Stud>
GORE
1
STORRII
IIHIIEO
Munlcipaltty:
Region
of Udterloo
SIC Code 6JU
Suple
(:
1-6
Collection Oitei:
Nay.
June,
Julj.
1990
SIC code description:
('ne*'
iuto«ût)iIe dealers)
1
I ««t
I »«<
Il
3
I ««t
4
I ««<
«-'
Il
»9
I
« ->
I
(1)
Paper
(a)
newsprint
(b)
fine Paper
/
CPO
/
ledger
ic)
flagajines
/ Flyers
(d)
Uaied
/ Plastic
/ Ri>ed
(e)
Boiboard
(f)
Irait
(gi Wallpaper
(h)
OCC
(i)
Tissues
(?)
Glass
(a)
Deer
(i)
refillable
(il)
non-refi11at}le
(b)
Liquor i Mine Containers
(c)
Food Containers
(d)
Soft
Orinl
(il
refillable
(ii)
non-ref illable
(e)
Other Containers
(f)
Plate
(g)
Other
(3)
ferrous
(a)
Soft
Drink
Containers
(b)
Food Containers
(c)
Beer Cans
(i)
retur-nable
(ii)
non-returnable
(d)
Aerosol
Cans
(e)
Other
(<) «on-Ferrous
(a)
Beer
Cans
(i)
returnable
(II) non-returnable
(lii)
teerican
(b)
Soft
Drink
Containers
(c) Other
Packaging
(d) AluBinu*
(e)
Other
(S)
Plastics
(a)
Polyolefins
(b)
PWC
(c)
Polystyrene
(d) US
(el
PIT
(f) Ni'ed Blend Plastic
(g)
Coated Plastic
(t)
Nylon
(1)
lllnyl
2.818
1.000
0.591
o.ee;
0.318
20.231
M8I
4
2<S
a. got
2.2BJ
0.096
0.69t
I
1.227
I
I
0.361
(6) Organic
(a)
Food Uaste
/ Rodent
Bedding
(b)
Yard Waste
(8) Ceramics
/ Rubble
/ fiberglass
/
Gypsua Board
/ Asbestos
(10)
le.tlles/leather/Rubber
(11)
ftousehold HAjardout
(a) Paints
/ Solvents
Wastes
(b) waste Oils
(c) Pestlcldti/Herblctdcs
(12)
Drj Oil eattirlet
(13) Ullty litter
(l<) Hlscellaneou
B.eii
2.611
J.oas
I
6.909
I
0.099
I
6.109
3.682
B.227
4.71II
O.OJtl
4.3;j|
2.S1II
S.61II
17.809
12.131
5.409
I
3.69JJ
0.021
1.721
0.824
2.270
23.812
i
16.221JJ
7I.S6S
16.318
6.636
KlnUtrj
of
th« tnvtron»ent
Uijtt Coapositton Study
GORf
t STORRIC
LIMITED
Municipality:
Re9fon
of Waterloo
SIC:
6331
Saaple
I
:
1-3
Colltctloo
Dates:
May
1990
SAXPLE
1:
I
k9
1
Mlntttrr
of
tht Envtronaent
Ulstt CcMpotitlon
Study
ean
i
stokiiie
iihiteo
Municipality:
Region
of Waterloo
SIC:
6331
Sample
I
:
1-3
Cotlectlwi Oatei:
May
1990
SIC code description:
#6331
(9aso) ine service
station
l.c.gas bar)
SAMPLE
«:||
1
1
1
k5
I
I «t
2
3
I «f
(1)
P*p*r
la) msprlnt
Ninlstry
of
th» Environaent
Wiste Ccwposttion
Study
GORf
t
SIORRlf
LIMlItO
MunkipalUy:
Region
of
tiaterloo
SIC
Code:
6351.
6352.
6353.
6342
Suple
f:
1-5
Collection Oitej:
my.
June.
July
1990
ITERS
M RfCORDEO
SIC
I 6351
SAMPLE
l:\\
1
W
^9
I
X
(1)
Paper
(a)
Mevsprint
(b)
fine
Paper
/ CPO
/
Le<>ser
(c) Kagaztnes
/ flyers
(d)
Wa<ed
/ Plastic
/ Niied
(e)
Bo«bodrd
(f)
Kraft
(g)
Wallpaper
(h)
OCC
(I)
Tissues
(2)
Glass
(a)
Beer
(i)
refillable
(li)
non-ref illable
(b)
liquor
I bine Containers
(c)
Food Containers
(d)
Soft
Drink
(I)
refillable
(ii)
non-ref niable
(e)
Other Containers
(f)
Plate
(9)
Other
3.364
0.909
0.645
1.909
0.091
3.909
0.137
'-9tuQ5 .wire.
.
2.1;
1.26
4.46
0.21
9.18..
0.32
WEIGHT
(kg)
0.170
0.462
0.40
1.0»
(3) Ferrous
(a)
Soft
Drink
Containers
(b)
Food Containers
(c)
Beer
Cans
(i)
returnable
(il)
non-returnable
(d)
Aerosol
Cans
(e)
Other
(4)
Hon-Ferrous
(a)
Beer Cans
(i)
returnable
||
(ii) non-returnable
|
j
(iii) Aaerican
(b)
Soft
Drink
Containers
(c)
Other Packaging
(d)
AluBinu*
(e) Other
I
0.331
I
0.7B1
I
0.163
I
0.381
I
lads.
etc. )|
(5)
Plastics
(a)
Polyolefins
(b)
PVC
(c)
Polystyrene
(d)
ABS
(e)
PET
(f)
Mi>ed
Blend Plastic
(9)
Coated Plastic
(i)
Nylon
()
Vinyl
1.409
I
3.31Ï
I
0.136
I
0.32».
II
(6) Organic
(a)
food Waste
/
Ro<Jent
Bedding
(b)
Tard Waste
I
I
0.545
I
1.281
(7) Wood
(8) Cerâ»ics
/ Rubble
/ fiberglass /
Gypsua Board
/ Asbestos
(9)
Diapers
(10)
Teitiles/Leather/Rubber
(U) Household Hazardous
(a)
Paints
/ Solvents
Uastes
(t) Waste Oils
(c)
Pesticides/Herbicides
(12) Dry Cell
Batteries
(13)
Kitty
Litter
(14) Miscel laneous
I
2.045
I
4.801
1.097
7.500
2.581
17.611
17.865
42.59
41.951
I
lOO.OOlj
WTAL
kg
2.409
1.139
3.418
5.591
2.036
0.455
2.818
17.865
9.364
9.364
1.213
0.888
0.427
0.010
0.025
1.801
17.955
22.319
3.727
3.727
0.909
0.909
Ninlstry
of
the
Environaent
UAttc Cospoiltiofi Study
GORE
I S10RRIS UNITED
SIC code deicripllon;
Hunicipdltty:
Region
of Waterloo
SIC Code:
6351.
63S2. 63U.
634Ï
Suple
-:
l-S
Collection Dates:
Hay.
June,
Jul;
1990
SIC
- e3S2
SIC
I (342
«351
(general
repair garagel)
«352
(palnt\t>odï
repair
thopi)
«353
{«uffler r«place«nt
Ihop)
#6342
{tlre;battery;parti\
acceiiortet itoreO
SIC
I 6342
SIC
I 63S3
'9
I
« «t
2
k,
I
I «t
kg
I «»t
S
(1)
Paper
(a)
«eviprlnt
(b)
fine
Paper
/ CPO
/ ledger
ic) Magazine!
/ flyerl
(dl
Wa-ed
/
Plastic
/ >i>ed
(e)
Boiboard
(()
Uraft
(9)
Wallpaper
(hi
OCC
(I)
Tissues
(21 Glass
(a)
Seei
(1)
refillable
(ii)
non-refillable
(b)
liquor
t Wine Containers
(c)
Food
Containers
(d)
Soft
Drink
(1|
refillable
(ii) nc^-ref illable
(e) Other Containers
(f)
Plate
(9)
Other
(3)
Ferrous
(a)
Soft
Drink
Containers
(b)
Food
Containers
(cl
Beer
Cans
(i|
returnable
(il)
non-returnable
(d|
Aerosol
Cans
(e) Other
(4)
Non-Ferrous
(a)
Beer Cans
(i)
returnable
(il)
non-returnable
(ill)
lUerican
(b)
Soft
Drink Containers
(c)
Other
Packaging
(dl
Aluiinua
(e)
Other
(5)
Plastics
(a|
Polyolefins
(bl
PVC
(cl
Polystyrène
(d|
ABS
(el
PET
(r)
Ni>ed
Blend Plastic
(9l
Coated Plastic
(i)
Nylon
(il
Vinyl
(61 Organic
(al
Food waste
/ Rodent Bedding
(b)
irard Waste
3.364
0.909
0.545
1.909
0.O9\
3.909
0.137
'-90111
2.1ÎII
I
I.2B1I
4.4BII
0.2111
I
9.iei|
0.321
0.170
0.462
1
Ministry
of
the Environ»ent
Uist« CoaposUion
Stujy
G0«£
I
SrORRIt
LINIIEO
Municipality;
Region
of Waterloo
SIC
Code:
6521,
6542.
6562.
6591
Sdaple
I:
1-6
Collection
Dates:
Hay.
June.
July.
1990
KISCELUWEOUS
ITEMS
::
---
- m «EIGHT
RfCORDEO
SIC
I
6591
ITEM
SAMPLE
I:
k9
WEIGHT
(kg)
(1)
Paper
(a)
Newsprint
Winiilrj
of
th« Environment
H«tte Cocpoiltion StuJr
ÙÛRÎ
I
STOftRIE
LIMITED
SIC code description:
Hunicipdiity:
Region
of Waterloo
SrC
Code:
6521.
6S4Z.
6562,
6591
Suple
«:
1-6
Collection Dates:
Ma,.
June.
Jul^.
1990
#6521
(florist
shops)
#6512
(btcydf shops)
#6562
(*atch\Je*»llery
repair
shops)
#6591
(second-hanil lerchandise
stores)
k9
I
I wt
2
SIC
« 6542
3
SIC
1 6sa
I
kg
I
- ^
SIC
I 6562
SIC
( 6521
k9
k9
S
6
(1) Paper
(a)
newsprint
Ministry
of
the Cnvironient
Waste Coaposltion
Study
GOR£
t
SIOfWIE
LIHITEO
TEKS
MunUipdlity:
Region
of Waterloo
SIC
Code:
7021.
;031.
7051
Saaple
I:
1-5
Collection Ddtes:
June
1990
IT RECORDED
SAMPLE
I
SIC
#
7021
II
M
I I'
(1)
Paper
(a)
Newsprint
(0)
Fine
Paper
/ CPO
/
Ledger
(c)
Kagaiines
/
Flyers
(d)
wa.ed
/ Plastic
/ Kued
(e)
Bo«board
(f)
Uraft
(g) Wallpaper
(h)
OCC
(i)
Tissues
(?) Glass
(a)
Beer
(i)
résiliable
(ii)
non-refillatile
(b)
Liquor
t Wine Containers
(c)
Food Containers
(d)
Soft
Drink
(i) refiUable
(ii)
non-refil1ab)e
(e) Other Containers
(f)
Plate
(9)
Other
(3)
Ferrous
(a)
Soft
Drink
Containers
(b)
Food Containers
(c)
Beer Cans
(i)
returnable
(il) non-returnable
(d)
Aerosol
Cans
(e)
Other
I
2.045
16.103
I
o.oie
0.182
0.031
0.955
0.591
8.7!
66.8)
0.«
0.7E
o.i:
4.06"
2. S3
(4)
Non-Ferrous
(a)
Beer Cans
(i)
returnable
(ii)
non-returnable
|
(jii)
Aaerican
(b)
Soft
Drink Containers
(c)
Other Packaging
(d)
Aluainua
(e)
Other
(5)
Plastics
(a)
Polyolefins
(b)
PVC
(c)
Polystyrene
(d)
ABS
(e)
PET
(f) Niied
Blend Plastic
(9)
Coated Plastic
(i)
Nylon
(1)
Vinyl
(6)
Organic
(a)
Food Waste
/ Rodent
Bedding
(b)
Yard Waste
(7) Wood
(8)
Ceraaics
/ Rubble
/ Fiberglass
/
Gypsua Board
/ Asbestos
(9)
Diapers
(10)
Te«tile5/leather/Rubber
(11) Household Haiardous
(a)
Paints
/ Solvents
Wastes
(b) Waste Oils
(c) Pesticides/Herbicides
(12)
Dry
Cell
Batteries
(13) Kitty
Litter
(14) Niscel laneous
0.682
0.080
2.921
2.182
I
9.331
I ---«--
0.206
O.BSS
I
I
0.293
I
1.25»
I
3.014
23.38
0.06X
lOO.OOtl
TOTAL
^9
I WE l&HT
(kg)
0.014
0.014
0.113
0.U5
0.259
Ministry of
the [nvlronient
U*ne CoApostlion
Study
G0«£
t
SIOKAIE IIHIUO
Nunlcipiltty:
Region of Waterloo
SIC Co«:
!0!\.
;031.
1051
Suple
I:
l-S
Collection Odtes;
June
1990
SIC code description:
II0Ï1
(chartered tanks)
#?OJl
(trust
coapanles)
I70S1
(local
credit
union)
»9
I
« «t
II
k9
I
I «
II
k9
I
t «t
k,
I
t rf
H
I ««
(1)
Piper
(a)
He-sprint
Ministry
of
the Environaent
yast» Composition
Study
Kunicipdl ity:
Region
of Waterloo
SIC Code:
9111.
9112
Saaple
«:
1-6
Collection
Ddtes:
Mdy,
June,
July,
1990
SAMPLE
f:
Nlniitrj
of
the Environaent
UAStc Cospositton Stud;
Hunicipdlily:
Region
of Udlerloo
SIC Code:
9111.
Sï\2
Saaplc
#:
1-6
Collection Ddtet:
Hay.
June.
July.
1990
GOA£ i
STOftRIE
LIMITED
SIC code descrtpt ton:
f9Ill
(hotlU\*otsr hotetl)
(Mtelt)
SIC
I 9111
SIC
i 9111
SAMPLE
#:||
II
I
kg
2
I »-t
SIC #9111
SIC 1911?
SIC #911?
?|5/.?;
I
k9
I l*t
II
k9
I I-t
II
k9
i
l»rt
II
kg
I
X
wt
(I) Paper
(4) Newsprint
(b)
Fine
Paper
/ CPO
/ Ledger
(c) Magazines
/
FIjeri
{d) waxed
/ Plastic
/ Mi.ed
(e)
Bo. board
(f)
Kraft
(gi
Wallpaper
(h)
OCC
(I)
tissues
(2)
Glass
(a)
Beei
(i)
refillable
(ii)
non-refillaftle
(t)
liquor 1 Wine
Containers
(c)
Food Containers
(d)
Soft
Drink
(I) refilUble
(il)
non-refillable
(e) Other Containers
(f)
Plate
(gl
Other
(3)
Ferrous
(a)
Soft Onnk
Containers
(b)
Food Containers
(c)
Beer Cans
(i)
returnable
(il)
non-returnable
(d) Aerosol
Cans
(e)
Other
(«) Mon-Ferrous
(a)
Beer
Cans
(I)
returnable
(ti)
non-returnable
(itt)
Ascricsn
(b)
Soft
Drink
Containers
(c) Other Packaging
(d) Aluamui
(e) Other
(S)
Plasti
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
*
t
(d) PolyoWins
(ti)
PWC
(c)
Polysljrene
(0)
ABS
(«)
PEI
(f)
Hi«e(J Blend PUitic
(9)
Coaled Plastic
(i)
Nylon
10
Vinjl
(6) Organ»
(a) Food uaste
/ Rodent Bedding
(b)
lard waste
(7) yooO
46.SOO
e.eie
3.9M
?.000
1.636
86.691
6,7j;
is.6ei
2.7Î1
l.SéJ
2.B01
0.6SI
34.591
2.69>
0.2Î7
0.455
3.693
5.545
3.Î19
0.091
o.iai
1.481
1.291
2.273
0.9It
0.636
1.045
0.2SI
0.421
0.091
0.606
62.091
17.04S
4.500
40.727
17.909
3.091
B0.S96
23.500
11.491
3. 151
0,831
7.541
3.311
0.571
14.911
4.351
35.000
13.091
5.614
6.481
2,421
1.041
2.034
2.300
0.016
0.158
0.381
0.431
0.0031
0.031
0.391
I
1.995
I
0.371
21.455
4.909
1.520
4,955
7.318
2.364
3.680
8.959
20,311
4.6SI
1,44»
4
691
6.931
2.241
3.4811
8. 4SI
5,227
4,S2S
4 951
4,571
3.761
0.555
0.178
0.527
3.561
0.531
0.171
0.501
0.04111
0.241
I
14.818
Ministry
of
the Enwironaent
Waste Coaposition
Study
GOA£
t
SIORRIC
IIMII[D
Municipdiity:
Region
of Waterloo
SIC.-92U
Saaple
I
:
1-3
Collection
Oates:JUNE-AiJ(iUSI
1990
SAXPLt
I:
k9
(I)
Piper
(a)
Newsprint
(b)
Fine Paper
/ CPO
/ ledger
(c)
Magazines
/ Flyers
(d)
Wa-ed
/ Plastic
/ Miied
(e)
Boïboard
(')
Uraft
(9)
Wal Ipaper
(h)
OCC
(i)
Tissues
Mintïtr,
of
the En»ironB*nt
Uastf Coapotitlon
Study
GOfif
I
srORAIE
LtMIIEO
Hunicipdlitj:
Region
of Waterloo
SIC;9eU
Supl»
t
:
1-3
Collection Odies:JUNE -AUGUST
1990
SIC
code description:
#9211
(licensed
restaurant)
I ïwt
k9
I
X -t
3
I
l.rt
(11
Pap«r
(1)
«r.sprint
MInUtry
of
the £nvfron«ent
Wdttc Coaposltion
Study
GORI
I STORRU
LIMIICO
Nunlcipility:
Region
of Waterloo
SIC:9213
Sdiple
1
:
1-3
Collection
Dates :JULY-AuOUSI
SAMPLE
t:
Hlftlltry
of
th« In»lron«(nt
Waitt CoMpojItlon
Studr
COR£
I
SIOflRIf LIMIUO
Municipality:
Region
of Udttrloo
SIC;92n
SAiplf
f
:
1-3
CoUrctlon D«tes:JULT-AuGUSI
SIC code description:
(take-out
rood
ier»lcfs
l.r.
he»-
burger reitaurant)
kg
I 1
>rt
2
|l-t
k9
I «-t
;i)
Paper
(a)
Newsprint
Ministry of
t^e £nviron«ent
Waste Coaposition Study
GORE
t SIORRIE
LlKITtD
Municipality:
Region
of Waterloo
SIC:
9213 GENERAL
Saaple
»
:
1-3
Collection Dates:
JUNE-JULY
1990
SIC cod
SAMPLE
f:||
kg
I
X wt
(1)
Paper
(a)
Newsprint
(b)
Fine
Paper
/ CPO
/
Ledger
(c)
Magazines
/ Flyers
(d)
Wa»ed
/
Plastic, / Mi.ed
(e)
Bo«boara
(f)
Kraft
(g)
Wal Ip'aper
(h)
OCC
(i)
Tissues
6.273
0.045
1.773
4.136
2.409
1.875
1.273
18.52ï|
0.131
5.23%
12.2U|t
7.111|l
5. 5311
3.761
(2) Glass
(a)
Beer
(i)
refillable
(ii)
non-ref
i
I
labte
(b)
Liquor
& yine Containers
(c)
Food Containers
(d)
Soft
Drink
(i)
refillable
(il)
non-ref
1
1 table
(e)
Other Containers
(f)
Plate
(g)
Other
0.409
1.211
(3)
Ferrous
(a)
Soft
Drink
Containers
(b)
Food Containers
(c)
Beer Cans
(i)
returnable
(ii)
non-returnable
(d)
Aerosol
Cans
(e)
Other
0.091
0.21%
(4)
Non-FerrouS
(a)
Beer Cans
(i)
returnable
(ii)
non-returnal^le
(
i
i i)
American
(b)
Soft
Drink
Containers
(c)
Other Packaging
(d)
Aluainui
(e)
Other
(5)
Plastics
(a)
Polyolefins
(b)
PVC
(c)
Polystyrene
(d) ABS
(e)
PET
(f)
Mi.ed Blend Plastic
(9)
CoateJ Plastic
(i)
Nylon
(i)
Vinyl
1.68?
1.091
4.96X
3.22Ï
(6) Organic
(a)
Food Waste
/ Rodent Bedding
(b)
Yard Waste
112.818
I
37.84X
(7) Wood
(8)
Ceraaics
/ Rubble
/ fiberglass
/
Gypsu» Board
/ Asbestos
(9)
Diapers
(10)
Teitiles/Leather/Rubter
(11) Household Hazardous
(a)
Paints
/ Solvents
Wastes
(b) Waste Oils
(c)
Pesticides/Herbicides
(12)
Dry Cell
Batteries
(13)
Kitty Litter
(14) Miscellaneous
Ii
33.87
lOO.OOlj
TOTAL
kg
Ministry
of
the Envîronient
Waste Coaposition Study
GORE t S10RDIC
IIIIITED
Hunicipdiity:
Region
of Uâterloo
SIC:
91\3 OEHERAl
Siiple
I
:
1-3
Collection Dates;
JUHE.JUIV
1990
SIC code descript ion:
«Î13
(general
take-out
food services
i.e.
Chinese food)
SAXPIE
l:|{
Il
kg
I Iwt
19
I
I
«1
'9
lit
(1)
Paper
(a)
Newsprint
HunicipaJity:
Region
of Waterloo
SIC:
9621.
9691.
9692,
9699
Sa«ple
I
;
1-4
Collection
Dates:
June,
July
iggo
SIC
I 9699
SW^PLE
#:||
1
(1)
Paper
(a)
Newsprint
(b)
Fine
Paper
/ CPO
/ Ledger
(c)
Magazines
/ Flyers
(d)
Waxed
/ Plastic
/ Mi.ed
(e)
Boxboard
(f)
Kraft
(9)
Wallpaper
(h)
OCC
(i)
Tissues
kg
I
X wt
(7
(k
1.636
1.591
1.500
1.27J
1.455
9)
3<»' 0.364
3.001
2.83Ï
2.401
2.74X1
(2)
Glass
(a)
Beer
0.939
I
1.771
<-773
I
9.01X0.364"
(i)
refillable
,.,
('')
non-ref illable
(b)
Liquor
J Wine Containers
(c)
Food Containers
(d)
Soft
Drink
(j)
refillable
,
,
"
(
i ')
non-ref illable
(e)
Other Containers
(f)
Plate
(9)
Other
II
M
I
II
0.273
I
0.511
0.025
0.091
0.1711
.025
(3)
Ferrous
(a)
Soft
Drink
Containers'
"
(b)
Food Containers
(c)
Beer
Cans
(,)
returnable
||
,,,
.
('0
non-returnable
I
I
(d)
Aerosol
Cans
(e)
Other
(4)
Non-Ferrous
(a)
Beer Cans
(i)
returna'bie
\\"o'o[l'
(i i)
non-returnable
1
1
(iii)
American
j
j
(b)
Soft
Drink
Containers
(c)
Other Packaging
(d)
Aluainua
(e)
Other
1.182
I
?.23i|lo9i'
0.136
I
0.26X|| 455
!
I|.'364
I
11.273
1 22 7
012
0.03X1
II
0.455
I
I
421
II
====
0-86x11 864
II 091
I 909
(5)
Plastics
(a) Polyolefms
(b) PW
(c)
Polystyrene
(d)
AflS
(e)
PEI
(f)
Kiied Blend Plastic
(9)
Coated Plastic
(i)
Nylon
(i)
Vinyl
364
I -773
2-318
I
4.371 n
'
II
II
0.364
i
0.69xi
II
0.318
0.60Î
I XM
I
II
(7)
Hood
U4.182
I
45.63X
(8)
Ceramics
/ Rubble
/ Fiberglass
/'
Gypsu» Board
/ Asbestos
(9)
Diapers
I
(10)
le.tiles/Leather/Rubber
(11) Household Hazardous
(a) Paints'/'soiventi""
'^"^'^
(b)
Waste Oils
i<^) Pest'cides/Herbicide
3.995
(
7.541
(IZ)
Dry
Cell
Batteries
'3)
Kitty
Litte
1<) Miscellaneous
0.364
0.69X|
11
52.99
jlOO.OOXI
TOTAL
kg
0.1
l""|
|190|
a
1
ion
iMHï.
i ilùRRlE
IINIÎED
Hunicipdlity;
Region
of Waterloo
SIC:
9621.
9691.
9692. 9699
SdBpIf
f
:
1-4
Collection
Odlei:
June.
July
1990
#9691
(bovling
al 1eys\bi lliàrd
parlours)
#9692
(dcuspient parkicarnival)
#9699
(other a«use«enl\recreation
-al
services
i.e.
horseback
riding operations)
SIC
# 9699
SIC
# 9691
SIC
# 9692
^
Il
2
kg
(
s
tft
II
kg
I
s
wt
(1)
Paper
(a)
Newsprint
(b)
fine Paper
/ CPO
/ teOger
(c) Hagaiines
/ flyers
(d) Waied
/ Plastic
/ Nued
(e)
Boiiboard
(f)
Kraft
(g) Uallpaper
(h)
OCC
(1)
Tissues
kg
\
l >A
kg
I
1 ^
Il
(2) Glass
(a)
6ee<
())
refillable
(ii)
non-refi liable
(b)
Liquor
(
taine Containers
(c)
Food Containers
(d)
Soft
Drink
(i)
refillable
(ii)
non-ref iUable
(e)
Other Containers
(f)
Plate
(g) Other
(3)
Ferrous
(a)
Soft Dnnk
Containers
(b)
Food Containers
(c)
Beer Cans
{,)
returnable
(
i i) non-returnable
(d)
Aerosol
Cans
(e) Other
(4)
Non-Ferrous
(a)
Beer Cans
())
returnable
(it)
non-returnable
(iii) A«erican
(b)
Soft
Drink
Containers
(c)
Other Packaging
(d)
AlulinuB
(e)
Other
1.636
1.591
1.500
t.273
l.«5
0.939
4.773
3.09i;|
3.00X1
I
2.83X1
2.40l|
2.74X
1.77X1
9.0121
1
1
/<o<^j
PROCEDURES
FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF
SOLID WASTE
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
VOLUME
III
OF THE
ONTARIO WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
JULY 1991
Environment
Environnement
Ontario
ISBN 0-7729-9131-6
PROCEDURES FOR THE ASSESSMENT
OF SOLID WASTE
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCL\L
VOLUME m
OF THE ONTARIO WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
Report prepared for:
Waste Reduction Office
Ministry of the Environment
Report prepared by:
Gore & Storrie Limited
July 1991
Revised December 1991
o
Cette publication technique
n'est disponible qu'en anglais.
Copyright: Queen's Printer for Ontario, 1991
This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes
with appropriate attribution.
PIBS 1609
DISCLAIMER
This
report was
prepared
for
the
Ontario
Ministry
of
the
Environment
as
part
of
a ministry-funded
project. The views and ideas expressed
in
this
report are those
of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the views and
policies
of the
f\/1inistry
of
the
Environment,
nor does
mention
of
trade names
or commercial
products
constitute endorsement
or recommendation
for
use.
INFORMATION FOR THE READER
The results of the Ontario Waste Composition Study appear
in three volumes.
Volume
!
contains
the
results
of
the
residential
portion
of
the
Ontario Waste
Composition Study. The emphasis
in Volume
I
is on the development and testing of
a method
that
municipalities can
use
to
estimate
per capita
generation
rates
of
residential refuse. The
field work for Volume
! took place
in East York, Fergus, and
North Bay, Ontario.
Volume
II
contains the
results
of the commercial
portion
of
the
Ontario Waste
Composition Study.
Waste generation data for two
light
industrial businesses are
also provided
in Volume
II.
The emphasis
in Volume
II
is on the development and
testing
of a method
that
municipalities can use
to estimate
per employee waste
generation rates and, further, to estimate the quantity of waste generated from
all
commercial
sources. The commercial component
of the study took
place
in
the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
Volume
III
is a
"user friendly" manual that outlines the procedures for conducting
residential and commercial waste composition studies
in
municipalities of Ontario.
While every
effort
has been made
to
present
as complete
a
description
of the
method as possible there
will be instances where the persons conducting a waste
study
will
find
it necessary to make adjustments to
this method to
suit particular
circumstances.
Volume
III
is divided
in two parts.
Part A provides a description of the methodology
used to conduct the
Residential Waste Composition Study.
Part B describes the
methodology used to conduct the Commercial Waste Composition Study.
(i)
PART A
RESIDENTIAL WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY METHODS
TABLE OF CONTENTS- PART A
Page No.
DISCLAIMER
(i)
INFORMATION FOR THE READER
(il)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(iv)
LIST OF TABLES
(v)
LIST OF FIGURES
(vi)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(vii)
1.0
WHY CONDUCT A WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION
1-1
STUDY
1.1
Waste Management Planning
1-2
1.1.1
Estimation of Total Waste Tonnage
1-2
1.1.2 Estimation of Tonnage of Recyclable and
1-3
Recoverable Material
1.1.3 Estimation of Tonnage of Hazardous Materials
1-3
2.0
WASTE STUDY PARAMETERS AND CONSIDERATIONS
2-1
2.1
Required Waste Generation Rate and Waste Composition
2-1
Data
2.1.1 Waste Generation Rate
2-1
2.1.2 Waste Composition
2-1
2.2
Income and Housing Basis for Defining Residential
2-2
Waste Generation
2.2.1
Knowing Your Community
- Census Canada
2-3
Information
2.2.2 Knowing Your Community
- Current Waste
2-5
Management Practices
2.2.3
Effect of Seasonality On Waste Generation
2-5
2.2.4 Bulk Item and Special Collection Days
2-6
2.3
Sampling of Residential Waste
2-6
2.3.1 Number of Samples Required
in Each
2-6
Enumeration Area
2.3.2 Size of Samples Required
2-7
3.0
MANPOWER, EQUIPMENT AND COST
3-1
3.1
Field Crew Size Requirements
3-1
3.2
Equipment Requirements
3-2
3.2.1 Waste Sample Collection Equipment
3-2
3.2.2 Waste Sample Sorting and Measurement Equipment
3-4
3.2.3 Personal Safety Equipment
3-4
(ii)
Table of Contents cont'd. ..
3.2.4 Seasonal Effects on Equipment Requirennents
3-4
- Shelter and Clothing
3.3
Cost of Conducting a Typical Waste Study
3-5
3.3.1
Personnel Time Requirements and Costs
3-6
4.0
STAGE
1
- DEFINING THE INCOME/HOUSING MATRIX
4-1
4.1
Obtaining Statistics Canada Data
4-1
4.2
Municipal Income Stratification
4-1
4.2.1 Anytown: Stratifying Income level
4-2
4.3
Municipal Housing Type Characteristics
4-3
4.3.1
Anytown: Classifying Housing Type
4-3
4.4
Allocating Individual EAs to the Matrix Cells
4-4
4.4.1 Anytown: Allocating Individual EAs to Matrix Cells
4-4
4.5
Selecting the Study EAs
4-4
4.5.1 Anytown: Selecting the Study EAs
4-4
5.0
STAGE 2
- SELECTING SAMPLE POINTS WITHIN AN EA
5-1
5.1
Street Face Numbering
5-1
5.2
Random Selection of Starting Points
5-2
6.0
STAGE 3
- COLLECTION OF WASTE SAMPLE
6-1
6.1
Regular Curbside Waste
6-1
6.1.1 Waste Collection Process: Detached Dwellings
6-1
General Procedures
6.1.2 Required Number of Samples
6-3
6.1.3 Required Weight of Each Sample
6-3
6.1.4 Collection Equipment Requirements
6-3
6.1.5 Twice Weekly Garbage Collection Sampling Protocol
6-4
6.1.6 Recording Number of Houses Passed and Weight
6-6
of Sample
6.2
Blue Box Materials
6-6
6.3
Yard Waste and Seasonality
6-6
6.3.1
Collection and Analysis of Yard Waste
6-7
6.4
Large and Bulk Items
6-7
6.5
Apartment Buildings
6-8
6.5.1
Small Apartment Buildings
6-8
6.5.2 Highrise Apartment Buildings With Dumpsters
6-9
and Compactors
6.6
Logistics of Sample Collection
6-10
6.6.1 Documents and Meetings
6-10
7.0
STAGE 4
- WASTE SORTING AND ANALYSIS
7-1
7.1
Sorting Location
7-1
7.2
Sorting Equipment and Set-up
7-2
7.3
Waste Component Categories
7-3
(iii)
Table of Contents cont'd...
7.4
Weighing Sorted Waste
- Use of Tared Buckets and
7-5
Electronic Scales
7.5
Use of Standard Data Sheets
- Recording Weights
7-6
7.6
Personnel Training
- Safety
7-6
7.6.1 Waste Handling
7-6
7.6.2. Protective Clothing, Hygiene, and Immunization
7-6
7.7
Moisture Content Analysis
- Optional
7-7
7.8
Other Optional Analyses
- BTU, Leachable Metals
7-8
7.9
Yard Waste Data Collection
7-8
8.0
STAGE 5
- DATA ANALYSIS AND MANIPULATION
8-1
8.1
Using a Computerized Spreadsheet to Summarize Data
8-1
8.1.1
Percent Composition of Waste
8-2
8.2
Calculation of Per Capita Waste Generation Rate
8-2
8.2.1
Municipalities with Blue Box Recycling
8-3
8.2.2
Municipalities With No Blue Box Recycling
8-5
8.2.3 Estimation of a Weighted Generation Rate for
8-5
the Municipality
8.3
Waste Component Generation Rate
8-6
9.0
ANALYSIS OF WASTE FROM SCHOOLS & OTHER
9-1
INSTITUTIONS
9.1
Per Capita Waste Generation
9-1
9.2
Percent Waste Composition
9-1
10.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER REFINEMENT
10-1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
GLOSSARY
(iv)
LIST OF TABLES-PART A
Following
Page No.
TABLE
1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
TABLE 7
TABLE 8
TABLE 9
WASTE COMPOSITION CATEGORIES
2-2
INCOME/HOUSING MATRIX USED FOR
2-3
CLASSIFYING MUNICIPAL POPULATIONS
ANYTOWN: CLASSIFYING ENUMERATION AREAS
4-2
BY INCOME LEVEL
ANYTOWN: CLASSIFYING ENUMERATION AREAS
4-3
BY HOUSING TYPE
ANYTOWN: ALLOCATING INDIVIDUAL
4-4
ENUMERATION AREAS TO THE INCOME/HOUSING
MATRIX CELLS
ANYTOWN: RANDOMLY SELECTING ENUMERATION
4-5
AREAS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE WASTE
COMPOSITION STUDY
WASTE COMPOSITION DATA COLLECTION SHEET
7-3
SAMPLE CALCULATION OF THE PER CAPITA
8-2
GENERATION RATE IN AN EA. DATA FROM THE
FICTIONAL TOWN OF ANYTOWN, EA #107
RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION DATA
8-6
INCORPORATED INTO THE INCOME/HOUSING
MATRIX TO ESTIMATE THE WEIGHTED PER CAPITA
GENERATION RATE (KG/CAPITA/DAY) FOR
THE FICTIONAL TOWN OF ANYTOWN
(V)
LIST OF FIGURES -PART A
Following
Page No.
FIGURE
1
CATEGORIZING A MUNICIPAL POPULATION
WITH RESPECT TO INCOME: THEORETICAL
BASIS
(2a) PRACTICAL APPLICATION (2b)
FIGURE 2
PHOTOGRAPH OF PICKUP TRUCK WITH
COMPARTMENTS FOR BLUE BOX MATERIALS
FIGURE 3
PHOTOGRAPH OF CHICKEN WIRE CRIB MOUNTED
ON THE PLATFORM SCALE (REAR VIEW OF
CUBE VAN)
FIGURE 4
PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE POSITIONING OF
THE STUDY TEAM AROUND THE TAILGATE
SORTING TABLE
FIGURE 5
EXAMPLE OF ONE EA SHOWING NUMBERING
OF BLOCK FACES AND SAMPLE COLLECTION
"STARTING POINTS"
2-4
3-3
3-3
3-3
5-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Methodology
The two-fold purpose of the
residential portion of the Ontario Waste Composition
Study was to:
1
.
develop
a
simple, cost effective and
statistically
reliable method
for
determining the composition and per capita generation rate of waste
from residential sources
in Ontario municipalities; and
2.
apply the method in several municipalities and obtain current information
on the characteristics of residential waste streams.
The
pre-study
literature
survey,
summarized
in
Volume
I
-
Residential
Waste
Composition Study , indicated that residential waste generation was a function of the
socio-economic and demographic characteristics of a population. An assessment of
the
residential
waste
generation
characteristics
of
a
municipality
should
take
population demographics into consideration.
The socio-economic and demographic parameters incorporated
in the
Residential
Waste Composition Study are: income
level and housing type.
Statistics Canada
provides census data with respect to these parameters for municipalities across the
country and
this
kind
of
information was
obtained
for
the
three
municipalities
participating
in
the
waste
composition
study
in
Ontario:
the Town
of
Fergus
(population: 6,757); the Borough of East York (population: 101,085); and the City
of North Bay (population 51,313).
The
field studies were conducted
in the three
municipalities during the following periods: July 15 to August 31, 1989; October 24
to December 28, 1989; and February 21
to February 28, 1990 respectively.
Statistics Canada provides socio-economic and demographic information on small
geographical sectors of municipalities called Enumeration Areas (EAs) that are made
up of approximately 300 dwellings and typically have a residential population of 600-
800 persons.
Some highrise apartment buildings may have a large enough number
of units that they are designated as EAs unto themselves.
(vii)
In the work reported
herein, the EA was the basic population
unit whose waste
composition and per capita generation rates were studied as representative segments
of the
entire municipal population.
First,
all of the EAs
in the municipality were
classified
in a three-by-three, two dimensional matrix of:
Average annual income
:
high, medium, and low; and
Housing type
:
single detached
dwellings,
predominantly
multiple
dwellings
(apts.),
and
predominantly
mixed
(detached/apts.).
This classification matrix resulted in nine possible combinations of income levels and
housing types
with each combination termed
a
"cell".
One EA was randomly
selected from each cell, unless the
cell contained few or no EAs, which was often
the case
for the low income/single detached dwelling
cell.
The
residential waste
assessments
in the Town of Fergus and the Borough of East York were based on
data from EAs that were representative of the EA distribution in the income/housing
matrix
for
the
respective
municipalities.
Based
on
the
results
of
these two
municipalities,
it was decided to conduct a reduced sampling program in the City of
North Bay.
After the Study EAs
in the municipality were randomly selected, a curbside refuse
sampling plan was designed, based on a procedure that assigned random starting
points for refuse collections at street intersections throughout the EA.
For each EA, both the number and weight of the refuse samples that had to be
collected and sorted
in order to obtain the statistical accuracy that was desired for
the kitchen waste fraction
(only) of residential waste was based on the pioneering
work of Dr. A. Klee and co-workers.
The sample number was a minimum of nine
per EA; and the minimum sample weight was 100 kg.
To achieve similar levels of
statistical accuracy for waste components occurring at lower concentrations in the
waste stream (for example, glass and ferrous metals), a greater number of samples,
which may
be
economically
impractical,
would
be
required.
To determine
the
number of samples required to accurately assess these waste components refer to
Volume
I, Section
1.2.
(viii)
It took a crew of four, approximately 5.5 days to collect and sort the bagged refuse
and
Blue Box
materials
in
a
single
EA.
Records were
kept
of
the number
of
dwellings from which bagged refuse and Blue Box materials were collected
in order
to compute estimates of total
residential waste generation on a per capita
basis,
using Statistics Canada data on the average population per dwelling in the EA.
Blue
Box materials were sorted, weighed and recorded separately in order to estimate the
capture rate of certain recyclable items from the residential waste stream.
Yard wastes were weighed and recorded whenever they were encountered, but this
waste
stream was
not
included
in
the
computations
of
the
residential
waste
composition
and
the
weight was
not
included
in
the
estimates
of
per
capita
generation rates either, for seasonal generation reasons discussed herein.
The
moisture
content
of
the
combustible
fractions
of
the
waste
stream was
determined by drying.
The BTU content of some mixed plastics (laminates), as well
as disposable diapers, was determined by bomb calorimetry.
Samples of vacuum
cleaner bag dust were analyzed for heavy metals.
The results of these analyses are
presented
in Volume
I.
Special sampling procedures were devised for those apartment buildings where the
waste was compacted in containers.
Samples of the required weight were removed
from the containers for the waste composition analysis.
Then the residual contents
were collected and weighed, courtesy of special arrangements made with a
local
waste hauler and transfer station scale house.
The weekly waste streams for seven schools
in East York were also collected and
the waste composition was determined. Per capita generation rates for the student
body and total staff were computed.
A survey was also conducted to assess the yearly tonnages of white goods and
other bulky items generated by residential areas
in 10 municipalities in Ontario.
The methods developed and used
in this study were found to be cost effective and
capable of being used by municipal staff.
Recommendations are presented
in this
volume and
in Volume
I to further refine and improve the methods used.
(ix)
Ontario municipalities are encouraged to use the nnethods demonstrated in this study
to satisfy municipal needs, to generate further data on a consistent province-wide
basis and
to
assist
in
assessing
the
effectiveness
of new waste management
programs and identifying trends
in waste composition and generation rates.
Recommendations for Further Refinement
Municipalities conducting a waste composition study might consider the following
recommendations when designing the sampling protocol and implementing the study
methodology.
1)
For sampling and sorting convenience,
municipalities may choose to
conduct the waste composition studies
in late spring or mid-fall when
refuse
odours
are
less
intense
and
maggots
are
less
frequently
encountered.
According
to
Vesling & Rimer
(ref.
47),
the average
residential waste composition does not vary by more than +/- 10% over
three
quarters
of
the
year.
Therefore,
aesthetics
of
the
working
conditions can be taken into account without risk to obtaining skewed
data.
The
inclusion
of
yard
waste
in
overall
residential
waste
composition
percent
profiles
should
be
avoided
so
that
baseline
composition percentages are not misrepresented.
2)
Municipalities may choose to set up independent collection systems to
study the seasonal generation of yard waste and leaves.
This would
require
a
coordinated
effort
between
garbage
collection
personnel,
private horticultural firms and other agencies generating and collecting
these waste streams.
3)
In order to avoid the sampling problems that we encountered with the
large apartment buildings in East York, where apparent sampling biases
were difficult to avoid, arrangements could be made, for example, with
30 units within the building to participate in a refuse study.
This would
give a more accurate appraisal of the waste composition
in these large
apartment
buildings.
As
a check,
the method
described
herein
for
(X)
obtaining the per capita generation rate for the entire building could then
be compared with the per capita generation rate for the 30 units.
4)
Municipalities in Ontario should follow the waste connposition procedure
in conducting
their own waste
connposition
analysis,
for reasons of
consistent data generation using a cost effective approach.
Periodically,
municipalities should conduct additional waste composition studies to
monitor trends
in residential waste management and the effectiveness
of waste management programs.
(xi)
SECTION
1
WHY CONDUCT A WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION STUDY
1.0
WHY CONDUCT A WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION STUDY
The
waste
management
challenges
facing
Ontario
communities
involve
two
problems:
1.
The need to reduce the amount of waste entering Ontario landfills and
Incinerators. Many municipalities in Ontario are faced with landfills that
are at or near capacity, and building new landfills
is a costly and often
a
political and environmental challenge.
This challenge
is being met
in part through the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment waste
diversion
targets.
These
targets
are
aimed
at
reducing waste entering landfills by 25% by 1992, and 50% by 2001.
Activities
such as
residential Blue Box, commercial recycling, waste
composting, and recyclable material bans from
landfills, and efforts to
reduce waste
such
as
excess
packaging
are
being
implemented
to
achieve these objectives.
2.
The general societal need to reduce the amount of waste generated on
a per capita basis.
This need grows greater every day as renewable and
non-renewable
resources
dwindle
while
population
and
economies
continue to grow.
These two problems require careful consideration and planning by waste managers.
If solutions are to be found, these managers
will
require
reliable and current data
concerning per capita waste generation rates and percent composition.
By knowing the approximate tonnages involved and the composition of the municipal
waste
stream,
efforts can
be made
to maximize
reduction,
reuse and
recycling
efforts.
Per capita generation rates for the total waste stream and for its component
parts are needed to correctly design waste management programs and
facilities.
1-1
1.1
Waste Management Planning
Waste
generation
information and waste
composition
data
are
required
for
the
following reasons:
i)
Quantities of waste generated in various neighbourhoods and districts within
the
municipality must
be known
to
properly
assign
collection
vehicles
-
therefore a per capita generation rate
is needed;
ii)
Proper design
of
waste management
facilities such
as
transfer
stations,
landfills,
recycling depots, composting plants and so on require information
concerning the per capita generation rate and waste composition;
ijj)
When planning for population growth,
a per capita generation rate
is
needed to estimate increases
in total waste quantity;
iv)
Waste generation rate and waste composition data are needed to assess
the effects of waste diversion programs and policies.
1.1.1
Estimation of Total Waste Tonnage
A waste composition study such as the one described herein estimates tonnages of
waste generated by every person
in the municipality from both residential sources
(Part A) and commercial sources (Part B).
Waste tonnages can be estimated on a
daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly basis.
In addition to total tonnage generated, a
waste composition study allows an estimation to be made of the tonnage of each
material
in the waste stream.
1.1.2 Estimation of Tonnage of Recyclable and Recoverable Material
A waste composition study allows accurate estimations to be made of the tonnages
of materials being recycled by current recycling programs, the amount of material
that could be recovered by those programs (capture
rates), and estimates of the
amount of material that could be recovered from the waste stream by additional
diversion programs.
1-2
1.1.3 Estimation of Tonnage of Hazardous Materials
Of concern
in the design of
landfills and other waste management
facilities
is the
amount of hazardous materials, such as paints, waste
oil, used batteries, pesticides,
and medical wastes that are found in the waste stream. A waste composition study
will provide an estimation of the quantities of these materials present
in the solid
waste stream.
1-3
SECTION 2
WASTE STUDY PARAMETERS AND CONSIDERATIONS
2.0
WASTE STUDY PARAMETERS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Conducting a waste composition and generation study requires careful planning with
regard to the type of data required, and how the data
will be collected.
2.1
Required Waste Generation Rate and Waste Composition Data
The data collected
in a waste composition study
fall into two categories:
1.
per capita generation rate information;
2.
percent composition of the waste by component materials.
2.1.1
Waste Generation Rate
For the purposes
of the Ontario Waste Composition Study the
residential waste
generation rate
is defined as kilograms per capita per day (kg/capita/day).
These
units can
easily be
multiplied by constants
to obtain weekly,
monthly,
or yearly
generation rates in kilograms or tonnes. As well, a total tonnage of waste generated
for the municipality can be calculated by multiplying by the total number of persons
in the municipality by the per capita generation rate.
2.1.2
Waste Composition
The percent composition of waste by
its material components
is dependent on the
waste stream studied, and on the definition of the categories of material used.
The waste component categories used in the Ontario Waste Composition Study were
based
in part on the physical or chemical make-up of the component and,
in part,
on the form the waste material takes.
As such there are several subcategories for
most materials.
The subcategories could be based on physical and chemical make-
up, such as those for paper (fine paper, newspaper, corrugated cardboard etc.), or
the sub-categories could be based on form and usage such as with ferrous metal
(food containers, returnable beverage containers, non-food containers). A
list of the
2-1
waste
component
categories
and
sub
categories
used
in
the
Ontario
Waste
Composition Study
is given
in Table
1
.
Note that in Table
1 there are no categories for bulky items such as used appliances
and furniture.
These items are usually collected separately from regular waste.
The category of yard waste listed
in Table
1
is meant to record the quantity of yard
waste co-mingled with regular waste.
To assess the quantity of leaves and other
yard waste collected seasonally such as during fall leaf collection programs of other
spring/fall clean-ups additional data collection procedures should be used.
In
addition
to
material
composition,
the
Ontario Waste Composition Study
also
defined waste by the way in which
it was collected and
its subsequent destination.
As such, composition of Blue Box materials, where present, are analyzed separately
from the
identical materials found
in
regular curbside waste, and yard wastes are
analyzed separately from the other organic components.
2.2
Income and Housing Basis for Defining Residential Waste Generation
The Ontario Waste Composition Study used the pioneering work of Rathje et al. as
a basis for designing the sampling approach and framework
(ref. 4,5,6,7,8).
Rathje
and Thompson (1981) demonstrated during the MILWAUKEE GARBAGE PROJECT
the
relationship
between
socio-economic
stratification
of
populations
and
the
composition of residential refuse.
Income and housing-type reflect lifestyle and as
such influence waste generation.
The methodology of the Ontario Waste Composition Study used an income/housing
stratification
to
describe discrete areas
within
the
municipality
called Census
of
Canada Enumeration
Areas,
and
to
select
locations
for the
collection
of waste
samples.
2-2
lABLt
l:
KASIl
COWPOilUOH CAIlùORltS
(1)
Paper
(j)
Newspr\nt
(b)
Fine
Paper
/
CPO
/
Ledger
(c)
Hjija/ines
/ flyers
(d)
Wa»ed
/ Plastic
/ Ni»ed
(e)
Boiboard
(f)
Kraft
(g)
Wal Ipaper
(h)
OCC
(1)
Tissues
(?)
Glass
(a)
Beer
(i)
refillable
(ii)
non-ref illable
(b)
Liquor
& Wine Containers
(c)
Food Containers
(d)
Soft Onnk
(i)
refillable
(il)
non-ref 1
1
lable
(e)
Other Containers
(f)
Plate
(g)
Other
(3)
Ferrous
(a)
Soft
Orink
Containers
(b)
Food Containers
(c)
Beer
Cans
(i)
returnable
(il)
non-returnable
(d)
Aerosol
Cans
(e)
Other
(4)
Hon-Ferrous
(a)
Beer
Cans
(i)
returnable
(ii)
non-returnable
(in)
Aaerican
(b)
Soft
Drink
Containers
(c)
Other Packaging
(d)
AluBinua
(e)
Other
(5)
Plastics
(a)
Polyolefins
(b)
PVC
(c)
Polystyrene
(d)
ABS
(e)
PET
(f)
Mixed Blend Plastic
(g)
Coated Plastic
(1)
Nylon
(i)
Vinyl
(6)
2.2.1
Knowing Your Community
- Census Canada Information
The data required to characterize the income and housing type
in a community can
be obtained from Census of Canada information for the municipality.
The census
data
is
collected every
five years
and
is
available from
Statistics Canada
for a
nominal service fee.
Census data is collected in a municipality using discreet areas mapped out by Census
Canada
called
Enumeration
Areas
(EA).
An
enumeration
area
is
laid
out
to
encompass
an
area
containing
approximately
300
dwellings.
As
such
the
geographical area covered varies greatly depending on the density of housing.
The
EA may be a
large
rural area,
a few city blocks, or one single highrise apartment
building.
Enumeration areas were selected as the sampling frame for this study because they
are the smallest statistical unit for which census data are available. As such a single
EA
is likely to have a relatively uniform income level and housing type.
These facts
allow each enumeration area to be classified into groups based on relatively distinct
and
real income and housing type strata.
2.2.1.1
Enumeration Areas and the Study Matrix
Census Canada
reports
the
following
data
for each enumeration
area
within
a
municipality: average combine household income; the number of single detached
residences, apartments, and other residences; and average number of persons per
dwelling.
These data are used to create a income/housing matrix for classifying
all
of the enumeration areas
in the municipality.
The matrix lay-out
is shown
in Table
2.
2.2.1.2
Classification of Enumeration Areas By Income
Using
the
most
recent
Statistics
Canada
Census
data,
each EA
in
the
study
community
is stratified according to income level.
The format for the stratification
is as follows:
2-3
TABLE
2:
INCOMeHOUSING MATRIX USED FOR
CLASSIFYING MUNICIPAL POPULATIONS.
Dwelling Type
(1)
(2)
(3)
Income
Level
(A)
High
(B)
Medium
(C)
Low
Primarily
single
Detached
Dwellings
Mixed
Dwellings
Primarily
multiple
Dwellings
Al
High Income:
Medium Income:
Low Income:
average household income
is at least 1/2
standard deviation greater than the mean income for the
entire community;
average household income
Is no more than
1/2 standard
deviation greater than, or less than the mean income for
the entire community;
average household income is at least 1 12 standard deviation
less than the mean income for the entire community.
Figure
1
illustrates the concept of population
stratification by income, described
above.
2.2.1.3
Classification of Enumeration Areas By Housing Type
Within each income category, each EA is further classified according to housing type.
For each EA, Statistics Canada reports the number of Single Detached residences,
Apartments, and Other residences.
These numbers, expressed as a percentage of
occupied dwellings
in the EA are used to identify the predominant housing type for
the EA.
Primarily Single
EAs with 60% to 70% of dwellings reported as
Detached:
"single detached dwellings";
Primarily Multiple
EAs with 60% to 70% of dwellings reported
Dwellings:
as "apartments"
(typically multiple story highrises).
Mixed Dwellings:
EAs
with
a
"mixture"
of
single
detached,
apartment
buildings with
fewer than 30
units, and
other dwelling
types;
having
less than 60%
of the
dwellings
listed
as
single
detached
or 60%
of
the
dwellings
listed
as
apartments;
An exact boundary
line between dwelling classifications
is not rigorously specified
in this Study because of the need for flexibility to consider the distribution of the
minor components of the residential mix for a particular EA. The distribution of types
of residences across the whole
municipality should
be examined
to ensure
that
2-4
FIGURE
1:
CATEGORIZING A MUNICIPAL POPULATION
WITH RESPECT TO INCOME:
- THEORETICAL DISTRIBUTION
(lA)
-
PRACTICAL APPUCATION
(IB)
-3SD
-2SD
-iSD
'
+iSD
+2SD
+3SD
Income
of
a
municipal
population
(
1 A)
Idealized
representation
of
normal
income
distribution
over
a
municipal
population.
The
middle
income
range
extends
between -1/2
SD
and +1/2
SD
and
includes 33%
of
the
population.
specific cells
in the income/housing matrix were not grossly out of proportion to the
total number of EAs or the "character" of the municipality.
Once the housing typé
is determined then each EA can be assigned to its respective
cell
in the income/housing matrix.
Typically a community may have only
six or
seven of the nine possible income and housing types.
This
is expected since not all
municipalities
will have very large multi-story apartment building, or some housing
types may not exist for given income strata.
2.2.2
Knowing Your Community
- Current Waste Management Practices
The next parameter that must be known before beginning the waste study
is the
current waste management practices
in the municipality.
The following information should be assessed:
1.
waste collection frequency: once per week, or
twice per week;
2.
collection routes and schedules;
3.
collection practices and scheduling during holidays etc.;
4.
presence of Blue Box programs or other recycling activities and days on
which blue box materials are collected;
5.
presence of special waste collection programs such as spring and
fall
clean-up
collections,
leaf
and
yard-waste
collections,
bulky
item
collection days, white metal collections, hazardous waste collections and
so on.
This information is needed to coordinate the collection of waste samples with regular
waste collection so that conflicts do not occur, and to ensure that data are collected
regarding special waste collections.
2.2.3
Effect of Seasonality On Waste Generation
In any waste composition study there
is always the question of seasonality and
its
effect on waste composition and generation rates.
There
is a large body of literature
2-5
(réf.
1,
réf.
9)
that
suggests
if
yard
waste
and
leaves
are
omitted
from
the
calculation of composition and generation rate, the fluctuations
in composition and
generation rate of household waste are less than 10% over the course of the year.
The methodology presented herein treats yard waste and bulky items as separate
waste categories, therefore the time of year at which the waste composition study
takes place
is of secondary consideration.
Efforts should be made, however, to
assess the tonnages of leaves, yard waste and bulk Items generated each year.
2.2.4
Bulk Item and Special Collection Days
Some municipalities have special collections for bulk items, spring and
fall clean-up
days,
and
leaf
collection
programs.
These
special
waste
streams
need
to
be
assessed individually because they do not
fit into to the normal weekly generation
of waste by households.
The relatively small number of samples (snap-shot approach) taken when using this
methodology precludes taking of any waste that would not be generated on a daily
or weekly basis.
For a discussion of this problem see Volume
I, Residential Waste
Composition Study.
2.3
Sampling of Residential Waste
2.3.1
Number of Samples Required
in Each Enumeration Area
In the three communities studied as part of the Ontario Waste Composition Study,
typically
six
or seven EAs would
be chosen
for sampling,
corresponding
to
the
income/housing matrix classifications.
These EAs form the sampling framework for
the study.
Within each enumeration area ten (nine as a minimum) samples of regular curbside
residential waste and blue box materials (where present) were taken
for analysis.
Nine or ten samples were required for statistically accurate results (see Volume
I).
This number of samples also proved to be the appropriate number for a four or five
2-6
person crew to analyze
in one week.
This allowed the crew to study one EA per
week, thus meshing with the existing collection schedules of the communities.
2.3.2
Size of Samples Required
Previous work in waste composition analysis conducted in the United
States by Klee
and
Carruth
(1971)
indicated
that the
optimal
size
of each
of the ten samples
collected within an EA
is 90-150 kilograms (200-300 pounds).
As such with an EA
the total weight
of refuse analyzed would be approximately
1 tonne (1000 kg).
The sample weight of 90-125
kg
is
for
regular curbside waste
only.
Additional
collections of leaves, separated yard wastes, and bulk items
will be necessary to
assess the total residential waste stream.
Inclusions of such materials would skew
the analysis
in favour of the bulky materials which may be generated infrequently
over the year, and hence provide a poor representation of regular waste generation.
2-7
SECTION 3
MANPOWER, EQUIPMENT AND COST
3.0
MANPOWER. EQUIPMENT AND COST
The following
is a description of the nnanpower requirements, necessary equipnnent
and costs associated with conducting a waste composition study.
In the manpower
section a dollar value of the wage for the workers
is not specified as this must be
determined by the municipality conducting the study.
Instead, only an estimation of
the number of work days and hours required to complete the study
is given.
Lists
of
required
and
optional equipment
is
provided,
but
no
dollar amounts
for
the
purchase or rental of this equipment.
These details should be carefully considered
by any municipality undertaking a waste composition study.
3.1
Field Crew Size Requirements
Four or five people were needed for the waste collection task where a Class
1
Blue
Box program exists
(for example Town of Fergus; Borough of East York): two truck
drivers, one collection data recorder and one (or two) people to pick up the bagged
refuse and
Blue Box
materials.
Occasionally,
a
5 day work-week was
not
long
enough to complete the collection and sorting operations and an additional work day
(Saturday) was required.
In North Bay, where there was no Blue Box program in place, a three member crew
carried out the refuse collection.
It should be noted that the reduced crew number
required that they work an extra full day,
i.e., Saturdays, to complete the sorting and
weighing of waste.
The
field
crews
for
the
Ontario Waste
Composition
Study
were
comprised
of
community college students and university graduates.
It was emphasized that the
Study was really a "laboratory situation".
Thus attention was given to organization,
routine, reproducibility, consistency-even the cleanliness of garbage cans, van floor
etc.
This approach attempted
to
maximize
a
scientific
attitude
and
thoughtful
responsibility leading to careful work habits that the students learn as part of their
analytical training.
If students are not available, dedicated members of the municipal
staff, or other workers could be employed.
3-1
In addition to the field crew, a project manager
is required.
This person must have
a
technical background and
a
high
level
of respect and
responsibility within the
municipality's
works
and
engineering
department.
The
project
leader
will
be
responsible (in the absence of an outside consultant) for performing the calculations
necessary to define the income/housing matrix,
selecting the EAs
for the study,
determining the sampling locations, contacting and liaisoning with waste haulers and
collectors,
ensuring accurate
records
are
kept, and
general management
of the
project.
The Project Manager will
in
all likelihood be required to generate a report presenting
the results of the study.
The amount of time
required for this task will depend on
the purpose for which the study was undertaken.
3.2
Equipment Requirements
The following equipment and hardware
is required for the study.
3.2.1
Waste Sample Collection Equipment
The following
list of equipment includes rented vehicles and purchased equipment:
one
-
4.3 m.(14
ft.) cube van
(for collection of bagged refuse);
one
-
pick-up truck (for collection of Blue Box contents);
one
-
electronic platform scale (150 kg capacity, Accu Weigh Model
PAK-
150
(electronic,
battery operated
scale
with
digital
read-out).
Exact
Weight Scale,
Inc., Toronto, Ontario);
six
-
1.2 m.(4
ft.) X
1.2 m.(4
ft.)
x
1.2 m.
(4
ft.) heavy duty corrugated
containers
("gaylords"); these
containers were
used
for
storing
the
bagged (non-Blue Box) refuse
samples as they were being collected;
four
- 1.2 m.(4
ft.) x 1.2 m.(4
ft.) divider frames
(2.5 cm. x 5.1 cm. wood
furring stock/chicken wire); these were used as horizontal partitions in
the back of the cube van for separating the collections of bagged (non-
Blue Box) refuse which were stacked on top of each other;
3-2
two
- 46 cm. (18
in.) x 2.4 m.(8
ft.) divider frames (2.5 cm. x 5.1 cm. wood
furring stock/chicken wire); these were used as the two main partitions
in the back of the pick-up truck for segregating the collections of Blue
Box materials (see Figure 2);
nine
- 46 cm. (18
in.)
x 41
cm. (16
in.)
(approx.) plywood
panels; used as
partitions
in the back of the pick-up truck (see Figure 2);
one
-
chicken wire
"crib":
1.2 m.(4
ft.) x
1.2 m.(4
ft.) x
1.3 cm. (1/2
in.)
plywood base; 0.6 m.(2
ft.) high chicken wire and 2.5 cm. x 5.1 cm.
furring sides.
Nailed to the underside of the crib floor was a square
frame which permitted the crib to be centred on the bed of the platform
scale (see Figure 3); the crib was used for weighing the refuse as
it was
being collected from curb-side;
150
- 50.8 cm. (20
In.) x 76.2 cm. (30
in.) x 6 mil polyethylene bags (Oxford
Packaging
Inc.,
Misslssauga,
Ontario); these were used
for bagging
refuse that was set out loose in garbage cans; the bags were also used
for storing refuse samples for moisture and chemical analysis;
40
-
30
litre polyethylene garbage cans; these were used as containers into
which sorted refuse was placed (see Figure 4);
one
-
2.7 m.(9
ft.) x 3.7 m.(12
ft.) reinforced plastic tarpaulin for covering
Blue Box materials
in the pickup truck;
six
-
elastic straps to secure the tarpaulin
in place;
one
-
broad-mouth aluminum shovel; used for cleaning up spills;
one
-
broom; used for cleaning up spills and sweeping out the vehicles;
one
-
staple gun and 0.95 cm.( 3/8
in.) staples for construction and repair of
chicken wire dividers and crib;
one
-
claw hammer; 5.1 cm. (2 in.) common nails: used in the construction of
the crib and divider frames.
3-3
.éum
I
f MOJtmfiiiuytin^
^JUSî?
'i^
îi/f^
P
|C
K^
FIGURE
2:
PHOrOGHAPII OP PICKUP
BLUE BOX MAIERIALS
mUCK Wim COMPARIMENrS FOR
FIGURE
3:
PIIOIOGRAPH
OF
CHICKEN
WIRE
CRIB
MOUNTED
ON
THE
PLAirORM SCALE (REAR VIEW OF CUBE VAN)
'7--S^
FIGURE
4:
PMOIOGRAPII SHOWING
ÎIIE POSI HONING OP THE STUDY TEAM
AHOUND
HIE TAILGAIE SORIING
lAULE
3.2.2
Waste Sample Sorting and Measurement Equipment
The
following
equipment and
supplies were
needed
for
the waste
sorting and
composition analysis:
-
1-150 kg capacity platform scale (noted previously);
-
1-5
kg
capacity
scale
(Accurate
model
5000
(electronic,
battery
operated
with
digital
read-out),
Exact Weight
Scale
Inc.,
Toronto,
Ontario);
-
40-polyethylene garbage cans (note above);
-
1-claw hammer;
-
1 -slotted screw driver;
-
1-electrician's pliers;
-
4-magnets
-
pairing knives for opening plastic bags
-
Personal safety equipment listed below Section 3.2.3
3.2.3
Personal Safety Equipment
Personal equipment required:
-
heavy duty, waterproof (PVC-coated) gloves;
-
work clothes or coveralls; rubber apron; hat (hard hat
if desired)
-
steel-toed work boots;
-
eye protection (goggles preferable or safety glasses);
-
tetanus/polio vaccination (optional: diphtheria. Hepatitis A and Hepatitis
B);
-
traffic safety vest;
-
particle masks, worn by crew members concerned with dust and the
possibility of disease transmission;
-
anti-bacterial soap, used to clean gloves, hands and face before meal
breaks and at the end of the day.
Safety must be stressed at
all times during the study including personal hygiene.
It
is important to remember that
within each bag of garbage there may be disease
carrying organisms, sharp objects including hypodermic needles, containers that may
explode, combustibles, corrosive and caustic agents, harmful chemicals, and dust.
3.2.4
Seasonal Effects on Equipment Requirements
- Shelter and Clothing
The season of the year
in which the study
is conducted has a great bearing on the
clothing and shelter requirements of the field crew, and general carrying out of the
study.
3-4
For several reasons
it may be advisable to conduct the study during the fall or winter
months.
The waste
will have less odour and fewer maggots and
flies at this time
of year.
In addition the cool or freezing temperatures will keep the organic fraction
of the waste from
rotting which
will makes the work more manageable from an
objective and aesthetic standpoint.
The cooler weather will also reduce the amount
of moisture
lost by the waste, due to evaporation, from
the time the sample
is
collected to the time
it
is actually sorted (several days
in some cases).
If the study
is conducted
in the autumn or winter months some form of shelter
is
required by the field crew while sorting the waste.
Shelter is required to protect the
field crew (and the waste samples!) from wind,
rain, snow and cold.
During the
Ontario Waste Composition Study the following locations were used during the
fall
and winter study
periods.
In the Borough of East York,
the tipping
floor of the
former Commissioners Street Incinerator was used. When this location became too
cold
in December, the sorting location was moved into a heated workshop adjacent
to the tipping
floor.
In North Bay sorting was conducted
in a large carnival tent.
Heating
in the tent was supplied by propane heaters.
In the summer protection from the wind,
rain, and direct sun
will be required.
In addition to a sheltered work space, the sorting crew must be provided with
a
warm, dry break-room, and washroom facilities.
3.3
Cost of Conducting a Typical Waste Study
The
following
is
an
estimate
of
the
cost
associated
with
conducting
a
waste
composition study.
The length of time required to conduct the residential phase of the waste study
is
dependent on the number of EAs identified
in the income/housing matrix.
At most
there
will be nine EAs to study, although most communities
will have fewer since
not
all
cells
of the
matrix
will have representative EAs.
In
addition
to the
nine
(maximum) EAs identified in the matrix, additional EAs may be studied to confirm the
results from the
other EAs.
Each EA
studied
requires one week
(5-6
days)
to
complete the sample collection and sorting.
3-5
3.3.1
Anticipated Personnel Time Requirements and Costs
STAGE
1
:
PROJECT INITIATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF ENUMERATION
AREAS INTO AN INCOME/HOUSING MATRIX
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
PERSONNEL
WORK DAYS
Task:
Project Initiation
Task: Obtaining Census Data from
Statistics Canada Archive Libraries
Task: EA Classification by
Income/Housing Types
Task:
Selection of EAs for
Inclusion
in the Study
(Matrix Classification allows for
9 EAs. More may be included
in
the study as required)
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Assistant^
Project Manager
Project Manager
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.25
(0.25
days/EA)
SUB TOTAL:
Project Manager
7.75
Project Assistant
1.0
COSTS:
Statistics
Canada
Service
Fee
for
Materials Travel, Telephone Use, Office
Supplies, Computer Time
The Project Manager
will typically be a person from the Municipal Engineering Department or some other member of the
Municipal Staff familiar with Waste Management procedures.
The Project Assistant would ideally be a member of the field crew and also a member of the municipal staff familiar with
waste management procedures.
3-6
3.3.1
Anticipated Personnel Time Requirements and Costs Continued
STAGE 2:
DETERMINING
SAMPLE
POINTS
WITHIN
THE
CHOSEN
ENUMERATION AREAS
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
PERSONNEL
WORK DAYS
Task: Determining Sannple Points
Within the Selected Study
EAs.
Project Manager
Project Assistant
4.5
(0.5 days/EA)
2.25 (0.25 days/EA)
SUB TOTAL:
Project Manager
4.5
Project Assistant
2.25
COSTS:
Travel (inspection of EAs required), Telephone
Use, Office Supplies
Stage
1 and Stage 2 can be carried out by the Project Manager, or
in association
with an outside consulting agency familiar with Census of Canada data and sampling
procedures.
3-7
>-<o
ceo
coco
10
0)3c
coo
oo
acn
c
0)
E
<u
'5
0)
cc
E
«cco
V
Q.
"O
0)
LU
-J
a.
<w
LU
i-w<
5
z
UJ
9
(/>
UJ
g
O
LU
-J
_Joo
o
CO
cc
LU
0-
^
CO
(0
Q.
c<
CO
CO
LUO<
I-
ÛÇ
a
I-u
LU
-Jo
cc
55 S
CO
CO
ro
to
o o
a
0)
'5
cc
^co
c =
r:;
Q.
o
Q-
3 3_
O s C
U ^ g
.E ^
a;
C C(0
0)
c
CO
CD
- -
^
TO £
0) C--
-t--
TO 3
w«5
o-
CO ^ o
S "O
CO
Q- ^ o
2 SH
.9-pO
o £
i_
§S:£cd
S<0 c
O) 05 05.9
C C C
'
'
.^ .± .^ O
000
CO
CO
CO "-*
c c c
<«
000
d)
co
CO
no
3i,
.Si,"D
o
o "55
ll
it LI
3.3.1
Anticipated Personnel Time Requirements and Costs Continued
STAGE 4:
WASTE SORTING AND ANALYSIS
PROJECT REQUIREIVIENTS
PERSONNEL
WORK DAYS
Task:
Field Crew Training
-
Sorting and Classifying Waste;
Data Recording Procedures;
Safety
Task: Waste Sorting
Project Manager
2.0
Field Crew
1 .0 x 4 persons
Project Manager
Field Crew
1 .0 day/EA
5.0 days/EA x 4
SUB TOTAL:
COSTS:
Project Manager
Project Manager
Field Crew
Field Crew
2.0 (training)
1.0 day/EA
(field work)
1.0 (training)
5.0 days/EA
(field work)
Equipment purchases and rentals including obtaining
shelter
for
the
field
crew,
provision
of
safety
equipment, and tetanus/polio/diphtheria immunization
of the field crew (see Section 3.2) Tipping/disposal
fee for sorted waste after analysis Telephone Use,
Travel Cost, Office Supplies
Additional Costs associated with optional laboratory analyses such
as heating value (BTU) analysis, moisture content and leachable
metal content should be included
in budget calculation.
Additional time should be allocated
for the collection and analysis
of yard waste/leaves, white metal goods, and other bulk items.
Requirements for a field crew will vary between municipalities and
study approaches taken. See section 6.3 and 6.4 for a discussion
of approaches to analyzing these waste streams.
3-9
3.3.1
Anticipated Personnel Time Requirements and Costs Continued
STAGE 5:
DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORT WRITING
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
PERSONNEL
WORK DAYS
Task: Data Entry to
Spreadsheets
Task: Data Analysis, Calcul
ations and Report
Writing
Project Assistant
Project Manager
Project Assistant
1 .0 day/EA
10.0
3.0
SUB TOTAL:
COSTS:
Project Manager
Project Assistant
Project Assistant
10.0
1 .0 days/EA (data entry)
3.0
(clerical)
Office Supplies, Computer Time
WORK DAYS TOTAL
Administrative:
Project Manager
Project Assistant
Training Period:
Project Manager
Field Crew
Field Work:
(A) Once per week waste collection
Project Manager
Field Crew
(B) Twice per week waste collection
Project Manager
Field Crew
26.25
9.25
2.0
1.0 X 4
2.0 days/EA
5.5 days/EA x 4
2.5 days/EA
6.0 days/EA x 4
3-10
SECTION 4
STAGE
1
- DEFINING THE INCOMBHOUSING TYPE MATRIX
4.0
STAGE
1
- DEFINING THE INCOME/HOUSIINiG MATRIX
As outlined above, the
first task of the study
is to classify
all of the enumeration
areas
in the study areas (EAs) according to the income/housing matrix.
This task
defines the sampling framework for the study.
The EAs that
will be sampled are
selected from the matrix cells corresponding to each of the nine possible income and
housing types.
4.1
Obtaining Statistics Canada Data
Statistics Canada
census data needed
for
this study can be obtained from the
following Statistics Canada library:
Statistics Canada, Toronto
Telephone number:(416) 973-6586
Address:
25
St.
Clair Ave. East
Toronto, Ontario
M4T 1M4
Data can be obtained
In
a
printed format
or on computer disk
or tape.
Larger
municipalities may
find the computer disk format more
useful owing to the
large
volume of data required.
4.2
Municipal Income Stratification
Using the most recent Statistics Canada Census data available, each EA in the study
municipality
is stratified according to income level.
The format for the stratification
is:
4-1
High Income:
average household Income
is at least 1/2
standard deviation greater than the mean income for the
entire community;
Medium Income:
average household income
is no more than 1/2 standard
deviation greater than, or less than the mean income for
the entire community;
Low Income:
average household income is at least
1 12 standard deviation
less than the mean income for the entire community.
To carry-out the classification by income
it
is necessary to perform the following
calculations:
1.
calculate
the
overall
mean
household
income
of
all
EAs
in
the
municipality;
2.
calculate the standard deviation of household incomes from the overall
mean household income
3.
Subtract the average household income for each EA from the overall
mean household income for the municipality.
4.
Divide the difference of the two means by the standard deviation to
determine the number of standard
deviations away from the
overall
mean.
4.2.1 Anytown: Stratifying Income Levels
The stratification of income levels
in the fictional town of Anytown
is presented
in
Table 3.
The example classification
of EAs
in Anytown by income
level demonstrates the
relationship between the reported average combined household income, the mean
household income for the municipality, and the half standard deviation measure.
4-2
TABLE
3
:
ANYTOWN: CLASSIFYING ENUMERATION AREAS BY INCOME LEVEL
ENUMERATION
4.3
Municipal Housing Type Characteristics
Each EA
is further classified according to housing type.
Statistics Canada reports
the number of Single Detached residences. Apartments, and Other residences in each
EA. These numbers, expressed as a percentage of occupied dwellings in the EA are
used to identify the predominant housing type for the EA.
Primarily Single
EAs with 60% to 70% of dwellings reported
Detached:
as single detached;
Primarily Multiple
EAs with 60% to 70% of dwellings reported
Dwellings:
as "apartments".
Mixed Dwellings:
EAs with a mixture of single detached,
apartment buildings with fewer than 30
units, and "other" dwelling types;
An exact boundary line between dwelling classifications
is not rigorously specified
in this Study because of the need for
flexibility to consider the distribution of the
minor components of the
residential mix
for a
particular EA.
The
distribution of
types of residences across the whole municipality should be examined to ensure that
specific cells
in the income/housing matrix were not grossly out of proportion to the
total number of EAs.
4.3.1 Anytown: Classifying Housing Type
The Classification of Housing Type
in the fictional town of Anytown
is presented
in
Table 4.
The example classification of EAs
in Anytown by housing type
level demonstrates
the
relationship
between
the
percentage
of
dwelling
reported
in
each
of
the
categories: single detached dwellings, apartments, and other dwellings.
4-3
4.4
Allocating Individual EAs to the Matrix Cells
Once
each
EA
has
been
classified
according
the
relative
income
level
and
predominant housing type, the EAs are assigned to the income housing matrix cell
they correspond to.
This can best be done by sorting the EAs according to their
income classification (high, medium, low).
Then within each income class sort the
EAs according to their housing type classification.
4.4.1 Anytown: Allocating Individual EAs to Matrix Cells
In the example for the fictional town of Anytown, the income/housing classification
is shown
in Table
5.
The matrix cells corresponding to the classifications of High
income/Mixed
Dwellings,
and
Low
Income/Single
Detached
Dwellings
are
not
represented.
It is not unusual for a municipality to lack representation in one or more
matrix ceils.
The number of EAs in each classification will be needed for the calculation of the per
capita generation rates during the data analysis stage of the study.
4.5
Selecting the Study EAs
Once
all of the EAs have been classified
it
is a simple procedure to select the EAs
for inclusion
in the study.
The EAs should be selected
at random, using a random
number table where more than one EA
is present
in a given Matrix cell.
4.5.1 Anytown: Selecting the Study EAs
The classification of EAs in the fictional town of Anytown revealed that the following
classes
had more
than one EA
assigned
to them:
high
income/single detached
dwellings,
medium
income/single
detached
dwellings;
medium
income/mixed
dwellings; medium income/multiple dwellings; low income/ mixed dwellings.
From
these groups only one EA per classification
is needed for the study.
4-4
TABLE
5:
ANYTOWN: ALLOCATING INDIVIDUAL ENUMERATION AREAS TO
THE INCOME/HOUSING MATRIX CELLS
ENUMERATION
INCOME
/ HOUSING
AREA
CLASSIFICATION
107
HIGH INCOME
' SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS
114
HIGH INCOME
SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS
HIGH INCOME
/ MIXED DWELLINGS
108
HIGH INCOME
/ MULTIPLE DWELLINGS
104
MEDIUM INCOME
' SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS
110
MEDIUM INCOME
/ SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS
113
MEDIUM INCOME
/ SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS
115
MEDIUM INCOME
SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS
103
LOW INCOME
/ MIXED DWELLINGS
105
MEDIUM INCOME
,
MIXED DWELLINGS
111
MEDIUM INCOME
' MIXED DWELLINGS
106
MEDIUM INCOME
MULTIPLE DWELLINGS
112
MEDIUM INCOME
,
MULTIPLE DWELLINGS
LOW INCOME
/ SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS
102
LOW INCOME
/ MIXED DWELLINGS
109
LOW INCOME
/ MIXED DWELLINGS
101
LOW INCOME
; MULTIPLE DWELLINGS
To randomly select the EAs
to be used
In the
study, assign each
of the EAs
a
number.
From the random number table select a number for each classification and
use the EA with the corresponding number
for the study.
Table 6 provides an
example of how to randomly select enumeration areas for inclusion in the study from
a
list of several enumeration areas that may
fall within a single classification.
Note that for the classification Medium Income/Mixed Dwellings the random numbers
7 and 9 correspond to Enumeration Areas 103 and 111.
Either enumeration area
could be chosen but by convention the
first (random number 7, EA 103) would be
used for the study.
4-5
TABLE
6:
ANYTOWN: RANDOMLY SELECTING ENUMERATION AREAS TO BE
INCLUDED
IN THE WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
CLASSIFICATION
SECTION 5
STAGE 2
- SELECTING SAMPLE POINTS WITHIN AN EA
5.0
STAGE 2
- SELECTING SAMPLE POINTS WITHIN AN EA
In Stage
1
the municipality or study area was characterized by enumeration area
using an income/housing matrix.
From the matrix of income and housing types, one
enumeration area per matrix ceil was selected at random for study.
Within each chosen EA ten (nine as a minimum) samples must be collected.
These
samples should be taken so that the samples collected are evenly spread over the
entire EA.
In addition every household
in the EA must have an equal chance of
being included
in the study.
To achieve these goals ten collection starting points are selected
in the EA using a
random method.
Samples are collected from every house encountered with waste
set out for collection while driving along the street(s) containing the starting point
until approximately 100 kg of waste
is taken.
Following the collection of the
first
100 kg sample the crew moves on to the next starting point and collects the next
100 kg sample.
The process continues
until
all ten samples have been collected.
5.1
Street Face Numbering
The first step
in selecting the sampling start points
is to number each street face
in
the EA.
By convention, during the Ontario Waste Composition Study, this numbering started
in the upper left corner of the EA map (see example Figure 5) and proceeded down
and up the page, moving left to right, to the bottom right corner.
Every street face
was given an individual number.
In
addition
to
the
identification
of
street
face
starting
points,
large apartment
buildings (10 or more units)
in the mixed housing classification should be identified
if they exist.
These buildings are given a number,
like a street face, and may be
selected as a sampling
location.
Buildings of this
size
will
usually generate more
than enough waste for one sample.
5-1
FIGURE 5
EXAMPLE OF ONE EA SHOWING NUMBERING OF BLOCK
FACES AND SAMPLE COLLECTION "STARTING POINTS"
ithL.
11
10
15
AIE
19
24
$
5*
32
29
36
31
A2
40
16
ntfifiT
2*
4^
17
iàfttikU
Sur
25
30
~grnr
44
8*
46
45
37
39
38
-- ^*»irs
HE
TÎE
LEGEND
38
STREET FACE
2*
COLLECTION STARTING POINT
A3
ALTERNATE STARTING POINT
A3
5.2
Random Selection of Starting Points
Using
a random number table ten
staring
points where selected.
By convention
collection would start on the street face selected at the eastern, or northern end of
the street.
In addition to the ten start points selected, three or four alternate start
points would
also
be
identified.
The
need
for
alternate
starting
point
will
be
discussed
in STAGE 3
- Collection of Waste Samples.
5-2
SECTION 6
STAGE 3 -COLLECTION OF WASTE SAMPLE
6.0
STAGE 3
- COLLECTIOIM OF WASTE SAMPLE
Stage
1 described the method used to classify each of the EAs
in the municipality,
and described the method
for
selecting EAs
to be used
in the study.
Stage
2
described the method of determining where
in the study EAs the samples would be
taken from, and outlined the number and size of samples to be taken.
Stage 3 describes
in
detail the actual sampling of residential waste.
Each of the
housing types used
in the classification of EAs typically has different waste set out
practices and
collection procedures.
These differences
require
slightly different
waste sample collection procedures.
6.1
Regular Curbside Waste
Waste from single detached dwellings, duplexes, houses with apartments, and small
apartment buildings
is usually set out at the curb by the occupants for collection by
the municipal garbage collection
brigade.
The waste
will
typically be set out
in
plastic bags or garbage pails.
In addition to regular waste there may be Blue Box
Materials, bundles of yard waste, bags of leaves, and items too bulky to be bagged
or put
in a garbage pail.
6.1.1 Waste Collection Process: Detached Dwellings-General Procedures
The goal of the waste collection process, on any one day, was to obtain 10
(9 as
a minimum), 100 kg (minimum weight) samples of residential waste-exclusive of the
weight of Blue Box materials and yard waste that were also coincidentally collected
if they were placed curbside.
This task proceeded as quickly as possible, with a
0700
h
start, so that the normal
collection of waste and
Blue Box items by the
municipality was not seriously inconvenienced.
The waste sample collection began at one of the starting points (refer to Figure 5).
Waste
was
collected
in
front
of
every
dwelling
where
it was
set
out,
until
approximately 100 kg were accumulated
in the crib (see Figure 3), some variations
to this are noted below.
An "en route" collection record was kept of the number of
6-1
dwellings that had waste set out:
general waste and/or Blue Boxes.
Single and
duplex dwellings were also indicated.
The importance of the "en route" collection record and the accuracy of the recording
of the number of dwellings that were sampled should be noted.
The team member
who recorded the trip data did not have time to concentrate on any other aspect of
the curb-side collection process.
Loose waste
set out
in garbage cans was rebagged
in
clear polyethylene bags.
These bags were
reused and
not
included
in the analyzed waste
sample.
The
collected waste was placed
in the chicken wire
crib which was mounted on the
platform scale on the floor of the van (see Figure 3).
The scale was tared with the
empty crib on
it,
prior to
filling the crib with waste.
When the minimum required
weight of waste had been collected (with an allowance for the estimated inclusions
of yard waste co-disposed with household waste), the crib was unloaded and the
sample was stored in the van.
Samples were collected such that no waste was left
at the curb.
Corrugated gaylords were used to store six of the waste collections.
Two of the
remaining collections were piled on top of
1 .2 m (4 ft.) x
1 .2 m (4 ft.) chicken wire
dividers placed on top of the collections
in the gaylords.
The ninth collection of
bagged refuse was piled on top of the Blue Box materials, stored
in compartments
in the pick-up truck (see below), while the tenth collection was kept in the weighing
crib.
Yard waste set out at the curb was weighed at the time of sample collection.
The
weight was recorded and the yard waste was placed back at the curb for municipal
waste collection.
Blue Box items were placed
in the corresponding sample compartment
in the back
of the pick-up truck (Figure 4).
There was space for 9 collections
in the truck; the
tenth collection was stored
in polyethylene garbage cans
in the van.
It took between 2 and 2.5 hours to make 9-10 collections within an EA.
Following
the last collection, the contents
in the pick-up truck were covered with a tarpaulin.
6-2
Elastic straps secured the crib and contents in the back of the van. The Study teann
proceeded
to
the
base
of operations
In
the
municipality and began
sorting the
sannples.
6.1.2 Required Number of Samples
As described above, ten samples (nine as a minimum) are required from each EA.
If for various reasons fewer than ten samples are taken, the results for the EA with
fewer than ten samples
will be reliable but less accurate.
6.1.3 Required Weight of Each Sample
Each of the ten samples taken should weigh 90-125
kg (200-300
lbs).
A target
weight of 100 kg should be made
for each sample
with
the
bias toward
larger
samples
rather than smaller samples.
If,
for instance, 95 kg of waste have been
collected and the next house on the
collection
route has 10 to
15
kg
of waste
(typical weight) then that waste should also be taken
to guard against weighing
errors, loss of materials later on, or other factors which could reduce the weight of
that sample.
6.1.4 Collection Equipment Requirements
The following
list of equipment includes rented vehicles and purchased equipment:
one
- 4.3 m (14
ft.) cube van (for collection of bagged refuse);
one
-
pick-up truck (for collection of Blue Box contents);
one
-
electronic platform scale (150 kg capacity, Accu Weigh Model
PAK-
150
(electronic,
battery operated
scale
with
digital
read-out).
Exact
Weight Scale,
Inc., Toronto, Ontario);
six
-
1.2 m
(4
ft.) X
1.2 m
(4
ft.) x
1.2 m
(4
ft.) heavy duty corrugated
containers
("gaylords"); these
containers were used
for
storing
the
bagged (non-Blue Box) refuse
samples as they were being collected;
four
-
1 .2 m
(4
ft.) X
1 .2 m
(4
ft.) divider frames
(2.5 cm x 5.1 cm wood
furring stock/chicken wire); these were used as horizontal partitions
in
6-3
the back of the cube van for separating the collections of bagged (non-
Blue Box) refuse which were stacked on top of each other;
two
- 46 cm (18
in.) x 2.4 m (8
ft.) divider frannes (2.5 cm x 5.1 cm
wood
furring stock/chicken wire); these were used as the two main partitions
in the back of the pick-up truck for segregating the collections of Blue
Box materials (see Figure 2);
nine
- 46 cm (18
in.) x 41 cm (16
in.)
(approx.) plywood
panels; used as
partitions
in the back of the pick-up truck (see Figure 2);
one
-
chicken wire
"crib":
1.2 m
(4
ft.) x
1.2 m
(4
ft.) x
1.3 cm (1/2
in.)
plywood base; 0.6 m
(2
ft.) high chicken wire and 2.5 cm x 5.1 cm
furring sides.
Nailed to the underside of the crib floor was a square
frame which permitted the crib to be centred on the bed of the platform
scale (see Figure 3); the crib was used for weighing the refuse as
it was
being collected from curb-side;
150
- 50.8 cm (20
in.) x 76.2 cm (30
in.) x 6 mil polyethylene bags (Oxford
Packaging
Inc.,
Mississauga,
Ontario); these were used
for bagging
refuse that was set out loose in garbage cans; the bags were also used
for storing refuse samples for moisture and chemical analysis;
40
-
30
litre polyethylene garbage cans; these were used as containers into
which sorted refuse was placed (see Figure 4);
one
-
2.7 m (9
ft.) x 3.7 m (12
ft.) reinforced plastic tarpaulin for covering
Blue Box materials
in the pickup truck;
six
-
elastic straps to secure the tarpaulin
in place;
one
-
broad-mouth aluminum shovel; used for cleaning up spills;
one
-
broom; used for cleaning up spills and sweeping out the vehicles;
one
-
staple gun and 0.95 cm
( 3/8
in.) staples for construction and repair of
chicken wire dividers and crib;
one
- claw hammer; 5.1 cm (2 in.) common nails: used in the construction of
the crib and divider frames.
6.1.5 Twice Weekly Garbage Collection Sampling Protocol
Some
municipalities
will
have
twice
weekly
collection
of
garbage.
In
these
communities
it will be necessary to collect samples on both collection days since the
waste sample must reflect the waste generation characteristics of the enumeration
6-4
area for the entire week.
This presents some problems during sample collection
in
that a decision must be made regarding the weight of waste to be taken on each
sample day.
As an example of this problem staff in the Borough of East York indicated that about
60% of the weekly volume of refuse was placed at curb-side for the first of the two
weekly collections, with about 40% set out for the second collection.
This ratio was
not universally reliable for
all of the EAs
in the Borough.
With a target of 100 kg
(minimum weight) of waste that had to be collected for a sample of adequate size,
the following collection protocol was developed and illustrated in the example below.
For
a
given
sample,
approximately 60
kg
of bagged
refuse was
collected,
for
example, from 7 houses on the first collection day. Sample collection on the second
day
started from the same "starting point" assigned on the first day and waste was
collected from the same number of dwellings
.
In theory, the 60/40 relationship
would result in approximately 40 kg of refuse collected on the second collection day,
for total of 100 kg of waste for the composition analysis.
It
is
absolutely
imperative
that
waste
be
collected
from
the same
number
of
dwellings on the second collection day.
Calculation of the per capita generation rate
is dependent on knowing the number of dwellings waste was collected from (and
average number of occupants per dwelling), and the total weight of refuse collected.
The
uncertainty
of
the
60/40
ratio,
required
the
collection
crew
to
"overcompensate" the weight of the
first collection
in each sample by picking up
more than 60 kg, e.g., 70 kg.
This "insurance"
weight meant that the crew was
required to pick up from 7 dwellings on the second collection day.
The sum of two
collections would, not likely be less than 100 kg.
There were instances
in East York where the 60/40 relationship was not accurate.
This resulted
in either less than 100 kg of waste being collected for the week or a
weight greatly in excess of 100 kg being collected.
Neither of these occurrences is
of great concern so long as they occur infrequently.
6-5
Waste
collection from apartment
buildings with twice weekly
collection
did
not
present this kind of a sampling problem (see below).
6.1.6 Recording Number of Houses Passed and Weight of Sample
As note previously, one member of the collection team was assigned the duty of
recording information as the sample collection proceeded.
The collection record
is
extremely important later when the per capita generation rate
is being calculated.
The sample collection notes must accurately record:
1
.
Date and time of collection
2. Enumeration area sample
3. Address of "starting point" for each sample
4. Number of houses waste was taken from
5. Number of houses Blue Box materials were collected from
6. Weather conditions (e.g.
rain that would wet the sample)
6.2
Blue Box Materials
Blue Box materials are collected along with
regular waste, but their weight
is not
included
(initially)
in the 100 kg sample taken.
Samples of Blue Box materials were
stored
in the back of the pick-up truck
in
the compartments constructed out of
wood and chicken wire (Figure 2).
The number of dwellings setting out Blue Boxes
was often different from the number of dwellings regular waste was collected from.
It
is important to record the number of dwellings blue box materials were collected
from for later use
in calculating the per capita generation rate and "capture rate" of
Blue Box materials.
6.3
Yard Waste and Seasonality
Residential waste from detached dwellings usually contains a certain amount of yard
waste
(e.g.,
leaves,
grass clippings,
brush,
etc.)
This
material can
represent a
significant proportion of the waste at certain times of the year. The amount of yard
6-6
waste
will typically be very high
in the spring and
fall during yard clean-up times,
and may also be high during the summer grass growing and gardening times.
During
the rest of the year very
little yard waste
is generated.
In
a study designed to analyze the composition
of
residential waste by taking
a
limited number of samples,
It
is suggested that yard waste be excluded from the
calculation
of per capita
generation
rates and percent composition
of
residential
waste.
Depending on the exact time of the study, yard waste may represent too
large
or
too
small
a
proportion
of
the
yearly
average
generation
rate
for
the
municipality.
Yard waste generation rates require a long term
(yearly) monitoring
program to accurately describe their generation rate.
6.3.1
Collection and Analysis of Yard Waste
During
collection of
residential waste samples, yard waste may be encountered.
Where possible, yard waste should be separated at the curbside, weighed,
its weight
recorded, and
returned
to
the
curb.
The
weight
of yard waste
should
not
be
included
in the 100 kg sample.
Bags of refuse suspected
of being
entirely yard
waste should be opened and examined during the collection process. The weight of
yard waste
is recorded on the composition data sheets but
is not included in the per
capita generation rate
calculation for the reasons stated above.
On occasion yard waste
will go undetected at the curbside or
is commingled with
regular waste. The weight of this material should be recorded at the time of sorting,
but
will
not be used
in the calculation
of
per capita
generation
rates
or percent
composition.
6.4
Large and Bulk Items
Large and bulk items present a problem for the sample collection and data analysis.
Often a large or heavy item(s)
will be placed at the curbside with the regular waste.
These heavy items will have the effect of increasing the percent composition of the
waste sample toward material component of the large item, and lowering the other
6-7
material component percentages.
Large heavy items that are clearly not part of the
regular waste stream should be excluded from the 100 kg sample.
A statistical basis for this subjective decision is based on the concept of the standard
deviation and the normalized "bell curve" of percent composition of waste materials.
If the weight of a single item
in a sample would cause the percent composition for
that material to be greater than three standard deviations from the average percent
composition of that material, the item should not be included
in the sample.
This
information
is never available
in the
field,
therefore
a judgement based on what
should be considered "normal" residential waste and what should be included in the
sample must be made.
A person experienced in waste composition analysis should
make this decision.
Large or bulk items are often collected by the municipality on special collection days.
These collection days may be weekly, monthly, seasonal (spring/fall), or yearly.
For
the purposes of determining the per capita generation rates and composition of such
materials a yearly monitoring scheme should be set up.
This monitoring program
could be initiated at the same time as the monitoring program for yard waste since
these two waste streams may be linked by collection practices
in the municipality.
6.5
Apartment Buildings
During the collection of waste samples, two types of apartment buildings
will be
encountered that will require special sampling and data collection procedures.
6.5.1
Small Apartment Buildings
In the housing classification of "Mixed Dwellings" the collection crew will often come
across small apartment buildings, rooming houses and interconnected dwellings.
Apartment buildings with a small number of units will usually have all the waste set
out at the curbside.
This waste should be included
in the sample, and the number
of occupied units
in the building recorded.
6-8
Larger apartment buildings will often generate enough waste to make up one entire
100 kg sample.
Such
buildings should be noted during the selection of starting
points, and may be selected as sampling locations. The total weight of all refuse set
out from the building must be recorded along with the number of occupied dwellings.
Any additional waste above the required 100 kg sample size may be returned to the
curb to reduce sample sorting time later on.
On occasion waste
will not be set out
at the curbside, but may be present
in
a
dumpster or storage room.
All waste should
be removed from the dumpster or
storage room and
its weight recorded.
This
activity
will
require consent of the
building superintendent or operator, and such permission should be obtained before
the collection begins.
6.5.2 Highrise Apartment Buildings With Dumpsters and Compactors
The
housing
classification
of
"Multiple
Dwellings"
refers
to
enumeration
areas
comprised
entirely or
in
part by apartment buildings of 30
or more
units.
These
buildings present several
practical problems
for the waste study which must be
addressed.
1.
The ten 100 kg samples should be taken equally from all the dumpsters
or compactors,
if more than one dumpster
is
present.
This can be
achieved by skimming a layer of waste off the top of one dumpster to
make up one sample, then moving on to the next dumpster for the next
sample.
It may be necessary to
return to each dumpster more than
once to collect
all 10 samples.
Samples
of
loose waste from broken
or compacted bags should
be
rebagged
in 6 mil polyethylene bags.
2.
After the ten samples are have been collected the remaining waste must
be weighed, and its weight recorded along with the number of occupied
dwellings in the building. Weighing of the remaining waste
is often best
accomplished by contracting a waste hauler to dedicate one truck to
pick up the waste from the apartment
building, take
it
directly to
a
transfer station, and return the weigh scale receipt to the study team.
6-9
In the absence of such an arrangennent with a private hauler, or where
only small amounts of waste remain, the study crew can weigh and
record the weight of the waste on the portable scale, and return the
excess waste to the dumpster.
6.6
Logistics of Sample Collection
The collection of waste samples and supporting data requires a large degree of co-
ordination between the study team. Ministry of the Environment officials, municipal
authorities and staff, building owners, waste haulers and others.
6.6.1 Documents and Meetings
Two important documents must be obtained from the Ministry of the Environment,
Waste Management Branch.
The
first authorizes the collection of waste
for the
Waste Composition Study; the second
is a letter to be given to any individual in the
municipality who
is interested
in learning more about the residential study.
The
procedure to
obtain
Ministry
approval
for
solid waste sample
collection by
municipalities undertaking waste composition studies,
is as follows:
A letter requesting Ministry approval for temporary collection of solid waste samples
shall be mailed by the interested municipality to:
Mr. Dave Crump
Operations Coordinator
Operations Division
Ministry of the Environment
14th
Floor, 135
St.
Clair Ave., West
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1P5
The letter shall include, but not be limited to the following type of information:
-
Background and reasons for undertaking the study.
-
Study objectives.
-
Study approach.
6-10
-
Contractor's name.
-
Collection area.
-
Approximative number of samples to be collected.
-
Approximative weight of each sample.
-
Estimated duration of the project.
A
high
level
of
coordination
is
required
between
the
Study
Project
Manager,
municipal staff and waste haulers to ensure scheduling of refuse collections.
Each
week,
a map
of
the EA scheduled
for
inclusion
in
the
refuse study should
be
delivered to municipal staff and/or the waste haulers.
The
study team
must
be
informed
of
the
regular
collection
day
in
the
study
enumeration
area,
whether
there
is once
or twice
weekly
collection,
the
ratio
between
first and second day set-out rates
(e.g. 60/40
spilt) when there
is twice
weekly collection, and any other potential collection problems such as rescheduling
at holiday times.
The municipal waste collection crews should be directed away from the study area
for at least three hours to allow the study team to collect samples.
A similar
level of coordination
is required
in order to obtain permission to include
small and large apartment buildings in the Study.
Usually the details can be arranged
through phone conversations with apartment owners and
building managers and
waste haulers, but occasionally written requests for permission are required.
In North Bay, a press release was issued by the City to inform its residents about the
City's participation in the Ontario Waste Composition Study.
This may be helpful in
facilitating the collection crew's activities.
6-11
SECTION
7
STAGE 4
- WASTE SORTING AND ANALYSIS
7.0
STAGE 4
- WASTE SORTING AND ANALYSIS
Stage 4 describes the methods to be used by the study team to analyze the waste
samples after they have been collected.
These analyses include sorting the waste
into
its
material components and
weighing each
material,
determining
moisture
content, and
optional analyses such as BTU
(heating value analyses) and
metal
content.
7.1
Sorting Location
Samples of waste are returned to a central location where sorting and weighing can
take place. The sorting location varied with the municipality being studied and the
seasonal weather.
In general the sorting location had to be large enough to allow
the sorting team to set up a work table and an array of plastic buckets, and should
provide some protection from the elements.
In the Town of Fergus, sorting was conducted at the Guelph Landfill Site. No shelter
was provided except for a large tarpaulin which was used as a sun-screen during the
hot summer months.
In Borough of East York sorting was conducted on the tipping
floor of the former
Commissioners Street Incinerator. This location provided adequate protection from
the wind and cold during the months of November and December.
On very cold
days the work was moved into a heated work room adjacent to the tipping floor.
In the City of North Bay sorting was carried out in a large (20
ft. by 20
ft.) carnival-
type tent.
The study took place during the month of February, during which times
temperatures were continually well below freezing.
The tent was heated with two
15,000 BTU propane heaters.
7-1
7.2
Sorting Equipment and Set-up
Sorting of waste samples was conducted on a large wooden table around which all
of the sorting team could stand. The table was constructed out of one inch plywood
sheets, supported either by the tail-gate of the pick-up truck or on saw horses (see
Figure 4).
The sorting team position themselves around the table and set up the array of plastic
sorting buckets (30
litre plastic garbage cans)
into which the
various components
of the waste are sorted (see Figure 4).
The sorting buckets are arranged to promote the idea of "handedness".
To begin
with, a bucket for putrescibles which
Is placed directly
in front of each sorter.
This
provides the least amount of handling for the largest component by weight, and the
most difficult component to handle.
Each sorter then shares a bucket for each of the other components with either the
sorter on the
right or on the
left.
For example, the buckets could be arranged so
that a sorter is placing
all paper categories to the
left side and
all plastic categories
to the right side.
Buckets for the larger and heavier objects can be placed behind
the
sorters, at a further distance but should be shared by two or more sorters.
This
arrangement of buckets allows the sorters to pick up an Item and deposit
it
in the
correct bucket without having to transfer the object from hand to hand, once the
Idea of
" handedness"
is established.
Additional equipment required for the sorting procedure includes:
-
150 kg capacity platform scale (noted previously);
-
1.5
kg
capacity
scale
(Accurate
model
5000
(electronic,
battery
operated
with
digital
read-out),
Exact
Weight
Scale
Inc.,
Toronto,
Ontario.);
-
40 polyethylene garbage cans (noted above);
-
1 claw hammer
-
1
slotted screw driver;
-
1
electrician's pliers;
-
4 magnets
-
paring knives for opening plastic bags
-
personal equipment listed
Section 7.6.6
7-2
7.3
Waste Component Categories
The samples
of waste
are
sorted
into
the
categories shown
in
Table
7.
The
categories were
listed on data collection sheets which allowed the weight of each
component to be
recorded opposite of
it.
Space should also be available on the
data sheet for recording of miscellaneous items that do not
fit the predetermined
categories.
The information recorded on the data collection sheet for each sample
can then be transferred directly to computer spreadsheets for analysis.
Notes On the Categories
While sorting/classifying the waste samples certain items, such as a glass bottle, are
simple to categorize.
Some waste materials may be composed of several different
materials in layers or otherwise combined which makes identification difficult.
Other
waste materials, due to their unique physical or chemical structure,
will not fall into
obvious categories.
The degree and
level
of
detail
to which the Ontario Waste
Composition Study waste material categories have been subdivided reflects an effort
to deal with these sorting problems.
In general,
if a material could be identified by a unique identifying keyword or phrase
in addition to
its generic material composition, that descriptor formed the basis for
its classification.
The generic categories of paper, glass, ferrous metal, non-ferrous
metal,
plastics and organics each have several subcategories.
In addition several
unique categories are used such as diapers (disposable), dry cell batteries, kitty litter,
and medical waste are used.
7-3
TABLE
7: WSTt COMPOSITION DATA COlLtCIIOH SH£ET
Enu««rdtion Area;
Collection Ddtes:
(1)
Paper
(a)
Hevsprint
(b)
Fine Paper
/ CPO
/
Ledger
(c)
I»â9â2ines
/ Flyers
(d)
Wa>ed
/ Plastic
/ «i«ed
(e)
8o«board
(f)
Kraft
(9) Wallpaper
(h) oa
(1)
lissues
(2)
Glass
(a)
Beer
(i)
refillable
(ii)
non-ref illable
(b)
Liquor ( Wine Containers
(c)
Food Containers
(d)
Soft
Drink
(i)
refillable
(il)
non-ref
i
liable
(e)
Other Containers
(f)
Plate
(9)
Other
(3)
Ferrous
(a)
Soft
Drink Containers
(b)
Food Containers
(c)
Beer Cans
(1)
returnable
(ii)
non-returnable
(d) Aerosol
Cans
(e) Other
(4)
Non-Ferrous
(a)
Beer Cans
(i)
returnable
|j
(ii)
non-returnable
|
j
(ill) A»erican
||
(b)
Soft
Drink Containers
jj
(c) Other Packaging
|
|
(d)
AluBinua
{
|
(e)
Other
||
(5)
Plastics
(a)
Polyolefins
(b)
PVC
(c)
Polystyrene
(d)
AfiS
(e)
PET
(f)
Ni.ed Blend
Plastic
(g)
Coated Plastic
(i)
Nylon
(I)
Vinyl
(6)
Organic
(a)
Food Waste
/ Rodent
Bedding
(b)
Yard Waste
(7) Wood
(8)
Ceramics
/ Rubble
/ Fiberglass
/
Gypsu» Board
/ Asbestos
(9)
Diapers
(10)
Textiles/Leather/Rubber
(11) Household Hazardous
(a)
Paints
/ Solvents
Wastes
(b)
Waste Oils
(c)
Pesticides/Herbicides
(12)
Dry Cell
Batteries
(13)
Kitty
Litter
(14)
Medical aastes
(15) Miscellaneous
(16)
BLUE
BOX
ITEMS
(a)
Newsprint
(b)
Liquor
/ Wine Bottles
(c)
Food Jars
/ Other
Bottles
(d)
Food Cans
(i)
ferrous
(ii) non-ferrous
(e) Beer Cans
(i)
ferrous
(i i) non-ferrous
(iii) Aaencan
(f
)
Pop Cans
(i)
ferrous
(ii)
non-ferrous
(9)
PET Bottles
(h)
Plastic
Jugs
(>) OCC
When an itenn was found to be composed of several materials, the most predominant
material by weight was used as the basis for classification.
For example a paper
container with a thin coat of plastic would be classified as waxed/plastic/mixed paper
(item
Id).
Similarly a plastic bag with a thin aluminum
foil
liner (potato chip bags)
would be classified as coated plastic (item 5g).
Dr. Fred Edgecombe, Executive Director, EPIC (Environment & Plastics Institute of
Canada) recommended that
all polyethylene and polypropylene containers and film
plastics
be
grouped
together
as
"polyolefins"
(item
5a),
rather
than
trying
to
distinguish between polyethylene of different densities and crystal linearity. A small
amount of SARAN wrap (polyvinylidene chloride) would also have been included
in
this category.
The PVC category (item 5b) was restricted to rigid containers; the vinyl category was
reserved for other materials such as scraps of vinyl siding.
A simple "smoke and drip" test, provided by Dr. Edgecombe, was used to assist in
determining
the
category
for
a
particular
plastic
item.
The
test
is
included
as
Appendix D
of Volume
I,
but
it should not be viewed
as
a
definitive
qualitative
method when used by itself and the test
is not presented in this report. The sorting
team should receive training from a person knowledgable
in distinguishing
plastic
types during their general job training.
Mixed blended plastics (item 5f) were used to classify plastic packaging around meat
products. Coated
plastics
(item 5g) were used to classify packaging
in which the
plastic portion was judged to be the greatest percentage by weight, e.g., potato chip
bags. The
"Tetrapak"
boxes were categorized
as mostly paper (boxboard) and
included
in item
Id.
Rodent bedding
(item
6a) was
routinely encountered
in small
quantities of
urine-
soaked cedar shavings and faecal
pellets.
The material was included
in the food
waste
category
because
of
the
putrescible
nature
of
both
of
the components.
Likewise, individual "packages" of canine excreta-presumably contributed by citizens
obeying the "poop-and-scoop" statutes-were included
in this category.
Kitty
litter
7-4
(item 13) was more frequently encountered and because of the inorganic nature of
the granular product was given a single, separate category.
Sanitary napkins were included
in the paper subcategory of tissues (item
1i).
Medical wastes (item
14) included medicines,
insulin bottles and associated used
syringes (needles protected and unprotected) and syringes without accompanying
evidence of medicinal application.
Aerosol cans were collectively weighed and included
in the ferrous section as item
3d.
At the
time, we
felt
that one category
for
ferrous/non-ferrous pressurized
containers would be adequate owing to the small number of non-ferrous aerosol
containers.
An
additional
category
for
non-ferrous
aerosol
containers may
be
incorporated into the sorting routine.
7.4
Weighing Sorted Waste
- Use of Tared Buckets and Electronic Scales
After sorting, each material can be weighed
in
its bucket.
The electronic platform
scale (150 kg capacity) should be "tared" with an empty bucket so that the scale
reads only the weight of the material
in the bucket.
Scale tare should be checked
frequently
to
ensure
that
the
scale
is
operating
properly.
One
person can
be
designated as the data recorder, while the remainder of the crew load the scale, and
empty the buckets that have been weighed.
Often there will be several small items that are too small to be weighed on the 150
kg capacity platform scale.
These small items should be weighed separately on a
smaller (1.5 kg capacity) scale.
7-5
7.5
Use of Standard Data Sheets
- Recording Weights
Standardized data recording sheets such as shown
in Table 7 should be used to
record
all weights.
The sample being analyzed, the enumeration area from which
it
was taken, and the date of sorting should be clearly indicated on each sheet.
If one
person acts as the designated record keeper, fewer mistakes and omissions are likely
to occur.
7.6
Personnel Training
- Safety
During
the
sorting
exercise several
safety
precautions should
be
taken.
Safety
includes proper handling of the waste samples,
protective clothing, hygiene, and
immunization.
With limiting the generality of safety requirements, several comments
regarding safety are made.
7.6.1 Waste Handling
When handling waste the collection crew and sorters must be aware of sharp and
pointed
objects,
corrosive
and
caustics
chemicals,
hazardous
and
poisonous
chemicals, and
potential disease carrying objects such as dead animals,
insects,
medical waste and so on.
Careful and watchful work
will allow workers to spot
these items and avoid coming into contact with them.
7.6.2. Protective Clothing, Hygiene, and Immunization
All members of the collection and sorting crew should dress appropriately for the
work conditions, and wear the proper protective equipment.
Personal equipment
includes:
-
heavy duty, water proof (PVC coated) gloves;
-
work clothes (pants and long sleeve shirts) or coveralls; rubber apron,
hat;
-
steel toed work boots;
-
eye protection;
-
tetanus/polio vaccination (optional: diphtheria, Hepatitis A and Hepatitis
B);
7-6
-
traffic safety vest
-
particle masks, worn by crew members concerned with dust and the
possibility of disease transmission;
-
anti-bacterial soap, used to clean gloves hands and face before meal
breaks and at the end of the day.
Efforts should be made
to maintain personal hygiene during sorting,
as
this
will
reduce any possible disease transmission. Contact with eyes, ears and mouth should
be avoided
until hands and face have been thoroughly washed with
anti-bacterial
soap.
7.7
Moisture Content Analysis
- Optional
Analysis of moisture content
is optional for the purposes of this study, but
is useful
when comparing
percent composition and
per
capita
generation
rates between
enumerations, during different seasons, and between different years.
The moisture
content of the waste allows you to identify samples that may be very wet or very
dry, and hence have a greater or lesser weight than expected.
Samples of waste
should be analyzed as soon after collection and sorting to reduce the amount of
moisture transfer taking place.
After the waste sample has been sorted into the designated categories and weighed,
samples of plastics, paper, food waste, disposable diapers, and textiles are placed
in
large polyethylene bags,
folded and stapled
shut, and transported
to
a drying
laboratory.
The contents of the bags are weighed, and placed
in a waste drying
oven at 95 C for 48 hours.
The samples are reweighed after the 48 hour period to
determine the weight loss due to evaporation of moisture.
7.8
Other Optional Analyses
- BTU. Leachable Metals
Other analyses were undertaken during the Ontario Waste Composition Study which
may include determining the heating value of the waste by assessing
its BTU value,
and determining the leachable metal content of various waste components.
Results
7-7
of the BTU
analysis and
heavy
metal
content
of vacuum
cleaner bag
dust
are
presented
in Volume
I.
7.9
Yard Waste Data Collection
During
collection
of
waste
samples,
yard
waste
(leaves,
grass
clippings,
tree
trimmings)
should be
omitted
from the 100+
kg
sample.
When yard waste
is
encountered at the curb its weight should be recorded, and the yard waste returned
to the curb.
The
total weight of yard waste found
in the sorted waste and the
weight of yard waste weighed and returned to the curb during sample collection
is
recorded on the data collection sheets, but the weight of yard waste
is not included
in the calculation of the percent composition of waste.
7-8
SECTION 8
STAGE 5
- DATA ANALYSIS AND MANIPULATION
8.0
STAGE 5
- DATA ANALYSIS AND MANIPULATION
Data collected
in Stage 3 and Stage 4 nnust be summarized and analyzed.
This
section describes the calculations necessary to determine the per capita generation
rate (kg/capita/day), and the percent composition of residential waste.
8.1
Using a Computerized Spreadsheet to Summarize Data
For
the
Ontario
Waste
Composition
Study,
Gore &
Storrie
Limited
created
a
computerized spreadsheet to calculate and summarize percent composition for each
100 kg sample and each enumeration area.
Similar data spreadsheets can be created
for each community.
The Gore &
Storrie spreadsheets are designed such that the data entry operator
enters the weight of each waste component recorded during the sorting procedure,
and the computer calculates:
percent composition of each waste component
in the 100 kg sample;
average percent composition for the enumeration area;
average weight of each waste component
in the 100 kg sample;
standard
deviation
of the average
percent composition and average
weight of each waste component;
standard error of the average percent composition and average weight
of each waste component.
Computerized spreadsheets can be printed out
in report format
if needed.
8-1
8.1.1
Percent Composition of Waste
Percent composition
is calculated by dividing the weight of each sorted
material
(MATERIAL WEIGHT) by the sum of the material weights
(TOTAL WEIGHT), and
expressing the result as a percent.
MATERIAL WEIGHT ^ TOTAL WEIGHT x 100%
=
PERCENT COMPOSITION
The percent composition of each component of the waste stream
is only relevant
if
an estimate of the per capita generation rate (kg/capita/day) of waste
is available.
The per capita generation
rate of
all wastes
(calculation of which
is described
in
Section
8.2
below) combined
with
the
percent composition
of waste
allows an
estimation
to
be made
of
the
tonnage
of
each component
generated
by
the
municipality.
Reporting
the
percent composition
of the waste
stream,
without
reporting a total tonnage figure or per capita generation rate for the municipality
is
meaningless.
8.2
Calculation of Per Capita Waste Generation Rate
Calculation of per capita generation of residential waste requires the following:
Per capita generation rate of waste
is calculated based on the number of dwellings
waste
is collected from, the average number of persons per dwelling, the weight of
waste collected, and the number of days over which the waste was generated.
Refer to Table 8 for an example of per capita generation rate calculation.
8-2
TABLE
8
:
SAMPLE CALCULATION OF THE PER CAPITA GENERATION
RATE
IN AN
EA.
DATA FROM THE FICTIONAL TOWN OF
ANYTOWN, EA # 107
1
8.2.1
Municipalities with Blue Box Recycling
In communities
with
Blue Box
recycling programs
calculation
of
the
per
capita
generation rate of waste requires determining the generation rate of regular waste,
and the generation rate of Blue Box materials.
This presents a minor problem in that
the households do not usually set their Blue Box out every week.
The Blue Box
is
normally only set out when
it
is full. The time for the blue box to
fill up may be one,
two or more weeks, therefore some estimate of the put-out rate or timing set out
of blue boxes must be made.
it
is erroneous to assume that Blue
Boxes are set out each week.
Making
this
assumption will cause the per capita generation rate of all wastes to be too high, and
will give false information regarding the effectiveness or capture rate of the Blue Box
program.
Accurate estimates
of the
typical
put-out
rate can
only
be made by
carefully monitoring the Blue Box program.
The persons riding the collection trucks
may have valuable insight into the put-out frequency in the municipality or even the
enumeration area being studied.
Calculation of generation rate proceeds as follows:
-
Determine the total sample weight (WASTE WEIGHT)
of waste collected (for
each lOO-t-
kg sample).
These data are recorded
in the trip note book.
-
Determine the number of dwellings (DWELLINGS) waste was collected from
to achieve each 100 kg sample. These data are recorded in the trip notebook.
-
Determine the total weight of Blue Box (BLUE BOX WEIGHT) material collected
(for each lOO-i-
kg sample).
-
Determine
the number
of
dwellings
Blue Boxes
(BLUE BOXES)
recyclable
material was collected from.
These data are recorded
in the trip notebook.
-
Determine, by consultation with municipal officials, the typical put-out rate of
Blue Boxes (PUT-OUT RATE).
For example. Blue Boxes may be put out every
two weeks by the residents, as opposed to weekly.
Therefore the PUT-OU
i
RATE
is once every 14 days
-
Determine the average number of persons per dwelling (PPD) from the Census
information
-
The daily weight of waste generated by each dwelling
is calculated:
8-3
(WEIGHT (kg)
-^
DWELLINGS + 7 (days)) +
(BLUE BOX WEIGHT (kg) ^ BLUE BOXES
-
PUT-OUT RATE (days)) =
DAILY WEIGHT/DWELLING
(kg/dwelling/day)
-
The per capita generation rate
is calculated:
DAILY WEIGHT/DWELLING - PPD
= WASTE/PERSON/DAY
(kg/capita/day)
8.2.1.1
Anytown: Calculation of Per Capita Generation Rate of Waste
In Anytown, enumeration area 107 was studied as part of the waste composition
study.
The
data and
calculations
for the average
per capita
generation
rate
in
enumeration area 107 are shown
in Table 8.
In Anytown
it was determined that Blue Boxes were set out by the residents every
two weeks, for a put-out rate of 14 days (PUT-OUT RATE = 14 days). Ten samples
of regular household waste and Blue Box Materials were collected
in enumeration
area 107.
For sample number 31, the calculation of the per capita generation rate
is as follows
(see Table 8).
Note that regular waste was collected from 8 dwellings, while Blue
Box material was collected from only 5 dwellings.
-
The daily weight of waste generated by each dwelling
is calculated:
(WEIGHT (kg)
^
DWELLINGS - 7 (days))
-l-
(BLUE BOX WEIGHT (kg) ^ BLUE BOXES
-
PUT-OUT RATE (days)) =
DAILY WEIGHT/DWELLING
(kg/dwelling/day)
(115.80 kg
^
8 DWELLINGS
-
7 days)
-i-
(31.11kg
^
5 DWELLINGS
- 14 days) =
2.51
kg/dwelling/day
-
The per capita generation rate
is calculated:
DAILY WEIGHT/DWELLING - PPD
= WASTE/PERSON/DAY
(kg/capita/day)
2.51
kg/dwelling/day
^
2.93 persons/dwelling
= 0.857 kg/capita/day
8-4
8.2.2
Municipalities With No Blue Box Recycling
In the absence of Blue Box recycling the calculation of the per capita generation rate
is nnuch more simple.
The estimation involved
in determining how many days or
weeks blue box materials are accumulated over before being set out for collection
is not required.
Calculation of the per capita generation rate proceeds as follows.
-
Determine the total sample weight (WASTE WEIGHT)
of waste collected (for
each 100+
kg sample).
These data are recorded
in the trip note book.
-
Determine the number of dwellings (DWELLINGS) waste was collected from
to achieve each 100 kg sample. These data are recorded in the trip notebook.
-
Determine the average number of persons per dwelling (PPD) from the Census
information
-
The daily weight of waste generated by each dwelling
is calculated:
( WEIGHT (kg)
-
DWELLINGS - 7 (days)
)
=
DAILY WEIGHT/DWELLING
(kg/dwelling/day)
-
The per capita generation rate
is calculated:
DAILY WEIGHT/DWELLING - PPD
= WASTE/PERSON/DAY
(kg/capita/day)
8.2.3
Estimation of a Weighted Generation Rate for the Municipality
The average per capita generation
rate
for the enumeration area
is calculated by
taking the mean of the per capita generation rates of each of the 100+ kg samples
taken.
The average per capita generation rate for each enumeration area studied
is
then used to estimate the overall weighted generation rate for the municipality.
In the municipality there may be one or more enumeration areas assigned to each
income/housing classification type.
The number of enumeration areas
in each
cell
of the income/housing
matrix, expressed as
a percentage of the
total number of
enumeration areas in the municipality, acts as the weighting factor for the calculation
of the weighted per capita generation rate.
8-5
The calculation
Is as follows:
Determine
the
average
per
capita
generation
rate
(AVERAGE
WASTE/PERSON/DAY)
(kg/capita/day)
for
the
each
income/housing
type
classification from the enumeration areas studied.
Determine
the
number
of
enumeration
areas
in
each
income/housing
classification matrix
cell, expressed as a percentage (PERCENT) of the total
number of enumeration areas in the municipality.
AVERAGE WASTE/PERSON/DAY x PERCENT =
WEIGHTED PER CAPITA
GENERATION RATE
8.2.3.1
Anytown: Calculation of the Weighted Per Capita Generation Rate
Table 9 shows the calculation of the weighted
per capita generation
rate for the
entire town of Anytown.
Each
of the
cells of the income/housing classification
matrix has been assigned
a "weight" based on the number of enumeration area
falling into that
cell.
The calculation of the weighted per capita generation rate
is as follows.
WEIGHTED PER CAPITA GENERATION RATE (kg/cap/day)
Weighted Sum of
Cells A1-C3
in
income/housing
matrix
waste
generation
rate
in
a
matrix cell
EAs
in the cell
as
|
percentage
of total
number'
of
EAs
in the municipality!
(for Study purposes)
|
8.3
Waste Component Generation Rate
The percent composition of waste
is only meaningful given an estimate of the per
capita
generation
rate
of waste
for
the
municipality.
To determine how many
kilograms
or
tonnes
of
a
certain
material
are
generated
(GENERATED)
in
an
enumeration area, or the municipality, over a set time period the percent composition
8-6
TABLE 9:
RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION DATA
INCORPORATED INTO THE INCOME/HOUSING
MATRIX TO ESTIMATE THE WEIGHTED PER CAPITA
GENERATION RATE (KG/CAPITA/DAY) FOR THE
FICTIONAL TOWN OF ANYTOWN.
(PERCENT)
of
that
material
is
multiplied
by
the
per
capita
generation
rate
(GENERATION RATE) estimated for the enumeration area, or for the municipality.
-
PERCENT (%)
X
GENERATION RATE
=
GENERATED
(kg/capita/day)
(kg/capita/day)
8-7
SECTION
9
ANALYSIS OF WASTE FROM SCHOOLS & OTHER INSTITUTIONS
9.0
ANALYSIS OF WASTE FROM SCHOOLS & OTHER INSTITUTIONS
9.1
Per Capita Waste Generation
Determination of the per capita generation rate
is conducted
in the same way as
it
is for large multi-unit apartment buildings. The total weight of waste generation for
the week
is determined by weighing
all the waste
set out
for
collection.
This
weighing procedure may often be facilitated by contracting the normal waste hauler
to make a dedicated
pick of the waste
(picking up no other waste
in an empty
truck), and returning the weigh scale information from the landfill or transfer station.
The total number of school students or residents
in the institution
is determined by
contacting the institution.
The "per capita" generation rate
is then calculated based
on the
total weight
of
refuse and the
total number
of persons.
In
the case
of
schools, care should be made to determine the number of days people are at the
institution, such as only 5 days per week for public and secondary schools.
9.2
Percent Waste Composition
Waste composition from schools and institutions can be determined by taking 100
kg samples and sorting the waste according to the composition categories used for
residential waste.
As with residential waste, ten samples (nine as a minimum) are
required to obtain statistically valid results.
9-1
SECTION 10
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER REFINEMENT
10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER REFINEMENT
Municipalities conducting a waste composition study nnight consider the following
recommendations when designing the sampling protocol and implementing the study
methodology.
1)
For sampling and
sorting convenience,
municipalities may choose to
conduct the waste composition studies
in
late spring or mid-fall when
refuse
odours
are
less
intense
and
maggots
are
less
frequently
encountered.
According
to
Vesling & Rimer
(ref.
47),
the average
residential waste composition does not vary by more than
+/- 10%
over three quarters of the year.
Therefore, aesthetics of the working
conditions can be taken into account without risk to obtaining skewed
data.
The
inclusion
of
yard
waste
in
overall
residential
waste
composition
percent
profiles
should
be
avoided
so
that
baseline
composition percentages are not misrepresented.
2)
Municipalities may choose to set up independent collection systems to
study the seasonal generation of yard waste and leaves.
This would
require
a
coordinated
effort
between
garbage
collection
personnel,
private horticultural firms and other agencies generating and collecting
these waste streams.
3)
In order to avoid the sampling problems that we encountered with the
large apartment buildings in East York, where apparent sampling biases
were difficult to avoid, arrangements could be made, for example, with
30 units within the building to participate in a refuse study.
This would
give a more accurate appraisal of the waste composition
in these large
apartment
buildings.
As
a
check,
the method
described
herein
for
obtaining the per capita generation rate for the entire building could then
be compared with the per capita generation rate for the 30 units.
10-1
4)
Municipalities in Ontario should follow the waste composition procedure
in conducting
their own waste
connposition
analysis,
for reasons of
consistent data generation using a cost effective approach.
Periodically,
municipalities should conduct additional waste composition studies to
monitor trends
in residential waste management and the effectiveness
of waste management programs.
10-2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There were many people who contributed to this research project for this manual and
they are acknowledged, hopefully without omission.
Town of Fergus:
The Study crew of Bruno D'AddaIro,
Cila Dadd, Jasmine Essue, Don Tooley and
Andrea O'Malley were committed to the task of breaking new ground as they Study
unfolded,
working
the
bugs
out
of
the
Study
methods
and
labouring
under
environmental conditions and logistical distances that were trying.
They performed
admirably.
Mr. George Woods, Clerk-Treasurer, Town of Fergus, and Mr. Don Taylor (Wellington
Recycling Group) gave their support to our study in the Town of Fergus.
Mr. Adolph
Plein (Plein Disposal) and Mr. Peter Armer (McLellan Disposal) were patient and went
out of their way to accommodate the Study team's presence in the Town of Fergus.
Their cooperation was greatly appreciated.
The staff
in the Engineering Department, City of Guelph,
particularly, Messrs. Dan
Hoornweg and John
Bull, smoothly arranged for the
landfill
site to be our base of
operations.
The
staff
at
the
landfill
site were
ready with
assistance and
witty
rejoinders, making the task a
bit lighter.
Mr. Robert Ferguson, Commissioner of Works, Metro Toronto, gave permission to
use the laboratory
in the former Ontario Centre for Resource Recovery (OCRR) for
the
moisture
analyses.
Mr.
Brad
Guglietti,
Waste Management
Branch,
MOE,
arranged for the loan of a Sartorious balance for this work.
Borough of East York:
The transition of the year from
fall to winter saw three new faces; the Study team
was: Jasmine Essue (from Fergus), Rob
Flindall, Gord McLaren and Cria
Pettingill.
They were steadfast and dedicated to fine tuning the procedures that were initiated
by the Fergus crew.
The friendly cooperation of the East York Works Department,
in particular: Messrs.
Paul Cockburn, Jeff Walker,
Elliot
Hill, AI Karns and Ms. Kathy Killinger, facilitated
the curbside collection of residential and school wastes.
Mr. Robert Ferguson, Commissioner of Works, Metro Toronto, gave us permission
to
sort the
East York
refuse on
the
tipping
floor
of the Commissioners
Street
incinerator and to continue using the OCRR for the moisture analyses.
A & M Disposal and Industrial Disposal provided important refuse collection services
in this phase of the Study.
City of North Bay:
Rob Flindall, Gord McLaren and Dean Wilde (City employee) braved the elements to
continue the refuse collecting and sorting
in this last phase of the residential Study.
Friendly
cooperation was
demonstrated
by
the
city
of
North
Bay
Engineering
Department,
in
particular,
Mr. John Simmonds.
The
City provided
vehicles, the
sorting tent and the propane heaters.
In
addition
to
those
noted
above
for
the
three
municipalities,
we
gratefully
acknowledge support and cooperation provided by Messrs. Neal Ahlberg, Brendan
Killackey and Dan lonescu. Waste Management Branch, Ministry of the Environment.
The
Gore &
Storrie
team
consisted
of:
Dick
Buggein,
Jeff
Flewelling,
Leslie
MacMillan,
Rob
Flindall,
Peter
Kurtz,
Barbara
St.
Hill,
David
Fox
and
Brock
Harrington.
The team from Décima Research was Messrs. Ian McKinnon, Russ Wilton, and Raj
Matuk.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
1. Brickner,
R.H.
1989.
"Refuse
quantification
in
the
first
person".
Waste Age
April,
pgs.
157-162.
2. Freund,
John
E.
1984. Modem
Elementary
Statistics .
6th
Edition.
Prentice-
Hall, Englewood
Cliffs,
N.J.
xii
+
561
pp.
3. Klee,
A.
J. &
D.
Carruth.
1970.
"Sample Weights
in
Solid Waste Composition
Studies".
Jour.
Sanitary
Engineer.
Division:
Proc.
Amer.
Soc.
Civil
Enq.
pgs.
945-54.
4. Rathje, W.
L.
1979.
"Modern
Material
Culture
Studies".
In:
(M.
Schiffer,
éd.).
Advances
in
Archaeological
Method
&
Theory.
2:
1-37.
Academic
Press, New
York.
5. Rathje,
W.L.
&
B. Thompson
1981.
The
Milwaukee Garbage
Project.
The
Solid Waste Council
of
the Paper
Industry.
6. Rathje, W.
L.,
D.
C. Wilson & W. W.
Hughes.
1988.
The Phoenix
Recycling
Project.
A Characterization
of Recyclable
Materials
in
Residential
Solid Wastes:
Initial
Results
(Executive Summary)
16 pp
+
appendix.
7. Rathje,
W.L.,
D.C.
Wilson, W.W.
Hughes
and
T.
Jones,
1989.
The
Phoenix
recvclables
report.
Characterization
of
recyclable
materials
in
residential
solid
wastes.
The
City
of
Phoenix,
Arizona,
Department
of
Public Works. v+
178
pp.
8. Rathje,
W.L.
1989.
"Rubbish!" The
Atlantic
Monthly
. December pp
1-10.
9. Vesilind,
P. A.
&
A.E.
Rimer.
1981.
Unit
Operations
in
Resource
Recovery
Engineering.
Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ. x+
452
pp.
GLOSSARY
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ABB
acryl
butyl styrene; a dense
plastic found
in computer
housings,
telephone
casings,
pipe.
accuracy
in
a
statistical
sense,
the term
gives an
indication
of
the
closeness
of
the
results,
estimates,
etc.
to
the
"true"
value.
BTU
capture
rate
British
Thermal
Unit;
the amount
of
heat
required
to
raise the temperature of
1 pound of water
1
Fahrenheit
degree
The percentage
of
blue
material
diverted
from
landfill
compared
to
the
total
quantity
available
for
recycling;
commercial wastes
discarded
materials
generated
by
commercial
businesses
as
a
result
of
normal
activities
in
the
workplace;
ferrous
a
metal
object
containing
elemental
iron,
giving
a
positive'
or
attractive response
to a magnet;
mean
the mean
or arithmetic mean
of a set
of values
is the
sum
of
the
values
divided
by
their number;
average;
MSW
municipal
solid
waste,
usually
defined
as
the sum
of
residential and commercial
solid wastes, and excluding
industrial
wastes;
non-ferrous
a
metal
object
which
does
not
give
a
positive"
or
attractive
response
to
a
magnet,
e.g.,
brass,
lead,
aluminum,
etc.
OCC
old
corrugated
containers;
variously
called,
old
corrugated
cardboard;
PET
polyethylene
terephthalate;
the
plastic
used
manufacture
the common 2
litre pop
bottles;
to
polyolefin
in
the
sense
used
here,
a
grouping
of
chemically
related
plastics
whose
chemical
building
blocks
are
either ethylene
or
propylene;
precision
in
a
statistical
sense,
the term
gives an
indication
of
the repeatability of a series
of observations, estimates,
etc.
The
Standard
Error
is one
kind
of
estimate
of
the
precision
or
repeatability
or
"tightness"
of
the
grouping
of the
observations
( = data);
putrescible
a
material
which
is
biodegradable;
usually
a
term
reserved
for
animal
or vegetable
matter;
PVC
polyvinyl
chloride;
a
plastic
containing
chlorine;
well
known
as
siding,
plastic window sashes and
frames,
pipe and
a few
rigid
containers;
Random Number Table
These
tables
(which
are
found
in
many
statistical
textbooks)
consist
of
blocks
of
numbers
that
meet
certain
properties
of
"randomness",
including
that
numbers
in
the
range
to
9
are
equally
likely
to
occur; and
that the numbers
are
not
serially ordered
in
any
way.
Starting
at any
point on
the
Table,
the
user moves systematically through the Table taking the
required number
of
digits;
residential waste
discarded
materials
generated
by
individuals
in
the
course
of
their
daily
activities
at
their
place
of
residence;
in
this case,
exclusive
of yard wastes and
leaves;
Standard
Deviation
a
measure
of
the
variation
or
difference
of
sample
measurements
from
the
mean
of
all
measurements
taken;
Standard
Error
a
measure
of
how
much
sample
means
can
be
expected
to
fluctuate
(±)
from
the
true mean due
to
chance;
tare weight
the weight
of an empty
container;
PART B
COMMERCIAL WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS-PART B
Page No.
INFORMATION FOR THE READER
(i)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(ii)
LIST OF TABLES
(iv)
LIST OF FIGURES
(v)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(vl)
1.0
INTRODUCTION & LITERATURE REVIEW
1-1
1.1
Introduction
1-1
1.2
Literature Review
1-4
2.0
METHODOLOGY
2-1
3.0 WASTE STUDY PARAMETERS AND CONSIDERATIONS
3-1
3.1
Required Waste Generation Rate and Waste Composition
3-1
3.1.1
Waste Generation Rate
3-1
3.1.2
Waste Composition
3-1
3.2
Basis for Defining Commercial Waste Generation
3-2
4.0 MANPOWER, EQUIPMENT AND COST
4-1
4.1
Personnel
4-1
4.2 Equipment Used
in the Waste Study
4-2
4.2.1
Seasonal Effects on Equipment Requirements
-
Shelter and Clothing
4-3
4.3 Cost of Conducting a Typical Commercial Waste Study
4-4
4.3.1
Estimated Personnel Time and Disbursement/
Equipment Requirements
4-5
5.0
STAGE
1
- PROJECT INITIATION AND SELECTION OF SIC MAJOR STUDY
GROUPS
5-1
5.1
Obtaining Census Canada Information
5-1
5.1.1
Defining Commercial Activity
5-1
5.1.2
Commercial Employment
in the Regional Municipality
of Waterloo
5-2
5.1.3
Extrapolation of Sample Data to a Municipality
5-4
5.2
Regional Municipality of Waterloo Planning Information
5-6
5.3
Knowing Your Community
- Current Waste Management Practices
5-6
5.3.1 Waste Composition Variability
5-6
5.3.2 Bulk Item and Special Collection Days
5-8
(ii)
Table of Contents cont'd...
Page No.
6.0
STAGE 2
- SELECTION OF BUSINESSES
6-1
6.1
Size and Number of Samples Required
6-1
6.1.1
Size of Samples Required
6-1
6.1.2 Number of Samples Required
6-1
6.2
Contacting Businesses
6-2
7.0
STAGE 3
- COLLECTION OF WASTE SAMPLES
7-1
7.1
Scheduling Waste Collection
7-1
7.2
Special Documentation
7-1
7.3
Waste Collection Methods for Waste Quantities and Composition
7-2
7.4
Waste Methods for Waste Quantities Only
7-3
7.5
Information to be Obtained at the Time of Sample Collection
7-4
7.6
Data Obtained for Per Employee Waste Generation Rates
7-5
8.0
STAGE 4
- WASTE SORTING
8-1
8.1
Equipment Set-Up and Sorting Commencement
8-1
8.2 Sample Sorting and Data Management
8-1
9.0
STAGE 5
- DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORT WRITING
9-1
9.1
Estimates of Average Per Employee Waste Generation Rates
9-1
9.1.1
Estimates From Average Waste Weight Per Employee Data
9-2
9.2 Estimation of Waste Generation by Commercial Sector
in the
Entire Municipality
9-2
9.3 Sources of Potential Error
in Employee Waste Generation
Estimates
9-3
9.4 Per Employee Waste Generation Rates
9-4
9.5 Estimation of Commercial Waste Generation
in the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo
9-5
10.0 EVALUATION OF METHOD
10-1
10.1 Timing of the Waterloo Study
10-1
10.2 Graphical Presentation of Waste Generation Versus Employment
Potential Method to Evaluate Company Waste Management Performance? 10-1
10.3 Usefulness of Landfill Data
in Estimating Commercial Refuse
Quantity
10-2
10-4 Verification of the Employee Waste Generation Estimates
10-3
10-5 "Light Industry"
10-3
11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER REFINEMENT
11-1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
(iii)
LIST OF TABLES-PART B
Following
Page No.
TABLE
1
COMPARISON OF WASTE COMPOSITION
INFORMATION FOR THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR
PUBLISHED DATA (PERCENT OF TOTAL)
TABLE 2
WASTE COMPOSITION DATA FIELD SHEET
TABLE 3
LIST OF SIC DIVISIONS
TABLE 4
LIST OF THE 13 SIC CODE MAJOR STUDY GROUPS
TABLE 5
WASTE COMPOSITION DATA FIELD SHEET
TABLE 6
ACCURACY IN WASTE ESTIMATION
- SOURCE OF
POTENTIAL ERROR
TABLE 7
SIC GROUP 631, WASTE GENERATION DATA
(KG/EMPLOYEE/DAY) FOR THE AUTOMOBILE DEALERS
TABLE 8
AN EXAMPLE OF ESTIMATES OF COMMERCIAL
WASTE GENERATION IN A MUNICIPALITY
TABLE 9
COMPARISON OF PER EMPLOYEE WASTE GENERATION
RATES:
RHYNER & GREEN AND PRESENT STUDY
1-5
3-1
5-2
5-2
8-1
9-3
9-4
9-5
10-3
LIST OF FIGURES-PART B
Following
Page No.
FIGURE
1
STAGES OF COMMERCIAL WASTE COMPOSITION
STUDY
WATERLOO
FIGURE 2
WEIGHING COMMERCIAL BIN REFUSE IN
A CRIB MOUNTED ON AN ELECTRONIC
DIGITAL SCALE
FIGURE 3
REMOVING REFUSE FROM BIN
FIGURE 4
SORTING AT LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE 5
SIC GROUP 631, GRAPH OF WASTE GENERATION DATA
FOR THE AUTOMOBILE DEALERS
2-1
7-3
7-3
7-3
9-4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Ministry of the Environment contracted Gore & Storrie Limited,
in association
with Décima Research Limited, to develop and test methodologies that would assist
waste management planners and municipalities
in deriving reasonable estimates of
material composition and generation rate of wastes from residential and commercial
sources.
The two-fold purpose of the Commercial Waste Composition Study was
to:
1
.
develop a simple, cost effective and reliable method for determining the
composition and per employee generation rate of waste from commercial
sources
in
Ontario
(the
study
concentrated
on
that
portion
of
the
commercial waste stream
that can
be
closely
related
to
residential
waste; that
is, both waste streams stem from the same processes of
consumption); and
2.
apply the method and obtain current information on the characteristics
of commercial waste streams.
A
review
of
relevant
literature
and
consultation
with
experts
in
the
fields
of
employment, commercial structure, demographics and waste management indicated
that commercial waste
generation
is
related
to
the number
of employees
at
a
particular commercial establishment.
Commercial activity
in Canada
is organized by the Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) established by Statistics Canada.
This classification was used as the basis for
reporting waste composition and per employee generation rate data.
Before the field
study began, the commercial business SIC codes were reviewed with
respect to
retail/service
activities
to
determine
whether
certain
sectors
could
be
grouped
together.
The Census
of Canada
(1986)
gathered
information
about
occupation,
type
of
employment and place of work from a twenty percent (20%) sample of households.
These
data
provide
information about the number
of employees
in 36
different
commercial
sectors
within
each
of
the
urban
census
areas
in
Ontario.
The
vi
development of methodology
for the commercial waste
sector was tested
in the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Region/Waterloo), as presented
in Volume
II and
made use of this kind of information.
The field study was undertaken
in the Region
between May 15 and August 31, 1990.
A representative sample of businesses from the SIC groupings were identified
and
approached by the study team to gain permission to include them in the study.
Data
were then gathered on the composition of the waste stream from each SIC grouping,
and an estimate
of the average generation rate of
total waste per employee was
made for each of the SIC groupings.
The
relationship between waste
generation and employment was completed
by
regression
analysis when
the
characteristics
of
the
data
set,
(eg.
sample
size)
permitted.
In other cases an average of the waste generation data
is reported where
regression analysis was deemed inappropriate.
Estimated average per employee waste generation rates for each commercial activity
vvere multiplied by the total Regional employment in the activity to obtain estimates
of the waste generation for the activity throughout the entire Region.
Part B of Volume
III, presented
herein, describes the methodology
utilized
in the
aforementioned study
for measuring waste generation and waste composition for
commercial activities.
Canada
Census
refers
to
commercial
businesses
as
industries
but
does
not
distinguish
between
"light"
and
"heavy"
industries.
Compared
to
commercial
establishments,
light manufacturing industries and wholesale divisions are fewer
in
number and
far more diverse
in
size and specialization.
Some
municipalities have
many factories, others have virtually none. Waste generated by such activities must
be studied on site-by-site basis.
Nevertheless, the methodology described herein
offers a "starting point" for persons studying the waste generated by light industries
and wholesale activities.
The methods developed and used
in this study were found to be cost effective and
capable of being used by municipal
staff.
Recommendations are presented
in this
vii
volume to further refine the methods used.
Ontario
municipalities
are encouraged
to
use
the methods demonstrated
in
this
manual to satisfy municipal needs, to generate further data on a consistent province-
wide basis and to assist
in assessing the effectiveness of new waste management
programs and identifying trends
in waste composition and generation rates.
The study of waste composition from commercial
activities
is more complex than
that from residential sources
(refer to Volume
I of the Ontario Waste Composition
Study and
Part A
of the
procedures manual).
First,
very
little
information was
available regarding commercial waste composition (none for Canada
in recent years)
and therefore the research team had
little a
priori knowledge of expected values or
variance
to
guide
the
design
of
an
efficient
sampling
framework.
Second,
commercial
activities
are
characterized
by
very
high
variance
relative
to
the
residential sector.
Third,
it
is
difficult to identify the population base for a sample
of commercial activities.
Therefore, the qualitative and quantitative data presented
herein should be cautiously regarded as best estimates only.
Recommendations for Further Refinement
The methods employed
in the commercial portion of the Ontario Waste Composition
Study have been demonstrated
on
a
selection
of commercial
businesses
in
the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
Within the commercial sectors in the Region there
is
a
relatively
high awareness
of waste
diversion options that
will reduce waste
disposal costs and encourage recycling.
Therefore, the qualitative and quantitative
data presented herein
is cautiously regarded as
a best estimate
for the Region of
Waterloo and may
be
different
in
other
municipalities under constantly changing
circumstances.
This report has developed a procedure for estimating the amount of waste generated
by commercial activities within Ontario urban areas and began with the process of
integrating the complex data inputs required.
The study has employed
a two-stage estimation process:
(1) the development of
viii
ratios
of waste
generation
per employee; and
(2)
the
estimation
of commercial
employment composition for the municipality as a whole.
Each step poses different
problems.
The following recommendations are submitted:
1
.
The waste
generation and composition
data
base
will
require many more
samples in order to cover the full range of commercial activities. No one study
will have
the
resources
to
undertake
a complete
evaluation;
the
research
results must
be accumulated
over many
studies and
evaluated over
time.
Fortunately, there
is no inherent reason that
a business
in any
part of the
province cannot be used to estimate waste generated elsewhere-unless local
waste management policies differ significantly.
This means that each study should use the same SIC identification to code
commercial activity and the same methodology for measuring waste output
and composition.
A central agency
(e.g., the Ministry of Environment) may
have to take the responsibility for organizing and evaluating the data.
2.
It will also be necessary to monitor any changes over time in waste generation
that may reflect innovations in policy, technology or corporate behaviour. The
date of each sample must be retained and/or
it may be necessary to identify
sample locations that can be restudied over time
in order to minimize sampling
error.
3.
To better understand the effect of recycling behaviour on the data gathered,
it is recommended that employees/management of participating firms be asked
to describe the nature and extent of any source separation recycling activities.
4.
The immediate priorities for sampling can be identified from the results of this
study. Those commercial activities that employ large numbers of people must
be
further
investigated
in
order
to
improve
sample
size
and
reveal
any
significant variation within the SIC groups;
this includes the diverse set of
office and financial activities.
Conversely, those activities with a high rate of
waste generation per employee, such as food stores and restaurants, must be
sampled
repeatedly
because
of
their
importance
to
the
overall
waste
generation.
Those sectors where the observed sample variance (standard
deviation)
is high require larger samples to improve overall accuracy, possibly
by isolating subgroups within the SIC.
Activities that generate policy-relevant
waste materials should be given special attention.
The
future development
of employment
estimates
requires two
divergent
approaches.
First,
substantial
savings
may
result
from
a
centralized,
standardized
analysis
of employment
that
applies
the same
set
of
data,
techniques and projections to
all urban areas-much as the Ontario Statistical
Centre has developed a common set of population forecasts.
At
the
same
time,
municipalities
have
better
information
about
local
peculiarities and exceptions to the employment structure. These special cases,
e.g., community colleges, tourist attractions, shopping concentrations, as well
as manufacturing activities, may require special attention by a local agency.
During the course of the Waterloo Study,
insights were noted regarding the
effectiveness of waste management practices of some firms.
For example, for
automotive
repair businesses,
it appears that employee's tend
to
use
the
general refuse bin for discarding metal waste materials, despite the fact that
a scrap metal bin has been made available.
Such insights, when communicated to the management of the firm provide an
immediate
opportunity
to
help
that
firm
improve
the
efficiency
of
their
recycling efforts.
There
is
also
an
indication
that
differences
exist
in
per employee waste
generation rates
in small grocery stores and
in larger supermarkets.
The
demonstrated
method
for
estimating
the
rate
of
employee
waste
generation has
the
potential
to
be
used
as
a waste management
tool
by
municipalities.
The
distribution
of the
daily waste
generation
rates versus
employment data, exhibited
in the graphs for each SIC sector, could enable
municipal waste management personnel to
prioritize their "remedial" waste
reduction efforts by planning to visit those companies whose waste generation
rates seem out of line with the general waste-to-employee relationship.
SECTION
1
INTRODUCTION & LITERATURE REVIEW
1.0
INTRODUCTION & LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1
Introduction
In recognition of a pressing need to improve the way
in which waste
is managed
in
Ontario,
the
Ontario
Ministry
of
the
Environment
has
initiated
programs
and
established
specific goals designed
to ensure the development of innovative and
integrated waste management systems.
For example, the Ministry has issued Terms
of Reference and assisted
in the funding of Waste Management Master Planning for
municipalities.
Specific objectives for diverting significant amounts of waste from
disposal through reduction, reuse and recycling activities (25% by 1992 and 50%
by 2000) have also been announced by the Government of Ontario.
In order to effectively plan and design waste management systems that will achieve
those goals, reasonably accurate estimates of the types and quantities of waste must
be available.
For example, the design of material recovery facilities that will receive
and process waste must be compatible with the range of wastes anticipated to be
received by the facility.
The Ministry of the Environment contracted Gore & Storrie Limited,
in association
with Décima Research Limited, to develop and test methodologies that would assist
waste management planners and municipalities
in deriving reasonable estimates of
the
material
composition
and
generation
rate
of
wastes
from
residential
and
commercial sources.
The findings of that study are presented
in three volumes:
Volume
I
- Residential
Volume
II
- Commercial
Volume
III
- Procedures Manual
For the commercial
portion
of
the
Ontario Waste Composition Study
(Waterloo
Study),
the
Regional
Municipality
of Waterloo
(Region/Waterloo) was
used
as
a
sample
municipality
for
the
development
and
field
trial
of
a
methodology
for
estimating the type and quantity of waste generated by a variety of different types
of commercial enterprises;
i.e., those firms
in the private sector that provide goods
1-1
and services for consumers.
Although these
activities may be concentrated
at a
small number of locations within the urban area, such as "downtown", or a regional
mall, the aggregate amount of commercial activity
is very closely related to both the
number of households and household income in the urban area.
Commercial waste,
in this sense, can be closely related to residential waste.
Both waste streams stem
from the same processes of consumption.
The Waterloo Study focused on the commercial activities that are most closely linked
to
residential
requirements.
The
waste
generation
from
office
buildings
is
an
important
component;
but
it
is
difficult
to
distinguish
offices
that
serve
local
residents (e.g., a legal firm) from those that serve the province as a whole (e.g., an
insurance company).
Wholesale
activities,
while
part
of
the commercial waste
system, also serve larger spacial units. They are too varied in their size and function
to
fit into the present sampling framework.
They must be studied elsewhere, when
a community studies the entire waste stream
in their area.
A review of relevant
literature and
consultation with
experts
in the
fields
of employment, commercial
structure, demographics and waste management indicated that commercial waste
generation
is
related
to
the
number
of employees
at
a
particular
commercial
establishment.
The method was developed during the winter
of 1989/1990 and
applied
in
the
Waterloo Study
in the spring and summer of 1990.
The study used the extensive
information on the amount and composition of commercial employment provided by
Statistics Canada and local government agencies to define a sampling framework for
the
field work.
Commercial activity
in Canada
is organized by the Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) established by Statistics Canada.
This classification can be used as the basis
for
reporting waste composition and
per employee generation
rate
data.
Before
beginning
a waste
composition
field
study,
the commercial
business
SIC codes
should be reviewed
with
respect to
retail service
activities to determine whether
certain sectors can be grouped together.
The Census
of Canada
(1986)
gathered
information
about
occupation,
type
of
employment and place of work from a twenty percent (20%) sample of households.
1-2
These
data
provide
information
about the number
of employees
in 36
different
commercial
sectors
within each
of the
urban census areas
in
Ontario.
Canada
Census updates
its census information every five years.
In the Waterloo Study, a representative sample of businesses from the SIC groupings
were identified and approached by the study team to gain permission to include them
in the study.
Data were then gathered on the composition of the waste stream from
each SIC grouping, and an estimate of the average generation rate of total waste per
employee was made for each of the SIC groupings.
This manual describes a methodology for measuring waste generation and waste
composition for commercial activities, as defined above.
For a number of reasons,
the commercial composition study method
is more complex than that for residential
sources described in Part A.
First, when developing the method very little published
literature was available for commercial activities (none for Canada
in recent years)
and therefore the research team had
little a
priori knowledge of expected values or
variance
to
guide
the
design
of
an
efficient
sampling
framework.
Second,
commercial
activities
are
characterized
by
very
high
variance,
relative
to
the
residential sector.
That variance
is observed
in waste generation both within and
among the various retail and service sectors.
There
is also a wide range in store size
(measured
in level of sales or employment) within these sectors that must be taken
into account.
These variations mean that
a much
larger number of samples are
required
in order to provide the same degree of
reliability obtained
in the study on
residential
waste
generation.
Third,
while
detailed
descriptions
of
household
characteristics are provided by the Census of Canada , together with
a
variety of
forecasts of growth and change provided by market research firms and government
agencies,
it
is
difficult
to
identify
even
the
base
population
for
a
sample
of
commercial activities.
It
is not common for a single data source to provide counts
or lists of the number of supermarkets or barber shops within a municipality.
Sample
locations must be identified
in the field; extrapolations to obtain municipal or regional
totals requires elaborate assumptions and indirect procedures.
Nonetheless,
this manual describes a workable method to estimate
overall waste
generation and major components of the waste stream.
While many more sample
points than what was analyzed in the Waterloo Study will be required to increase the
1-3
precision of estimates of waste streams for specific commercial activities, studies at
the municipal level
will benefit from the effect of aggregation
in which hundreds or
thousands
of
activities may
be averaged together.
This manual
also
provides
a
methodology
for
future
studies
that overcomes each
of the
difficulties
identified
earlier
through
future
refinement
of
the
method.
Data
on
commercial
waste
generation and composition are now available to guide the design of waste sampling
procedures (see Volume
II for further information).
The identification of high waste
generation
activities
in Volume
II permits agencies to target waste
reduction and
recycling programs on these activities. The difficulties, due to varying store size and
unavailable data on the population of stores, have been overcome
in the Waterloo
Study by focusing on number of employees as the key measure that connects the
sample observation to the overall data analysis and ultimately to the aggregate waste
generation by the municipality.
The number of employees in each SIC code
is listed
by Statistics Canada
in their data base.
It would have been possible to restrict the Waterloo Study to just a few well chosen
SIC groups in order to achieve greater confidence in the waste estimates.
However,
a broader study was chosen
in order to assess the variances encountered
in various
SIC groups.
This choice
will benefit subsequent researchers who can target their
efforts
to develop and enhance
a data base of waste generation
for commercial
activities
in Ontario.
1.2
Literature Review
The results of the literature review as conducted
in Volume
II are presented
in this
manual as follows for convenience to the reader.
In the past, the Bird & Hale report
(ref.
2) has been used as the baseline study for
waste composition information on the municipal solid waste stream
in Ontario.
In
the
Bird & Hale study, the average annual composition
of municipal
solid waste
entering landfill sites, transfer stations and incinerators, in Toronto, was derived from
samples obtained during spring, summer, winter and
fall.
Twelve visits were made
to six sites between October, 1976 and September, 1977, with two visits apiece at:
Commissioners Street Incinerator, Ingram Incinerator, Dufferin Incinerator, Beare Road
1-4
Landfill
Site,
Bermondsey
Transfer
Station
and
Wellington
Incinerator.
Sample
weights of municipal solid waste ranged up to 400
lbs. (180.7 kg).
Municipal solid waste has been traditionally defined as a combination of waste from
residential and commercial sources, so the Bird & Hale study--which collected and
reported on this combined municipal solid waste data-does not serve as a suitable
baseline for the Waterloo Study which focused on the commercial activities that are
related to residential consumption.
The earliest studies of the composition of commercial solid waste were reported by
Peter
Middleton &
Associates
(ref.
11).
They
briefly
described
three
studies:
Louisville (1970),
Proctor & Redfern (1972) and
Proctor & Redfern (1975), each
based on questionnaires sent out to commercial businesses.
The
Louisville study
reportedly divided the commercial sector into 18 different categories but regrettably
this detail was not provided in the main report or appendix.
The same
is true of the
two Proctor & Redfern reports. The questionnaires reportedly contained information
on the categories of commercial businesses, but the information was reportedly lost
(ref.
11).
Franke
(ref.
5) described the general composition of the commercial waste stream
in Cologne, Germany (1980/81
data) and Evans
(ref.
4)
reported the weight and
volume of components
in the waste streams from
"retail", restaurants and
office
towers
in Toronto (1984 data).
More recently, Rhyner & Green
(ref. 14) compared
published
literature data on per capita or per employee waste generation rates for
residential, commercial,
industrial and construction/demolition wastes
with
actual
waste data that they were obtaining at county-owned landfill sites in Brown County,
Wisconsin.
Annual solid waste generation estimates were calculated for a number
of SIC codes
in the commercial sector.
Rhyner & Green's estimates of the annual
generation of commercial refuse,
using a
daily employee generation
rate of 0.73-
0.77 kg and county employment data, was within 15% of the
"actual quantity".
Table
1
summarizes
the
available information on the composition
of commercial
waste streams, from sources reported above.
A key paper that became the basis for the data gathering procedures developed
in
the Waterloo Study was published
in 1971
by DeGeare & Ongerth
(ref.
3).
The
1-5
h.
I--
fn
j3 Oii*-
-r- .-. 14-
«T csj tn cvj
CO f^ '-- <^
vu m «X) o
,-, lû vO <T
iD KO ^^ '^
o œ r^
CTlOCsJ
t--I
O
01 CTi CM
«T LT» O
CSJ o ro
C0U3
^
CT>
0«T C\Jf-l
o
r^covo
ai ocM
-- 1/1
»--
t/1 CD ^_
= ^
S'I
oc'-
uj o ,_^
Xt/1^
V/) UJ
il
0.0
z
OldJ
..- o
>
I
wi o
3 ^--
P0H3CT>CJHÛ<-'O^->-"-'00'Ti--
T
-CTlO^TU^OîOCDOOvûr
cvjCOiTï^covûO»--'0<T»'-«0«--'r
01^ S
O) -- >-
U ^ !->
ai
UOJOJC
r-
^(U3
j Q.
O)
Q.-I-' O
<_i
e Z O
C«
Q.C11/1>-
--^
O
S-
-f-Q_
*oû_<t3-*.'uai
otni-
Q.C
1-
*J«J-.-
i-0>t-
coï
ajaj'Da)i-o-#-*'oaji-
1
ÏOeJc^OCT'O
Qji_c_)-'--*-»oai'-- __
-
-
zaoou-Ou.>a.t-- iiou-zoo
>
-I-*
OJ o
(T3
I
oj c
i- o -^
oj
*j o
5 -^ =
I z *J s_^
^
1
o
o;
<--
>
dj o
-- a_
i/t
.
<U .-I
>^--^»«
-r-
CVi
CTiax-'
4J r--
i/l
t- -1-
q;
<D > "O
1/1 3
IT3 -^ r--
^ 3 U
-O O C
Q _l --
r--
CSJ
authors
explored
the
relationship between
waste
generation
in
clothing,
drug,
grocery, hardware stores, and restaurants as a function
of a number of variables
indicative
of
the
physical
and
operational
characteristics
of
comnnercial
establishments.
For example:
(1) number of hours open per week;
(2) number of
business days open per week;
(3) average annual gross receipts;
(4) physical area
of store,
in square
feet;
(5) average inventory
in
dollars;
(6) equipment value,
in
dollars;
(7)
number
of
delivery days
per week;
and
(8)
number
of
employees.
Number of employees and store hours were the two variables that gave the best
prediction of the waste generation rate for premises in the commercial sectors under
study.
DeGeare and Ongerth, using "multiple stepwise regression analyses", demonstrated
that the generation of commercial solid waste was found to be most closely related
to
the number
of employees,
hours
open,
and
type
of
establishment
involved.
Graphs illustrating the correlation between actual and predicted waste quantities from
the DeGeare and Ongerth study are reproduced
in Appendix A.
DeGeare and Ongerth noted two points which clarify the relationship between waste
generation and company employment.
First,
employment
is
a
function
of
the
intensity of retail activity;
i.e., a small store with few customers will require a smaller
sales staff than a larger store that serves a large clientele.
Second, the items sold
by stores are delivered in bulk,
in packages, cartons, and other containers, with the
individual items placed on shelves or otherwise displayed.
Taken together, one can
see that as the
size
of
a
store's
staff
increases
to serve increasing numbers
of
customers
(and
sales),
the
quantity
of goods delivered
to the
store
will grow
in
response
to
customer demand
and
the amount
of
bulk
packaging and
related
administrative wastes
will also increase.
The focus on waste generation per employee that
is evident in the literature fits well
with another reference that examines consumer behaviour and commercial structure
(Jones & Simmons,
ref.
8).
This
reference
demonstrates
that
the amount
of
commercial activity
is highly predictable from information about the size and income
level of the market.
Given the number of households and average income
level
in
any municipality,
it
is possible to project first, the patterns of consumer expenditure,
from toothpaste to bank deposits,
in great detail; and second, to calculate the level
1-6
and composition
of commercial
activity.
Furthermore, the
different measures of
commercial
activity
(i.e.,
number
of
stores,
floor
area,
retail
sales,
number
of
employees)
are
all
closely
interrelated.
Employment
happens
to
be
the
most
frequently measured and
readily obtained.
It
provides the key
link between the
samples from the
field work and the
larger municipal waste system.
When one
determines the waste generation per employee for a SIC group, this generation rate
can be extrapolated,
via
Statistics Canada data on
total employment
in the SIC
sector to get the waste generation rate for the entire company.
It
is then possible
to determine whether a reasonable amount of waste
is being disposed
at a given
company as compared to an average waste generation rate for a company of similar
size
in the same SIC sector.
The authors would
like to point out that they discovered a paucity of information
pertaining to this subject and have made every attempt to locate and examine
all
relative material.
1-7
SECTION 2
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY
2.0
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY
The
general approach used
in
the Waterloo Study
included the
following
stages
which
are
also summarized
in
Figure
1
.
This methodology
is recommended
for
continued use and further refinement with growth of Ontario's waste generation and
composition database:
1,
Project Initiation and Selection of SIC Code Major Study Groups
Review of procedures contained
in this manual and any other relevant
literature.
Obtain and review census information on commercial businesses from
Statistics
Canada.
Define
specific
commercial
types.
Review
commercial business SIC codes with respect to retail/service activities
to
determine whether
certain
activities
could
be
grouped
together.
Although
the commodities
or
services
provided
by
businesses may
differ, similarities in the waste streams permit the aggregation of sectors
thereby reducing the
field work required.
Prior to finalizing a strategy, the current waste management practices
In the municipality undergoing the waste composition study must be
understood.
Selection of Commercial Businesses
Determine
a
reasonable number
of samples
and
the
size
of
those
samples
that can
be taken
given the
applicable monetary and
time
constraints for the study.
Contact the chosen businesses to ensure that the locations meet the
basic
criteria as described
in chapter
6.
If necessary, arrange a
site
visit, to assist
in deciding whether a particular location
is suitable for
sampling.
2-1
FIGURE
1
STAGES OF COMMERCIAL WASTE
COMPOSITION STUDY
Stage
1
Project
Initiation
and Selection of
SIC Code Major
Study Groups
Stage
2
Selection of
Sample Businesses
Stage
3
Collection of
Commercial Waste
Samples
Jl
stage 4
Waste Sorting
stage
5
Data Analysis
and Report Writing
Collection of Commercial Waste Samples
Arrangements
and
scheduling
for
collection
of
commercial
waste
samples should be made prior to the commencement of the field work.
Commercial wastes should be weighed, collected and transported to a
sorting area.
Collection
of waste samples
will
vary depending upon whether
the
waste
is loose or compacted. Once the waste sample
is extracted from
the
refuse
bin and weighed,
the sample should
be transported
to
a
sorting area.
Waste Sorting
Before actual sorting takes place,
it is necessary to set-up the necessary
sorting equipment and develop a time
efficient and accurate
sorting
strategy.
Obtain information on the composition of the waste stream from each
SIC by sorting and weighing the various material types. An example of
a waste composition data field sheet is provided in section 8. Whenever
possible, recyclable material should be deposited at the local recycling
depot.
5.
Data Analysis and Report Writing
Estimate the average generation rate of total waste per employee for
each of the commercial groups.
In the Waterloo Study, waste was
collected from a number of premises
in each SIC group, attempting to
cover a
range of small and large companies.
Assess the relationship
between waste generation and employment by regression analyses when
sample size permits.
2-2
Analyze both Statistics Canada employment data and the municipality's
planning information
to generate an estimate
of the
total number of
people
employed
in
the
commercial
groupings
for
which
waste
generation estimates are obtained.
Multiply the total municipal employment figure by the employee waste
generation rate for each SIC group to estimate the quantity of waste
generated by each of the commercial activities.
The sum of the waste
estimates
for the groups gives an estimate of waste generation by a
large segment of the commercial sector
in the municipality.
2-3
SECTION 3
WASTE STUDY PARAMETERS AND CONSIDERATIONS
3.0
WASTE STUDY PARAMETERS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Conducting a waste composition and generation study requires careful planning with
regard to the type of data required, and how the data
will be collected.
3.1
Required Waste Generation Rate and Waste Composition Data
The data collected
in a waste composition study
fall into two categories:
1
.
per employee generation rate information; and
2.
percent composition of the waste by component materials.
3.1.1 Waste Generation Rate
For the purposes of the Waterloo Study the commercial waste generation rate was
defined
as
kilograms
per employee
per day (kg/employee/day).
These
units can
easily be
multiplied by constants to obtain weekly, monthly,
or yearly generation
rates
in kilograms or tonnes.
As well, a total tonnage of waste generated for the
municipality can be calculated by multiplying by the total number of employees in the
municipality by the per employee generation rate.
3.1.2
Waste Composition
The percent composition of waste by
its material components
is dependent on the
waste stream studied, and on the definition of the categories of material used.
The waste component categories used
in the Waterloo Study were based
in part on
the
physical or chemical make-up of the component and
in
part on the form the
waste material takes.
As such there are several subcategories for most materials.
The subcategories can be based on physical and chemical make-up, such as those
for paper (fine paper, newspaper, corrugated cardboard etc.), or the sub-categories
can be
based on form and usage such
as
with
ferrous
metal
(food
containers,
returnable beverage containers, non-food containers). A list of the waste component
categories and sub categories used
in the Waterloo Study
is given
in Table
2.
3-1
TABLE 2: WASTE COMPOSITION DATA FIELD SHEET
Town:
SIC:
S<i«pi«
I
:
Col Uct ton Dites:
inijtry
of
the
[nv\rûn«<;rH
UiHt Composition
Studx
GORE
l
STÛRfilE
LIMlTtD
(1)
Paper
(j)
Newsprint
(b)
fine
Paper
/
CPÛ
/
Ledger
|
(c)
Hagazines
/ flyers
|
(d)
Waxed
/
Plastic
/ Xi-ed
1
(e)
Bo«t)oard
1
(f)
Uraft
1
(9)
«allpaper
(h)
OCC
(i)
Tissues
1
Note that
in Table 2 there are no categories for bulky items such as used appliances
and furniture.
These items are usually collected separately from regular waste,
3.2
Basis for Defining Commercial Waste Generation
A key paper that became the basis for the data gathering procedures developed
in
the Waterloo Study was published by DeGeare & Ongerth
(ref.
3).
The authors
explored
the
relationship between
waste
generation
in
clothing,
drug,
grocery,
hardware stores, and restaurants as a function of a number of variables indicative
of
the
physical
and
operational
characteristics
of
commercial
establishments.
Number of employees and
store hours were the two
variables that had the best
prediction of the waste generation rate for premises in the commercial sectors under
study.
Number of employees
is the variable that
is most
readily available and hence was
utilized
in the Waterloo Study.
First, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes,
available from Canada Census, were
used
to describe business
types.
Canada
Census data and local planning information were then used to determine the number
of
employees
per
SIC
division
and
per
business
establishment.
Finally,
this
information was used to select locations for the collection of waste samples.
3-2
SECTION 4
MANPOWER, EQUIPMENT AND COST
4.0
MANPOWER. EQUIPMENT AND COST
The following
is a description of the manpower requirements, necessary equipment
and costs associated with conducting a waste composition study.
In the manpower
section a dollar value of the wage for the workers
is not specified as this must be
determined by the municipality conducting the study.
Instead, only an estimation of
the number of work days and hours required to complete the study
is given.
Lists
of
required
and
optional
equipment
is
provided,
but
no
dollar amount
for
the
purchase or
rental of
this equipment
is
given.
These
details should be
carefully
considered by any municipality undertaking a waste composition study.
4.1
Personnel
For the Waterloo study the
field crew consisted of three people.
When collecting
waste, one person empties the bin, another weighs the refuse, and the third person
fills
out
the
data
sheets
(sample
weight,
waste
stream
description, any
unique
miscellaneous notes,
etc.).
A basic background in science or engineering was deemed desirable because
of the
quantitative aspect
of the work.
A waste composition
study
is
an
exercise
in
quantitative analysis of commercial wastes conducted under field conditions, using
skills learned in technical courses that are part of science and engineering education.
A
"laboratory"
work
ethic
should
be
emphasized
in
terms
of
accurate
data
acquisition/manipulation and maintaining as clean as possible work environment
(ie.
regularly
rinsing garbage cans, cleaning waste
bin
area, sweeping back of truck,
etc.).
Further, individuals should have an avid concern for the environment and as
such when recyclable materials are found
in waste bins they should attempt to bring
those materials to the recycling area whenever possible.
In addition to the field crew, a project manager
is required.
That person must have
a
technical background and
a
high
level
of respect and
responsibility
within the
municipality's works and engineering department.
The project leader
(in absence of
an outside consultant)
will be responsible for performing the calculations necessary
to define the sample ranges, determine the sample locations, contact and liaison with
4-1
waste haulers, ensure good records are kept, and general project nnanagennent.
The
project manager will also be responsible for generating a report presenting the results
of the study.
It
is
imperative
that
the crew
receive
instructions
in
health and
safety
prior
to
commencing the field studies.
All members must be alert for potential dangers, eg.
traffic,
explosive/acidic cans,
etc.
A
similar health and safety program to those
utilized to train waste collectors and landfill technicians could be adapted to suit the
needs of the waste composition study.
The crew must also receive instructions on recognizing waste categories.
Because
the
focus
of
the
Waterloo
Study was
on method
development,
the crew was
instructed to be critical of their procedures.
The crew should be encouraged to set
aside
all
materials that were
difficult
to
categorize, describe them
in
writing and
include them
in a 'miscellaneous' category.
4.2
Equipment Used
In the Waste Study
An equipment list similar to that used
in the Waterloo Study
is suggested for future
waste composition studies, but should not be regarded as an exhaustive
list.
The
following
list
of equipment
includes
a
rented
vehicle and
purchased equipment
utilized
in the Waterloo Study:
one
-
4.3 m. (14
ft.) cube van
(for collection of bagged refuse);
one
-
electronic platform scale (150 kg capacity, Accu Weigh Model
PAK-
150
(electronic,
battery operated
scale
with
digital
read-out),
Exact
Weight Scale
Inc., Toronto, Ontario);
one -electronic bench scale (500 g capacity. Accurate, model 3670)
one
-
chicken wire
"crib": 1.2 m.
(4
ft.) x
1.2 m.
(4
ft.) x 1.3 cm.
(1/2
in.)
plywood base; 0.6 m. (2
ft.) high chicken wire and 2.5 cm.
(1
in.) x 5.1
cm. (2
in.) furring sides.
Nailed to the underside of the crib floor was
a square frame which permitted the crib to be centred on the bed of the
platform
scale; the
crib was used
for weighing the
refuse as
it was
being collected from the firms;
40
-
30
litre polyethylene garbage cans; these were used as containers into
which sorted refuse was placed;
4-2
one
-
broad-mouth aluminum shovel; used for cleaning up
spills;
one
-
broom; used for cleaning up spills and sweeping out the vehicle;
one
-
staple gun and 0.95 cm. (3/8
in.) staples for construction and repair of
chicken wire dividers and crib;
one
- claw hammer;
5.1 cm.
(2
in.) common
nails: used
in the construction
of the crib.
Personal Safety Equipment:
a)
Certified steel toe safety boots
b)
Coveralls
c)
Orange safety vests
d)
Hard hats
(at the
landfill)
f)
Rubber safety gloves
g)
Particle
filter masks (dust
in garbage bins)
h)
Complete
first aid
kit
(in truck)
i)
Tetanus/polio vaccination
(optional: diphtheria, Hepatitis A and
B).
Health (Including personal hygiene) and safety must be stressed at
all times during
the study.
It
is important to remember that within each bag/bin of garbage there
may be disease
carrying organisms, sharp objects
including hypodermic needles,
containers that may explode, combustibles, corrosive and caustic agents, harmful
chemicals, and dust.
Caution and common sense should be exercised.
4.2.1
Seasonal Effects on Equipment Requirements
- Shelter and Clothing
The season of the year
in which the study
is conducted has a great bearing on the
clothing and shelter requirements of the
field crew, and general carrying out of the
study.
For several reasons
it may be
advisable
to conduct the study
during the
fall
or
winter months.
The waste will have less odour and fewer maggots and
flies at this
time
of year.
In addition the cool
or freezing temperatures
will keep the organic
fraction of the waste from rotting which will make the work more manageable from
an
objective and
aesthetic
standpoint.
The
cooler weather
will
also reduce the
amount of moisture lost by the waste, due to evaporation, from the time the sample
is collected to the time
it
is actually sorted (several days
in some cases).
4-3
If the study
is conducted
in the autumn or winter months some form of shelter
is
required by the field crew while sorting the waste.
Shelter
is required to protect the
field crew (and the waste samples!) from wind, rain, snow and cold.
In the summer
protection from the wind,
rain, and direct sun
will be required.
In addition to
a
sheltered worl< space, the sorting crew must be provided with
a
warm and dry break-room as well as washroom facilities.
4.3
Cost of Conducting a Typical Commercial Waste Study
The
unique
nature
of
each
municipality's
commercial
structure
precludes
the
development of a generic guideline budget of time requirements and costs
for a
commercial waste
study.
Formula
for estimating
costs
are
not
provided
in
this
manual, however some indication of time requirements
will be made.
The municipality undertaking commercial waste study must determine the number
of
establishments
required
to
adequately
characterize
the
waste
from
that
municipality's business community.
The required number of samples for statistical
reliability was not determined during the Ontario Waste Composition Study.
The
limiting factor for the number of establishments sampled in a municipality will be the
time and monetary constraints of the study.
The following
is an estimate of the cost associated with conducting a commercial
waste composition study with a minimal number of samples.
4-4
4.3.1
Estimated Personnel Time and Disbursement/Equipment Requirements
STAGE
1:
PROJECT INITIATION AND SELECTION OF SIC CODE MAJOR
STUDY GROUPS
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
PERSONNEL
WORK DAYS
Task:
Project Initiation
Project Manager'
4,0
Task: Obtaining/Reviewing Census and
Project Manager
2.0
Local Commercial Employment Data
Project Assistant^
2.0
Task: Review and Selection of SIC
Code Major Study Groups
Project Manager
2.0
SUB-TOTAL
Project Manager
8.0
Project Assistant
2.0
DISBURSEMENTS: Statistics Canada Service Fee,
Travel, Telephone, Office
Supplies, and Computer time.
continued.../
The Project Manager
will typically be a person from the Municipal engineering Department or some other member of the
Municipal Staff familiar with Waste Management procedures.
The Project Assistant would ideally be a member of the field crew and also a member of the municipal staff familiar with
waste management procedures.
4-5
4.3.1
Estimated Personnel Time and Disbursement/Equipment Requirements
STAGE 2:
SELECTION OF BUSINESSES
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
PERSONNEL
WORK DAYS
Task:
Selection of Businesses within
the Chosen SIC Groups
Task: Contact Businesses to Obtain
Permission and Arrange Sample
Collection
Project Manager
Project Assistant
Project Manager
Project Assistant
2.0
2.0
6.0
6.0
SUB-TOTAL:
Project Manager
Project Assistant
8.0
8.0
DISBURSEMENTS: Travel, Telephone, and
Office Supplies
Note:
Stage
1
and Stage
2 can be
carried
out by the
Project Manager,
or
in
association with an outside consulting agency familiar with Census of Canada data
and sampling procedures.
continued.../
4-6
4.3.1
Estimated Personnel Time and Disbursement Requirements
STAGE 3:
COLLECTION OF COMMERCIAL WASTE SAMPLES
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
PERSONNEL
WORK DAYS
Task:
Field Crew Training
Task: Obtaining/Constructing All
Required Equipment and
Supplies
(A) Once per week commercial
waste collection.
Project Manager
Field Crew'
(of 4)
Project Manager
Project Assistant
Project Manager
2.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
0.5
Task: Collection of Waste Sample
(B) More than once per week
municipal waste collection
Field Crew (of 4)
Project Manager
Task: Collection of Waste Sample
Field Crew (of 4)
2.0*
1.0
4.0
SUB-TOTAL:
(A) Once per week waste collection
Project Manager
5.5
Project Assistant
3.0
Field Crew
6.0
(B) Twice per week waste collection
Project Manager
6.0
Project Assistant
3.0
Field Crew
8.0
DISBURSEMENTS:
Telephone, Travel Cost and
Office Supplies.
EQUIPMENT:
Equipment purchases and rentals including
rental of vehicles,
portable weigh scales and
safety equipment.
continued.../
The four
(4) person
field crew would
ideally be composed
of persons dedicated
to the study and
familiar with waste
management procedures, and aware of the need for accurate waste management information.
The field crew members should
have some education in standard laboratory skills such as proper use of scales, accurate record keeping and the necessity of
replication of study results.
The 4 person
field crew may include the project assistant, who could act as a supervisor in the
absence of the project Manager.
Two to three samples per half-day depending on size of business entity.
4-7
4.3.1
Estimated Personnel Time and Disbursement/Equipment Requirements
STAGE 4:
WASTE SORTING AND ANALYSIS
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
PERSONNEL
WORK DAYS
Task:
Field Crew Training
-
Sorting and Classifying
Waste and Data Recording
Task: Waste Sorting
Project Manager
Field Crew
(of 4)
Project Manager
Field Crew (of 4)
1.0
2.0
0.25
2.0'
SUB-TOTAL:
Project Manager
Field Crew (of 4)
1.25
4.0
DISBURSEMENTS: Tipping/disposal
fee
for
sorted waste
after
analysis,
telephone,
travel
cost
and
office
supplies.
EQUIPMENT:
Equipment
purchases
and
rentals
including
obtaining shelter for the field crew, provision
of
safety
equipment,
and
tetanus/polio/diphtheria immunization of field
crew.
continued.../
Two to three samples per half-day dependrng upon the size of the business entity.
4-8
4.3.1
Estimated Personnel Time and Disbursement/Equipment Requirements
STAGE 5:
DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORT WRITING
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
PERSONNEL
WORK DAYS
Task: Data Entry to Spreadsheets
Project Assistant
1.0 +
^
Tasl<: Data Analysis, Calculations,
Project Manager
10.0
Report Writing and Typing
Project Assistant
3.0
SUB-TOTAL: Project Manager
10.0
Project Assistant
4.0 +
DISBURSEMENTS:
Office supplies, and computer time
WORK DAYS TOTAL
Administrative:
Project Manager
32.75
Project Assistant
17.0
Project Crew
10.0
Note:
For twice per week collection add
1 .5 hours to project manager total and 2.0
hours to
field crew total.
Up to 10 samples per day.
4-9
SECTION 5
STAGE
1
- PROJECT INITIATION
AND SELECTION OF SIC MAJOR STUDY GROUPS
5.0
STAGE
1
- PROJECT INITIATION AND SELECTION OF SIC MAJOR STUDY
GROUPS
5.1
Obtaining Census Canada Information
Obtaining Canada Census data
is the starting point for defining business activities.
The Census of Canada gathers information about occupation, type of firm and place
of work from a twenty percent sample of households. A special tabulation of these
data provides information about the number of employees in 36 different commercial
sectors
for each CMA
in Ontario.
The
basic tabulation
is by place of residence,
which
is not a problem for a regional municipality as a whole, but other "journey-
to-work" tabulations indicate how this employment is allocated by municipality within
the Region.
These data can be updated by reference to the monthly survey of "The
Labour Force" which estimates employment for each CMA.
Census data
is collected every five years
and
is available from Statistics Canada for
a nominal service
fee.
In Ontario the
Statistics Canada
library has the following
address:
Statistics Canada, Toronto
25
St.
Clair Avenue East
Toronto, Ontario
M4T 1M4
Data
can
be
obtained
in
printed
format
or
on
computer
disk
or
tape.
Larger
municipalities may find the computer disk format
to be more
useful owing to the
large volume of data required.
5.1.1
Defining Commercial Activity
When driving along a commercial strip, through a central business district (CBD), or
past an
industrial park, a casual observation creates a general mental picture of a
wide variety of commercial establishments.
Modern society reflects the entrenched
selling and
buying
mentality
in which
people
recognize
the
various
commercial
facilities that are available for their disposable incomes.
However,
in the context of
developing
a
well
structured
waste
composition
sample
program,
a
range
of
5-1
commercial
establishments
must
be
categorically
defined
in
terms
of
specific
socioeconomic function.
Statistics Canada, as
part of
its Standard
Industrial Classification
(SIC),
is
a main
source for developing an organized sample pool that reflects existing commercial and
industrial
infrastructure
(ref.
15).
In
its
SIC
catalogue
Statistics
Canada
has
disaggregated the universe of economic activity into 18 primary industrial divisions
(Table 3) that contain major sub-divisions or specifically "Major Groups" (Table 4).
These
Major
Groups
are
further
delineated
into
areas
of
specific
commercial
functions.
An example
is as follows:
Division
J
represents
the
retail
trade
industries.
Within
this
division
are
numerous major groups, such as Major Group 60
- food, beverage, and drug
industries
(retail).
This
is
further
delineated
into
specific
commercial
establishments including SIC #6011
super markets and SIC #6012 grocery
stores.
The hierarchial SIC category arrangement of business and industry provides a well
organized sample framework to develop a diverse and accurate representative sample
pool.
Thus, the classification provides the basis for the selection of commercial activities
to be studied, and for the extrapolation of the sample results into municipal totals.
The same classification
is used for
all of Statistics Canada's economic surveys.
It
enables us to apply data from the Census of Canada , or the monthly Labour Force
Survey , to the task of estimating waste generation for aggregations of commercial
activities.
5.1.2
Commercial Employment in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Within
the
universe
of
economic
activity,
the
Waterloo
Study
focused
on
six
divisions:
J,
K,
L,
M,
Q,
and
R
(as
indicated
with
asterisks on Table
3).
The
activities
in
these
divisions take
place
within the
private
sector and
serve
local
residential communities.
Thus they are located within the communities they serve,
and the number and size of these activities are quite predictable from a knowledge
5-2
TABLE 3:
LIST OF SIC DIVISIONS
Division A
Agricultural and Related Service Industries
Division B
Fishing and Trapping Industries
Division C
Logging and Forestry Industries
Division D
Mining (Including Milling), Quarrying and
Oil
Well Industries
Division E
Manufacturing Industries
*
Division F
Construction Industries
Division G
Transportation and Storage Industries
Division H
Communication and Other
Utility Industries
*
Division
I
Wholesale Trade Industries
*
Division J
Retail Trade Industries **
Division K
Finance and Insurance Industries **
Division L
Real Estate Operator and Insurance Industries
*'
Division M
Business Service Industries **
Division N
Government Service Industries
Division
Educational Service Industries
Division P
Health and Social Service Industries
Division Q
Accommodation, Food and Beverage Service **
Industries
Division R
Other Service Industries **
Low emphasis
in study
High emphasis
in study
TABLE 4:
LIST OF THE 13 SIC CODE MAJOR STUDY GROUPS
Major Group
Description
17
-
Leather and Allied Products
Industries.
28
-
Printing, Publishing and Allied
Industries.
48
-
Communications Industry.
56'
-
Metals, Hardware Plumbing, Heating and
Building Materials Industry, Wholesale
60
-
Food, Beverage and Drug Industries,
Retail.
61
-
Shoe, Apparel, Fabric and Yarn
Industries,
Retail.
62
-
Household Furniture, Appliances and
Furnishings Industries,
Retail.
63
-
Automotive Vehicles, Parts and
Accessories Industries, Sales and
Service.
65
-
Other Retail Store Industries
(i.e.
Florist Shops, Jewellery
Stores etc.).
70
-
Deposit Accepting Intermediary
Industries
(i.e. Banks, Trust
Companies).
91
-
Accommodation Service Industries.
92
-
Food and Beverage Service Industries.
96
-
Amusement and Recreational Service
Industries.
'Retail hardware and building supplies are designated as wholesale activities
in the
SIC classification
of
the
size
and
characteristics
of
the
residential
population.
Within
these
six
divisions,
Statistics
Canada
identifies
hundreds
of
snnaller
groups
of
specialized
activities each of which includes a large nunnber of stores that provide similar goods
and services and operate
in the same fashion.
Given a base population of activities,
these stores can be sampled and extrapolated to provide overall estimates of waste
generation.
In contrast, the primary manufacturing and wholesaling divisions are fewer in number
and far more diverse in size and specialization.
This
is because they are not directly
tied to or restricted by the size and requirements of local markets;
i.e., those
in close
spatial
proximity
to
the
manufacturing
or
wholesaling
activity.
A
factory may
produce goods for markets across the continent using processes and materials that
are quite different from a neighbouring plant-even
if the plant has the same industrial
classification. Some municipalities have many factories; others have virtually none.
Waste generation by such activities must be studied on a site-by-site basis.
While
many
educational,
health,
and
local
governmental
services
serve
local
residents, some
activities, such as
universities or major hospitals, were excluded
from the Waterloo Study.
As well, the lawn and yard maintenance service sector
was not sampled
in the Waterloo Study.
The
six
divisions
in
the
Waterloo
Study
included
32.8
percent
of
the
total
employment in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
Divisions J and Q, which were
sampled most thoroughly, included 18.1
percent of the total.
Commercial activities
are numerous and represent a significant component of the economic base of every
community.
Statistics Canada further disaggregates these
six
divisions of commercial activity
(which were
included
in
the Waterloo Study)
into 27,
two-digit SIC codes, each
representing a familiar group of retail or service activities.
In order to get the most
information from
a
limited number of samples, these two-digit groups should be
further aggregated and disaggregated as
in the Waterloo Study as shown
in Table
4.
The general principle
is to aggregate those groups that appear to have similar
waste generation patterns, and to disaggregate those that have varied rates of waste
generation.
For example, the automotive group (SIC 63) can be disaggregated to
5-3
reflect fundamentally different kinds of operations
in dealerships, garages and gas
stations.
One group can be used
to estimate other groups;
for example,
in the
Waterloo Study Group 64 was estimated from the
results
for groups 61
and 62.
Among financial services, only banks were sampled
in the Waterloo Study.
Hotels
and
restaurants were each disaggregated
in
the Waterloo Study
to determine
if
different waste generation patterns could be identified.
In addition,
in the Waterloo Study a limited number of samples explored economic
activities lying outside the targeted divisions.
Building supply stores (SIC 56) were
sampled within the framework,
but are formally
classified as wholesale
activities
within
the
SIC.
They
are
excluded from
the expansion
of
the sample
for
the
municipal total.
The printing and publishing manufacturing group (SIC 28) was also
sampled
in the Waterloo Study.
5.1.3
Extrapolation of Sample Data to a Municipality
The task of extrapolating the results from the waste generation samples to project
the waste generation for an entire area or regional municipality is complicated by the
lack
of
information
that
describes the
overall magnitude
of commercial
activity.
There is no Census of Retail and Service Activity , or its equivalent.
Instead, data on
commercial employment can be obtained from several different sources and must be
adapted to the particular study. The procedures used for this extrapolation may vary
from place to place, depending on the mix of information that
is available.
The starting point
is the Census of Canada. 1986 (soon to be superseded by the
1991
version)
for
the
residential
population.
For
a twenty
percent sample
of
households, each person over 15
is asked about employment;
e.g., what
kind of
firm?
These data are coded to the SIC categories.
For each Census Metropolitan
Area
(CMA)
how
many
people
work
in
which
kinds
of
activities
is
known.
Unfortunately people do not always work
in the same municipality where they
live.
If the municipality
is isolated from other places (e.g., Timmins) the assumption can
be made that the residents work
in the same municipality that they reside;
if
it
is
embedded within a larger economic region (e.g., the City of Toronto or the City of
Waterloo) further adjustments must be made.
One could shift the scale of analysis
5-4
from the smaller area municipality to the region as a whole (e.g., the Greater Toronto
Area,
the
Region
of
Waterloo)
or one
could
turn
to
other sources
of
data
on
employment.
The Ministry of Transportation has compiled journey-to-work data for
the major urban regions
in Ontario that
indicates how many people work
in one
community
(e.g.,
the
City
of Cambridge)
and
live
in
another
(e.g.,
the
City
of
Waterloo), but these data are not broken down by SIC.
Or there may be regional
employment surveys that indicate how many jobs of various kinds are found
in each
component municipality-although they do not always use the same breakdown of
commercial activities as Statistics Canada's SIC. The problem, then,
is complex; and
may require local expertise.
In
the Waterloo
Study,
the
starting
point was
the Census
of Canada
material,
augmented by the Region of Waterloo employment survey to provide more spatial
data, and Statistics Canada's Labour Force survey, to provide a temporal update.
The amount of spatial or temporal detail required
will depend on the application of
the information.
While in the Waterloo Study there was no alternative to the use of employment data
to
link the waste generation sample to the projections
for the
municipalities, the
relationship between employment and the volume
of commercial
activity
is very
strong
(ref.
8).
Sales, floor area, and employment are consistently linked together
very
closely.
In
the
present work, employment
is
simply
the
total number
of
workers, both part-time and full-time-as defined by Statistics Canada.
The ratio of
part-time
to
full-time employees
is
consistent
across each
SIC
sector,
and
the
number of each type of employees should vary through time with the level of sales.
Both employment and sales vary slightly from season to season (depending on the
type of commercial
activity).
Early summer data
(as used
in the Waterloo study)
provide a reasonable proxy for the annual levels as indicated by indices of seasonality
computed by Statistics Canada (see ref.
1 6).
These indices allow us to calibrate the
seasonal effects at other times of the year.
5-5
5.2
Regional Municipality of Waterloo Planning Information
A discussion of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo planning information which
was
used
in
the Waterloo
Study
has
been
included
as
follows
for
information
purposes.
The
Regional
Municipality
of
Waterloo,
encompassing
the
cities
of
Kitchener,
Waterloo
and
Cambridge,
and
four
smaller
Townships
of
Woolwich,
Wilmot,
Wellesley and North Dumphries,
is located about 110 kilometres west of Toronto and
about 60 kilometres northwest of Hamilton.
The population of the Region (1988
Municipal Directory information) was
342,030.
Information from an employment
survey
conducted
by
the
Region's
Planning
Department
provided
additional
information about the number of firms and employment
in commercial
activity
in
each of the local municipalities within the Region
in 1989.
The sectoral categories
differ slightly from those used by Statistics Canada so the data could not be used
directly
in the estimate of waste generation.
Instead, the information was used to
estimate the share of Regional waste that
is generated by each municipality.
Specific establishments within the Region of Waterloo were chosen, based on the
selected SIC groups, by referring to local municipal business directories of Kitchener,
Waterloo, and Cambridge.
These sources provided the type of business, name of
business, address/phone number, and number of employees. When deciding on the
specific establishment to be sampled, the sample
size
in terms of the number of
employees
is
important
since
for each
SIC code
grouping
a
range
of
different
establishment sizes
is necessary
(e.g.
small, medium, and
large).
Such
a sample
range, based on number of employees, provides a more accurate data analysis for
waste composition and per capita waste generation (kg/employee/day). For example,
SIC Major Group 60,
food, beverage and drug industries
(retail), provides the SIC
code sub-groups SIC #601 1
- supermarket (large number of employees ranging from
40
to
200),
SIC #6012
-
mid-size grocery
store (medium number
of employees
ranging
from
10
to
40
people),
and
SIC
#6019
-
other
food
stores
i.e.
convenient/specialty stores
(small number of employees ranging from
1
to
10).
It
is not always possible to define such a sample range since
it does not exist for
all
commercial establishments.
5-6
In
addition, the yellow pages
of the
Bell Canada phone directory also contains
a
valuable
up-to-date source
of
potential
sample
candidates.
Finally,
"the
casual
observation" driving to work
in the morning, creates a mental note of commercial
and
industrial
business
locations where
specific
SIC code establishments can be
incorporated into the sample pool.
5.3
Knowing Your Community
- Current Waste Management Practices
The next parameter that must be known before beginning the waste study
is the
current waste management practices
in the municipality.
The following information should be assessed:
1.
waste collection frequency: once per week, or twice or more times per
week;
2.
collection routes and schedules;
3.
collection practices and scheduling during holidays etc.;
4.
presence of Blue Box programs or other recycling activities and days on
which recyclable materials are collected;
5.
presence of special waste collection programs such as spring and
fall
clean-up
collections,
leaf
and
yard-waste
collections,
bulky
item
collection days, white metal collections, hazardous waste collections and
so on.
This information
is needed to coordinate the collection of waste samples with regular
waste collection so that conflicts do not occur, and to ensure that data are collected
regarding special waste collections.
5.3.1
Waste Composition Variability
Does one expect a large variation
in the composition of the waste streams generated
by commercial businesses throughout the year?
Given the "predictable character"
5-7
of retail activities carried on within each SIC group, there
is no reason to expect a
significant variation
in the composition of the waste generated by business within
a given sector.
It
is expected, however, that there may be variations in the quantity of waste with
increases occurring at certain times of the year,
e.g. Christmas holidays, year-end
inventories,
etc.
However,
retail
activity
is
dependent
on
consumer
habits.
Consumer waste generation
is reportedly consistent, varying +/-^0%
of a yearly
average over
three
quarters
of
the
time
(cf.
Vesilind &
Rimer,
ref.
17).
The
implication
of
the
consistency
is
that
seasonal
variations
in
residential
refuse
generation
patterns
will
be
mirrored
in many
of
the
commercial
retail
sectors.
Financial institutions may also exhibit predictable fluctuations
in waste composition
and/or quantity, that may be correlated with cyclic business-related activities.
5.3.2
Bulk Item and Special Collection Days
The snap-shot approach (relatively small number of samples taken for numerous SIC
groups) to waste characterization which was utilized in the Waterloo Study precludes
taking of any waste that would not be generated on a daily or weekly basis.
A similar "snap-shot" approach would require that special care be taken to identify
special wastes
or wastes
that may
not
normally
be
present
in
the commercial
establishment's waste stream.
Several waste generation practices and "one-time"
waste disposal occurrences can bias a random sample, especially when only a limited
number of samples are taken from any one SIC group.
This
is a consideration where
bulky items are present
in the commercial waste stream.
A sampled commercial establishment may have unusual waste disposal occurrences
during the study period.
Note should be taken of the following:
-
Items which are rarely disposed such as appliances or other bulk
items may be present
in the sampled waste.
Large, one-time
disposal items
will
bias the sample and hence the aggregated
sample for the entire SIC group
if the number of samples
is small.
When dividing the materials
into respective waste composition
5-8
categories,
the
large
or heavy
"one-time"
items
will
raise the
relative proportion of that material while decreasing the
relative
proportion
of the other
materials.
When the
item
is
clearly
a
"one-time" disposal occurrence that item should be weighed but
recorded separately.
Some
material may be segregated
for future
recycling and
set
along-side with refuse awaiting disposal. These items should also
be
clearly
identified
and
their
weights
recorded
under
the
"recycled" waste
category.
As more and more
materials
are
recycled
or
reused from commercial
establishments,
including
materials excluded from
a
"blue box" program,
additional care
must be taken to identify and record the weights of such waste
separately.
Hazardous wastes, such as crank-case
oil, paints, and solvents,
may show up
in the
general refuse
bin of various commercial
establishments. Such wastes should be weighed and noted in the
appropriate categories under the heading "hazardous waste" on
the data collection sheets.
5-9
SECTION 6
STAGE 2
- SELECTION OF BUSINESSES
6.0
STAGE 2
- SELECTION OF BUSINESSES
6.1
Size and Number of Samples Required
6.1.1
Size of Samples Required
The
size,
i.e.
weight,
of
the sample
that must
be
taken
to
maintain
statistical
reliability depends on the
variability of both the waste composition and the waste
generation
rates.
If an estimate
of the approximate percentage that
a
particular
component contributes to the overall composition of waste
is known and an estimate
of the population standard deviation
is known then the size of sample required may
be calculated using the optimal sample size within clusters
(ref.
19, Vol.
I,
p. 244).
Nomograms reflecting this relationship were used to determine the size and number
of samples
required
in
the
residential waste
composition
study.
However,
this
relationship is not clearly defined for commercial wastes which are by-products from
a variety of commercial activity.
In the future, the lack of sample data from which
reasonable estimates of waste composition and population standard deviations can
be made will likely be rectified and a statically valid sample size may be determined.
The Waterloo Study was a pioneering study and as such no attempt was made to
define a sample
size.
Waste was sampled from one week's accumulation.
When
the waste was placed at the curbside or loose
in a dumpster the entire contents of
the
container was
taken.
When
the
waste
sample was
obtained
from
large
compactor
bins only
half
of the contents
of the
bins was sampled due
to time
constraints.
As a result the weights of the samples ranged from 2.4 kg to
5782 kg.
6.1.2
Number of Samples Required
The number of samples that must be taken from each SIC group depends on the
population
standard
deviation,
the
probability
distribution
associated
with
the
population, and the desired level of precision. Due to a lack of historical information,
the
number
of
samples
taken
during
the
Waterloo
Study
was
based
on
the
availability
of
time
and
man-power.
In
the
future,
when
commercial
waste
6-1
composition estimates
are more
readily
available,
it may be
possible to
utilize
a
similar formula to that used
in the residential study
in Volume
1.
6.2
Contacting Businesses
The
Waterloo
Study
field
crew
had
considerable
familiarity
with
a
variety
of
businesses
in the Region and they were able to recommend many companies
to
contact for the study; the Yellow Pages
in the phone directory were also consulted
for the names of firms.
The decision on how best to approach businesses was
left
up to the field crew, after considering two alternatives:
(a) contact by telephone and
(b) direct company visits.
The
field crew
quickly
realized
that
the most
practical and
efficient method
of
obtaining permission from
local businesses to participate
in the study was from a
personal visit from the crew members themselves.
The approach of contacting the
firms by telephone
is very time consuming and was inherently very unsuccessful.
In the direct approach, store owners or managers can see first hand, who they would
be dealing with.
The waste study can be discussed
in detail and questions can be
answered and the logistical problems at each location can be assessed. A business
card legitimizes the crew's intentions and initiates a good rapport between the field
crew team and the business.
In fact,
in the Waterloo Study more than 90% of the
businesses directly approached agreed to participate
in the study.
The basic criteria required for sample locations are as follows:
-
The commercial waste bin cannot be shared with another establishment
in
order
to
obtain
a
pure
sample
representation
of
one
specific
establishment.
-
The waste
bin must
not
contain
an
internal compacter
since
it
is
potentially dangerous
for sampling
(never enter
a closed
bin) and
it
would be very difficult to obtain the total bin refuse weight due to the
densely compacted waste.
Exceptions are made for external compactor
bins,
but only
if absolutely necessary.
The waste
is
still
difficult
to
remove, but
it
is an open bin and
if the compactor is turned off and the
start key
is removed the hazard
is lessened.
6-2
-
The waste bin must be safely accessible,
ie. located
in an area free of
traffic or other potential hazards to the
field crew.
The provision of such information, and
if necessary an arranged site visit,
will help
decide whether
a
particular
location
is
suitable
for
sampling.
This
will
prevent
unnecessary use of time for both the business and the study team.
6-3
SECTION 7
STAGE 3
- COLLECTION OF WASTE SAMPLES
7.0
STAGE 3
- COLLECTION OF WASTE SAMPLES
7.1
Scheduling Waste Collection
One objective of the Waterloo Study was to obtain a "snap shot" of the composition
of
waste
generated
in
a
week
by
commercial
businesses.
Therefore,
waste
collections for the study must be tailored to the waste collection for each business.
In the simplest case
(i.e., once a week collection), the crew might consider visiting
the company 12 to 18 hours before the bulk-lift refuse bin
is scheduled for dumping
and removing the accumulated waste.
Whenever Monday
is the collection day, the
crew will have to make their collection on Sunday.
Many businesses may have to be visited 3 or more times
in order to obtain a week's
worth of waste.
In some cases,
it may be necessary to have businesses store their
waste,
especially
if the
putrescible content was
low,
in
order to save the crew
repeated trips.
Sample scheduling must
also consider the
proximity
of establishments from one
another.
Generally, two or three establishments may be sampled per day.
It
is time
effective to schedule establishments that are close together on the same sampling
day.
Other
factors
should
be
considered when
developing
a
field
sample
schedule.
Irregular activities, eg. festivals, renovations, will generate larger amounts of waste.
Another factor involves the concern of management's preference for schedule time.
Finally, one may choose
to
avoid
collecting and
sorting food wastes
during the
hottest summer days to avoid encountering bugs and pungent odours.
7.2
Special Documentation
A
letter must
be obtained from
the
Ministry
of the Environment authorizing the
collection of the waste from commercial businesses for purposes of the composition
study. The private waste hauler participating
in the Waterloo Study requested and
received
a
letter
from
the
Region
confirming
the
confidentiality
of
the
waste
information obtained
in the study.
7-1
The
procedure
to
obtain
Ministry
approval
for
solid waste sample
collection
by
municipalities undertaking waste composition studies
is as follows:
A letter requesting Ministry approval for temporary collection of solid waste samples
shall be mailed by the interested municipality to:
Mr. Dave Crump
Operations Coordinator
Operations Division
Ministry of the Environment
14th
Floor, 135
St.
Clair Ave., West
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1P5
The
letter shall include, but not be limited to the following type of information:
-
Background and reasons for undertaking the study.
-
Study objectives.
-
Study approach.
-
Contractor's name.
-
Collection area.
-
Approximative number of samples to be collected.
-
Approximative weight of each sample.
-
Estimated duration of the project.
7.3
Waste Collection Methods for Waste Quantities and Composition
In the Regional Municipality of Waterloo as with most municipalities, private waste
haulers are usually contracted to remove the waste from commercial businesses,
except in the downtown core of Kitchener and Waterloo where waste collection was
three times
per week
or
daily,
respectively.
In the Waterloo Study,
commercial
haulers provided
bulk-lift refuse containers of various sizes
(2 to 8 cubic yards)
in
which a firm's waste was accumulated and picked up as required.
In most cases.
7-2
wastes are placed,
loose,
into the bulk bins; however, some businesses might be
using compactor type bulk refuse containers.
Waste sampling procedures will vary depending on whether the waste
is loose or
compacted.
In the former case,
for the Waterloo Study the entire contents of the
container were unloaded, weighed
in a chicken wire/wood "crib" mounted on a scale
(see Figures 2 and
3) and placed
in 4' x 4' x 4' heavy duty corrugated containers
("gaylords") in the back of a cube van and taken to the Waterloo landfill site (parking
lot of the Recycling Office) for sorting (see Figure 4).
Unloading waste from a compacted entanglement of loose and bagged refuse
in a
6 or 8 cubic yard bin during the Waterloo Study was found to be very difficult.
It
was decided that only
half of the contents of the
bin could be conveniently and
efficiently unloaded and weighed, given the arduous task and the time requirement.
The weight of the entire bin was estimated on a volume basis from the weight of the
sample that was removed,
i.e., usually several hundred kilograms.
All loose waste
was set aside for sorting; bags of refuse were randomly placed into two
piles, with
ah equal number of bags
in each
pile.
One pile was randomly selected for sorting,
the other pile was returned to the bin.
7.4
Waste Collection Methods for Waste Quantities Only
Two sampling methods can be used to determine the quantity of waste generated
at each firm.
In the first method, the field crew must weigh the waste
in the refuse
containers before putting the waste
in the cube van for transportation to their base
for sorting.
As noted above, the frequency of waste collection at each firm should
be obtained from the owner or manager.
The field crew can obtain the employment
figure for each business at the time of the interview or by telephone.
When
it
is not possible to obtain the number of
full- and part-time personnel from
each
firm,
the
figures
for
total employment can
be
used
in
the
regressions
of
employment versus waste quantity.
This
is compatible with the data gathered by
Statistics Canada.
7-3
FIGURE
2:
WEIGHTING COMMERCIAL WASIE
IN A CRIB
MOUNIEU ON AN ELEC IRONIC UIGIIAL SCALE
FIGURE
3:
REMOVING WASTE FROM A COMMERCIAL WASTE BIN
FIGURE
4:
SOniING A WASTE SAMPLE Aï
IME LANDFILL SUE
The
first method enables one
to
get waste
quantity
information from
small and
medium size businesses.
The method
is very labour intensive and time consuming
but works well for small loads of loose waste.
The method
is not satisfactory for
refuse compacted
in 6 to 8 cubic yards containers.
The
latter containers may be
frequently encountered at some of the larger locations.
The second procedure
is applicable to
all bulk containers irrespective of bin size or
degree of waste compaction.
In the Waterloo Study, a scale
initially developed to
weigh loads of sand and gravel carried
in the scoop of a front end loader had been
adapted for use on overhead (front-end) loading garbage trucks.
The scale worked
off of the hydraulic
lift system that raises and lowers the arms of the bin hoist.
A
Wray-Tech Model WT4000/6000
(obtained from Woolsey Equipment Sales
Ltd.,
Ottawa) was installed on an overhead packer truck and calibrated with the assistance
of the Toledo Scale Company, Hamilton, Ontario.
The bulk waste weighing procedure
is a two-step process.
First, the bin and waste
contents are weighed.
Then the contents of the bin are dumped into the truck and
the empty
bin
is
weighed.
The
weight
of
the
bin
contents
is
determined
by
subtracting the weight of the empty bin from the weight of the
bin plus contents.
Again, employment data
is obtained for these firms, either by telephone or directly
visiting these firms after the waste has been collected.
Participants
in the waste composition study should be assured of confidentiality of
the waste generation and composition information.
7.5
Information to be Obtained at the Time of Sample Collection
A
field
note book should
be
carried during the sample
collection to note
general
information and any odd occurrences that may be encountered.
General data which
should be obtained from every establishment should include:
-
company name,
-
company address,
-
number of employees,
-
total weight of refuse,
7-4
number of days refuse generated,
frequency of refuse collections per week,
refuse pick-up days,
size of refuse bins, and
percentage of bagged waste sannpled
(for composition).
7.6
Data Obtained for Per Employee Waste Generation Rates
As noted above, the frequency of waste collection at each firm should be obtained.
The field crew must also obtain the employment figure for each business at the time
of the interview or by telephone.
Bin collection frequency can be determined from the
hauler's records and a
daily
generation rate (kg/day) of waste was determined for each firm.
At the conclusion
of the
field work, the employment and waste
generation data can be
plotted on
separate graphs for each of the commercial groupings.
The
length of the "work
week"
is different for different SIC groupings.
Some businesses are open 7 days a
week
(e.g.,
restaurants,
and
hotels)
and
some
are
open
for
6
days
(e.g.,
supermarkets, banks, and automobile dealerships), while some are open for 5 days
(e.g., printing shops).
When
it was not possible to obtain the number of full- and part-time personnel from
each
firm,
the
figures
for
total employment can
be
used
in
the
regressions
of
employment versus waste quantity.
This
is compatible with the data gathered by
Statistics Canada.
7-5
SECTION 8
STAGE 4
- WASTE SORTING
8.0
STAGE 4
- WASTE SORTING
8.1
Equipment Set-Up and Sorting Commencement
Before actual sorting,
it
is necessary to develop a time efficient and accurate sorting
strategy.
In the Waterloo Study, a large sheet of plywood, 2.4 m by 1.2 m
in size,
was
laid across two clamp-style work-horses
to form
a
table.
Four rows
of
six
garbage cans were then aligned behind the table.
Each sorter positioned themselves
between two rows
of cans, with an
additional can
in
front of them (beneath the
table), as well two cans are placed on the table.
This positioning
will optimize the
amounts of material types that can be sorted
in a timely fashion.
This set-up
will
vary according to convenience depending upon the quantity of certain wastes and
diversity
of
materials sampled.
Each member
of the
field crew should
sort one
garbage bag/can at a time, tossing material to the defined waste composition cans.
Such a system prevents confusion and time wasted
in walking to various scattered
cans.
8.2
Sample Sorting and Data Management
In the Waterloo Study, sorting occurred at the regional landfill site
in order to avoid
unnecessary
interference
and
possible
spillage
of
garbage
on
the
commercial
establishment's property.
It may be possible to arrange for sorting to take place at
similar site.
The commercial waste
composition
data
sheets
(Table
5)
which were
used
for
logging the weights of the various waste materials encountered in the samples
in the
Waterloo Study can
be adapted
to
suit
other waste composition
studies.
After
sorting the waste into categories, each category should be weighed and
its relative
contribution
to
the
total
sample
weight
determined,
i.e.,
percent
of
the
waste
composition.
Waste
materials
that
can
not
be
easily
categorized,
should
be
separately
identified
(described
and
weighed)
on
a
"miscellaneous"
table,
accompanying the main waste composition table for each sample.
The total weight
of
materials
in the
"main" and
"miscellaneous"
lists
should
equal 100%
of the
sample weight.
8-1
TABLE 5: WASTE COMPOSITION DATA FIELD SHEET
Town
:
SIC:
Sdapic
I
:
Col lection
Dates;
Nimstry
of
tht Env\ron»ent
Wdstt Coaposltion
Study
GORE
t
STûRRIE
LINIIEO
I
II
I
(1)
Piper
(a)
Newsprint
(b)
Fine
Paper
/
CPÛ
/
Led9er
(c)
Naqajines
/ flyers
(d)
Wa.ed
/
Plastic
/
»<i>ed
(e)
Bo. board
(f)
Uraft
(9)
wallpaper
(h)
OCC
(!)
tissues
SECTION 9
STAGE 5
- DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORT WRITING
9.0
STAGE 5
- DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORT WRITING
9.1
Estimates of Average Per Employée Waste Generation Rates
Each sample observation may provide information on the number of employees and
the total weekly waste generation for the establishment.
This permits two different
kinds of statistical generalization.
First,
it
is possible simply to divide the total waste
by
the
number
of
employees
to
obtain
an
estimate
of
waste
generation
per
employee.
Several of these estimates can then be used to determine average values
and standard deviations.
Second,
more
information
can
be
extracted
by
plotting
total
waste
against
employment for each observation.
This provides:
(1)
a visual pattern of the overall variability
in the results, an evaluation of
the relation between waste generation per employee and size of store
(e.g.,
are
big
stores
more
or
less
efficient
with
respect
to
waste
generation?);
(2)
a measure of the waste reduction efficiency of individual stores relative
to the group; and
(3)
an evaluation of the effectiveness of the sample selection in relation to
store size.
By
fitting
a
regression
line
to
the graph one can
obtain another measure
of the
regularity of waste generation,
i.e., the regression coefficient
r\
Another estimate
of the relation between waste generation and number of employees
is the slope of
the regression
line
(b).
In the next step
in the analysis, estimates
of waste generation per employee are
used to estimate total waste generation within the study area.
Either the mean value
of waste per employee or the regression slope
(b) can be selected.
The regression
slope should be used as long as
it was adjudged reliable; otherwise the mean value
should be used. The reliability depends on both the regression coefficient (over 0.5)
and the scatter of observations on the graph.
A sample with
a wide
variety of
different stores sizes may be deemed acceptable. Those where the observations are
clustered together around the same size store should be rejected.
In the ideal case,
9-1
where there
is perfect correlation between waste generation and employment, the
intercept (a)
is expected to be zero and the mean value should equal the regression
slope
(b).
For
further discussion
of
regression
analysis the
reader may
consult
Modern Elementary Statistics
(ref.
6).
9.1.1
Estimates From Average Waste Weight Per Employee Data
For each SIC group of commercial business, the daily waste weight generated
at
each firm can be divided by the number of employees to obtain the weight of waste
per employee per day.
An average estimated waste generation rate (±
1 Standard
Error) can be calculated for the SIC sector from the sample data.
9.2
Estimation
of
Waste
Generation
by
Commercial
Sector
in
the
Entire
Municipality
The estimation of commercial waste generation for the entire municipality combines
two kinds of information.
First, various employment data can be used to estimate
total commercial employment and employment
for
various types
of commercial
activity in the entire municipality.
Second, the field work provides estimates of the
amount
of waste
generated
per employee
by type
of commercial
activity.
By
combining these two kinds of information the
final estimate of commercial waste
generation
is obtained for the entire municipality.
It
is much more important to make accurate estimates for the larger places than for
the smaller ones.
(Note: Familiarity with the local economic structure
is required to
make minor adjustments to Statistic Canada employment information where needed).
For the Region as a whole, the share of commercial jobs was 32.8 percent
in the
1986
Census
and
38.7
percent
in
1989
according
to
the
Region's
Planning
Department-a difference that reflects variations
in definitions
in the two data sets.
Despite these differences, the regional employment survey permitted an estimation
of the share of regional commercial employment to be allocated to each municipality.
This should assist
in estimating the share of commercial waste generation.
9-2
9.3
Sources of Potential Error in Employee Waste Generation Estimates
Table 6 lists the kinds of errors that will affect the accuracy of the employee waste
generation estimates presented herein. An estimate of the magnitude and "direction"
of the error
is also given.
Error in the estimates of waste generation for a municipality can occur in two ways.
First, the labelled Waste Survey
in Table 6
is derived from the evaluation of ratios
of waste generation per employee. When the error occurs in the sampling procedure,
due to store-to-store differences
in the ratios this error can be reduced by increasing
the sample size.
Difficulty
in identifying and clarifying the correct type of business
SIC group can also contribute to that error and
is more
difficult to evaluate.
The
error
depends
on
the
significance
of
identifiable
differences
in
subtype
s
of
commercial activities, perhaps segmented by location or brand names or product mix.
A
store
incorrectly
identified
could
lead
to
a
sizeable
error
in
a
small number of
samples.
In the Waterloo Study, local business directories provided the SIC type for
the businesses.
Measurement
errors,
e.g. weight of wastes, should be
relatively
rrlinor.
The second form of error (possibly embodied
in the remainder of Table 6)
is related
to the estimation of total commercial activity
in various sectors, based on various
data sources.
Each data source has
its own problems.
These
errors cannot be
reduced by increasing the sample size.
Census data are comprehensive, but begin
with the undercounting bias that averages this percent across the population as a
whole.
There may be other systematic errors in reporting the SIC types, such as, whether
the person
is actually working or the location of the work place.
Most of the error
in the Labour Force survey
is derived directly from the sample size, since there
is not
detailed information on location
of SIC groups.
The
regional employment survey
provided greater spatial detail but carried a high
level or error due to non-response
and error
in SIC or number of employees.
Local governments are not professional
data
gathering
agencies
and
employers
are
not
required
to
respond
to
survey
requests.
9-3
1/1
S_
l/>
-<-
<: u < c
(U
<u
> I-- >
t-
ta ---
1/1
(->
i-
-t-i I--
QJ
(O
J_>
.1- r-- O
O^ 3
t/t
(O
(O
O)
<U O s r--
c
c:
Q. bo
o.
1/1 Of
< o
a:
C\J LO un
UT)
C «r-
The Waterloo Study was thus an exploratory one, and the sannpling errors
in the
waste survey predonninate.
As more information
is integrated from additional work,
and samples become larger and more precisely targeted, these waste survey errors
can be reduced and made small relative to the problems of employment estimations
and projections.
9.4
Per Employee Waste Generation Rates
As
indicated
earlier,
for
each company
participating
in
the
study,
a
daily,
per
employee waste generation rate can be determined (kg per employee per day).
The
weight of waste generated by a company during one "work week"
is divided by the
number of days
in
their "work week",
either
5,
6 or
7.
The weight
per day
is
divided by the total number of employees
in the firm.
An estimate of the employee
waste generation rate per day for each SIC group, or sub-grouping,
is obtained by
averaging the information for
all companies
in the same SIC group or sub-grouping.
The following
illustrates the above steps:
T.
(kg/wk)
=
weight per day
6
2.
weight per dav
=
employee generation rate per day
total no. of employees
3.
sum: employee generation rates
=
average employee generation
n
(no. of employees)
rate per day
For each two-digit SIC group or sub-grouping, the daily waste generation rate
for
each firm can be plotted against the number of employees.
Linear regressions can
be calculated for the data and the resulting coefficients representing the employee
waste generation rate (the coefficient b in the regression equation: y =
a +
bx) can
be compared
with
the
estimates
of
daily waste
generation
for
the
SIC
sector,
determined by the averaging method.
An example
of
the
average
per employee waste
generation
rate
and
the
error
standard for SIC group 631 sampled
in the Waterloo Study
is provided
in Table
7.
An example
of
a corresponding scatter graph which shows
a
strong
correlation
between waste generation and employment
is provided as an example
in Figure 5.
9-4
TABLE 7
SIC GROUP 631, WASTE GENERA TION DA TA
(KG/EMPL O YEE/DA Y) FOR THE A UTOMOBILE DEA LERS
Sample #
9.5
Estimation
of Commercial Waste Generation
in
the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo
Table 8 has been included
in
this procedure manual
for
illustration purposes only.
Table 8 disaggregates the various SIC categories from Statistics Canada to conform
to the groups used
in the Waterloo Study.
The table also contains estimates of total
municipal employment for each of the commercial sectors.
To obtain an estimate
of the municipality's employment from the Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) data
in
the Census simply multiply by
1
± the percent difference
in the spatial definition of
the study area
(i.e., the municipality's boundaries may be slightly larger than those
of Statistic Canada for the municipality). To convert the
1 986 employment to
1 990
employment,
multiply
by
the
estimated
commercial employment
growth.
The
application of growth rates in this manner does not account for fluctuations occurring
as a result of economic fluctuations, such as during a periods of recession.
These
employment
estimates
are
multiplied
by
the
waste
generation
per employee
to
estimate total commercial waste
for the SIC group listed.
The
data
in
the
right
hand column
of Table
8
are
estimates
of weekly waste
generation rates (kg/employee/week) for 13 commercial SIC Groups.
The weekly
per employee waste generation estimate for each SIC group
is multiplied by the total
municipal
employment
for
the
group
to
obtain
the
weekly
waste
contribution
(kg/week) from the SIC group.
Note that the kg/wk are presented
in 1,000s,
i.e.,
the actual values are 1,000 times higher than the number entered
in the table, e.g.,
342 X 1,000 = 342,000.
The
total estimated weight generated by the commercial sector
in the Region of
Waterloo was also calculated
(1 ,469,400 kg/wk, or approximately
1 ,469 tonnes/wk
or 76,388 tonnes/year).
9-5
JfiBlE 8
Act ivi ty
m EX^TVPLE OF ESTIMMES OF ŒM/Bï:IAL
W^STE GBSB^TIOvJ
IN A IVU^ICIPALITY
Nurber
of
Brployees
(1990)
V\èste Générât ion
SECTION 10
EVALUATION OF METHOD
10.0
EVALUATION OF METHOD
10.1
Timing of the Waterloo Study
It must be realized that the management of waste
is dynamic and as such future
waste
composition
studies
should
make
use
of
additional
information
and
circumstances which may develop with time.
The Waterloo Study
did
not attempt
to
quantify the amount
of
materials
being
diverted from a company's waste stream; the waste composition, therefore, does not
include those
materials which were
being
diverted
(if any) through any
outside
agencies.
Because of the scope of the work,
it was not possible to design a waste sampling
program that would permit the collection of a sufficient number of samples so that
statistical analyses could
be applied
to the waste composition data.
It must be
pointed out that the Waterloo Study was a prerequisite study; the level of variance
between the estimated and actual waste composition
is not known.
More field work
must now be done
in other
municipalities to augment the data contained
in the
Waterloo Study.
10.2
Graphical Presentation of Waste Generation Versus Employment-
Potential Method to Evaluate Company Waste Management Performance ?
Graphs
of
the Waterloo Study
data
for waste
generated by
businesses,
versus
employment displayed the variance of "waste management performance" that had
been encountered
in the sample of businesses.
In theory, the waste generated by
businesses should be closely correlated with employment and the data should tend
to
fall about an imaginary
linear projection
line.
If there are data that are greatly
removed
from
the
linear tendency
of the
majority
of
the sample
points,
those
businesses
may
be
targeted
for
investigation
with
respect
to
their
waste
management practices.
For example, a business with exceptional waste minimization
efforts will show up as a data point that
is well below the general linear grouping of
10-1
businesses;
a business with poor waste management policies will show up as a data
point that
lies well above the linear grouping of businesses.
Therefore, municipalities are advised to plot the employment/waste generation ratios
in
order to
"get
a
feel"
for
practical problems
that they can address
in
specific
companies.
A simple average of employee waste generation rates would suffice
if
rates, alone, were important.
While the per employee waste generation rates are simply taken as the values of 'b'
(slope), one may legitimately modify these rates, based on the number of employees
in
a given
firm.
In other words, one may divide the value for
'a'
(kg/day) by the
number of employees
in a firm and add this quotient
(in units of kg/employee/day)
to the value of
'b'.
As employment increases, the impact of the
'a' (employment)
on the value of 'b'
will decrease.
No company-specific adjustments were made to
waste generation estimates because we were interested only in an average estimate,
representative of the SIC group as a whole,
i.e., the value of
'b' alone.
10.3
Usefulness of Landfill Data
in Estimating Commercial Refuse Quantity
Generally,
there
are three systems
for
the
collection
of waste from commercial
sources and delivery to
landfill sites:
(1) residential garbage trucks
(2) front end
(or
over-head) packer trucks and (3) "dedicated loads" from large supermarkets and large
malls.
Residential
garbage trucks
frequently make
collections from commercial
businesses as part of their daily routing through a municipality. The load
is weighed
at the scalehouse and the weight
is normally recorded as "residential". The fraction
of the waste collected from commercial businesses cannot be accurately determined
under these circumstances.
Haulers using front end packer trucks frequently make between 25 and 50 refuse
collections from customers before proceeding to a waste facility. A typical collection
route for one of these trucks may include stops at: schools, senior citizen's homes,
commercial
businesses,
industries,
hospitals,
condominiums,
apartment
houses,
malls, etc.
It
is apparent that no matter what category
is chosen to designate the
"source" of the waste, when the load
is weighed at a disposal
facility, the choice
10-2
will not reflect the heterogeneity of the waste
in the truck.
It
is normal for these
loads to be recorded as either "commercial" or "industrial".
Given the nature of the waste delivery systems from generator to transfer station or
landfill site, most of the scalehouse data do not give a reliable picture of commercial
and
industrial
waste
generation,
and
to
use
that
data
in
estimating
waste
composition would be misleading.
Yet, scalehouse "records" are the basis for the
widely held generalization that residential waste
is "40%" of the total waste stream
and commercial and industrial waste accounts for "60%".
There
is good reason to
doubt the accuracy of this or any other percentages that rely on scalehouse weight
data.
The
method
that we
have
developed
in
the
present
study
will
enable
municipalities
to
make
a
reasonable
estimate
of
the
waste
generated
by
the
commercial
business
sector.
The method
described
in Volume
I
of the Waste
Composition Study can be used to estimate the residential waste stream.
10.4
Verification of the Employee Waste Generation Estimates
In the absence of an
alternative method to directly estimate the employee waste
generation
rates,
one
must
defer
to
a
comparison
of
the
data
with
published
literature values.
Such a comparison
is given
in Table 9.
The following verification method
is suggested
in future studies.
Using small "strip
malls", estimate the total waste generation rate for each business, using the SIC per
employee waste generation
rate estimates
(from
this study) and the employment
figure for each business.
Compare the estimated sum of waste generated for the
entire sample mall with the actual weight of waste produced by the mall.
10.5
" Light Industry
"
The Standard
Industrial Classification system uses the term "industry" throughout
(e.g.,
"Retail Trade Industries"), but no categorical distinction or definition
is given
to the term "light", with respect to any kind of industry.
Commercial businesses are
10-3
TABLB
9
COMPARISON OP PER EMPIX>TEE WASTE GENERATION RATES:
RHYNER £ GREEN
(REP.
14) AND PRESENT STUDT^
SIC"
Description
Rhyner
&
also called industries, so one cannot look to the SIC code to assist
in distinguishing
"light" industry from "heavy" industry.
Semantic arguments and clear problems of nomenclature aside, an arbitrary decision
was made to call the shoe manufacturing industry (SIC 17) and the printing industry
(SIC 28)
"light industry".
No special methods were applied to the data gathering
procedures for these businesses and therefore the data are considered tentative. This
study describes sampling procedures for commercial activities that closely serve the
residential sector.
Longer term sampling procedures are needed to assess industrial
waste stream characteristics.
10-4
SECTION 11
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER REFINEMENT
11.0
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER REFINEMENT
The methods employed
in the commercial portion of the Ontario Waste Composition
Study
have been demonstrated on
a
selection
of commercial
businesses
in
the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
Within the commercial sectors in the Region there
is
a
relatively
high awareness
of waste
diversion options that
will reduce waste
disposal
costs
and
encourage
recycling.
Therefore, we
cautiously
regard
the
qualitative and quantitative data presented
in the Waterloo Study as a best estimate
under constantly changing circumstances.
The Waterloo Study has developed a procedure for estimating the amount of waste
generated by commercial activities within Ontario urban areas and began with the
process of integrating the complex data inputs required.
What are the next steps?
The
Waterloo
Study
has
employed
a
two-stage
estimation
process:
(1)
the
development of ratios of waste generation per employee; and
(2) the estimation of
commercial employment composition
for the
municipality as
a whole.
Each step
poses different problems.
The following recommendations are submitted for further
refinement of the methodology:
1.
The waste
generation and composition
data
base
will
require many more
samples than what were taken
in the Waterloo Study in order to cover the full
range
of commercial
activities.
No one study
will
have
the
resources
to
undertake a complete evaluation; the research results must be accumulated
over many studies and evaluated over time.
Fortunately, there
is no inherent
reason that a business
in any part of the province cannot be used to estimate
waste generated elsewhere-unless
local waste management
policies
differ
significantly.
This means that each study should use the same SIC identification to code
commercial activity and the same methodology for measuring waste output
and composition.
A central agency
(e.g., the Ministry of Environment) may
have to take the responsibility for organizing and evaluating the data.
11-1
2.
It will also be necessary to monitor any changes over time in waste generation
that may reflect innovations in policy, technology or corporate behaviour. The
date of each sample must be retained and/or
it may be necessary to identify
sample locations that can be restudied over time
in order to minimize sampling
error.
3.
To better understand the effect of recycling behaviour on the data gathered,
it is recommended that employees/management of participating firms be asked
to describe the nature and extent of any source separation recycling activities.
4.
The immediate priorities for sampling can be identified from the results of this
study. Those commercial activities that employ large numbers of people must
be
further
investigated
in
order
to
improve
sample
size
and
reveal
any
significant variation within the SIC groups;
this
includes the diverse set of
office and financial activities.
Conversely, those activities with a high rate of
waste generation per employee, such as food stores and restaurants, must be
sampled
repeatedly
because
of
their
importance
to
the
overall
waste
generation.
Those
sectors where the observed sample variance
(standard
deviation)
is high require larger samples to improve overall accuracy, possibly
by isolating subgroups within the SIC.
Activities that generate policy-relevant
waste materials should be given special attention.
5.
The
future development
of employment
estimates
requires two
divergent
approaches.
First,
substantial
savings
may
result
from
a
centralized
standardized
analysis
of employment
that
applies
the same
set
of
data,
techniques and projections to
all urban areas-much as the Ontario Statistical
Centre has developed a common set of population forecasts.
At
the
same
time,
municipalities
have
better
information
about
local
peculiarities and exceptions to the employment structure. These special cases,
e.g., community colleges, tourist attractions, shopping concentrations, as well
as manufacturing activities, may require special attention by a
local agency.
11-2
During the course of the Waterloo Study,
insights were noted regarding the
effectiveness
of waste management practices of some firms.
For example,
for automotive repair businesses,
it appears that employee's tend to use the
general refuse bin for discarding metal waste materials, despite the fact that
a scrap metal bin has been made available.
Such insights, when communicated to the management of the firm provide an
immediate
opportunity
to
help
that
firm
improve
the
efficiency
of
their
recycling efforts.
There was also an indication
in the Waterloo Study that differences exist
in
per employee waste
generation
rates
in
small grocery stores and
in
larger
supermarkets.
The
demonstrated
method
for
estimating
the
rate
of
employee
waste
generation
has
the
potential
to
be
used
as
a waste management
tool
by
municipalities.
The
distribution
of the
daily waste
generation
rates versus
employment data, exhibited
in the graphs for each SIC sector, could enable
municipal waste management personnel to
prioritize their "remedial" waste
reduction efforts by planning to visit those companies whose waste generation
rates seem out of line with the general waste-to-employee relationship.
11-3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Gore & Storrie Limited wish to acknowledge the assistance provided by the Regional
Municipality
of
Waterloo
for
the
commercial
portion
of
the
Ontario
Waste
Composition Study.
Mr. Dick Buggein of the Region co-ordinated the field work and
wrote significant portions of the text.
The concept for the
field study was developed following the advice of Dr.
Virginia
Maclaren
that
led
to
extensive discussions
with
Dr. Jim Simmons
(both
faculty
members in the Geography Department, University of Toronto). Dr. Simmons worked
with the Canada Census employment information and accessed other employment
data bases
in
order to develop
a
picture
of employment
in the
retail commercial
businesses
in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
Dr. Simmons also assisted
in
evaluating
the
field
data
and
writing
portions
of
the
text.
The
project
clearly
benefitted from Dr. Simmons' many crucial contributions.
The
field
crew:
David Fox
(Gore &
Storrie
Limited),
Richard Stevenson and
Lisa
Morgan
(both from the
Region
of Waterloo) were
responsible
for contacting
the
companies, organizing an often complicated waste collection schedule and sorting
the
waste.
They
were
a
dedicated
crew
and
their
efforts
are
gratefully
acknowledged.
A considerable portion of the field work was conducted with the participation of Big
Bear Services, Waterloo, Ontario, and the cooperation of Messrs. Bob Knarr, Gary
Bell and Bruce Storrer.
Report preparation assistance was provided by David
Fox, Brock Harrington, Rob
Flindall, Debra Hayes and
Chris Taylor of Gore &
Storrie
Limited,
with
additional
support from Adam Buggein and Barbara St.
Hill.
The
Project Managers
for Gore &
Storrie
Limited were
Les
MacMillan and
Jeff
Flewelling.
We gratefully acknowledge the strong ongoing support and assistance of Messrs.
Neal
Ahlberg,
Brendan
Killackey and Dan
lonescu. Waste Management
Branch,
Ministry of the Environment.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
1. AMS
(1973)
Applied
Management
Sciences
Inc.
The
private
sector
in
solid
waste
management;
a
profile
of
its
resources
and
contribution
to
collection
and
disposal.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Publication
SW
-
51d.1
,
U.
S. Government
Printing
Office, Washington,
D.C.
(Cited
by Rhyner &
Green,
1988).
2.
Bird
&
Hale.
1978.
Municipal
Refuse
Statistics
for
Canadian
Communities
of
over
100,000
(1976-1977).
37
pp.
(EPS
File
No.
4672-1).
3. DeGeare,
T.
V. &
J.
E.
Ongerth.
1971.
Empirical
analysis
of commercial
solid
waste generation.
Jour. Sanitary Engineering
Division.
Proc. Amer. Soc.
Civil
Engineering. 97(SA
6): 843
-
850.
4.
Evans.
B.
W.
1985.
How
garbage
analysis
can
reduce
collection
costs.
Biocvcle
.
March: 30
-
33.
5.
Franke,
B.
1987.
Comparing
solid
waste management
options:
a case
study.
Unpublished
manuscript.
Institute
for
Energy
and
Environmental
Research.
Takoma
Park, MD 20912.
15 pp
+
6
figures.
6.
Freund,
John
E.
1984.
Modern
elementary
Statistics.
6th
Edition.
Prentice-Hall,
Englewood
Cliffs,
N.J.
xii
+
561
pp.
7. Golueke,
C.
G.
1971.
Comprehensive studies
of
solid waste management,
third
annual
report.
NTIS
Report
PB
213
576,
National
Technical
Information
Service,
U.
S. Department
of Commerce, Washington,
D.
C.
(Cited by Rhyner
& Green,
1988).
8.
Jones,
K.
&
J.
Simmons.
1987.
Location,
Location,
Location.
Methuen
Publications,
Agincourt,
Ontario.
Canada,
xix
+
438
pp.
9.
Liblit,
E.
R.
1990.
Commercial
recycling
in
Babylon, New
York: how
the
other
half
operates.
Resource
Recycling
9(11):
48-52.
10.
Louisville.
1970.
(Cited
by
Peter
Middleton &
Associates
but
not referenced
in
their
report).
11.
Peter
Middleton
&
Associates
Limited.
1975.
Composition
and
guantity:
a
critical
evaluation
of
existing
data.
A
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Management
Study
by
the
Pollution
Probe
Foundation.
86
pp.
12.
Proctor &
Redfern
Ltd.
1972.
Hamilton-Wentworth Waste Management
Study.
First and Second
Interim Report , May and October.
(Cited
by
Peter
Middleton
&
Associates).
1
13.
Proctor &
Redfern
Ltd.
1975.
(Cited
by
Peter
Middleton
&
Associates
but
not
referenced
in
their
report).
14.
Rhyner,
C.
R.
&
B.
D.
Green.
1988.
The
predictive
accuracy
of
published
solid
waste
generation
factors.
Waste Management
&
Research
6:
329
-
338.
Smith,
F.
A.
1975.
A
solid waste estimation procedure:
materials flows
approach.
Environmental Protection Publication SW
-
147,
U.
S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.
(Cited
by
Rhyner &
Green,
1988).
15.
Statistics Canada.
1980.
Standard
Industrial
Classification.
Ottawa
16.
Statistics
Canada.
1985.
Seasonal
Variation
in
the
Canadian
Economy:
Retail
Trade.
Categories
16-502.
17.
Vesilind,
P.
A. &
A.
E.
Rimer.
1981.
Unit
Operations
in
Resource Recovery
Engineering
.
Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood
Cliffs,
N.
J.
x
+
452
pp.
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A
Results of an Empirical Analysis of Commercial Solid Waste Generation Undertaken
bv T.V. DeGeare and
J.
E. Onoerth (1971)
(ref.
3)
«00
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ABS
Acrylonitrile
butadiene
styrene;
a
dense
plastic
found
in
computer housings, telephone casings,
pipe.
accuracy
In
a
statistical
sense,
the term
gives an
indication
of
the
closeness of the results, estimates, etc. to the "true"
value.
commercial wastes
correlation
of
determination
Discarded materials generated by commercial businesses as
a result of normal activities
in the workplace.
A numerical measure specifying the proportion of variation
in
Y,
the
dependent
variable,
that
is
explained
by
the
regression line;
i.e., by Y's relationship with the independent
variable.
dependent variable
ferrous
The variable we are trying to predict
in regression analysis.
A metal object containing elemental
iron, giving a
'positive'
or attractive response to a magnet (Note: other ferromagnetic
materials such as nickel would also give a positive response).
mean
The mean or arithmetic mean of a set of values
is the sum of
the values divided by their number; average.
MSW
Municipal
solid
waste,
usually
defined
as
the
sum
of
residential
and
commercial
solid
wastes,
and
excluding
industrial wastes.
non-ferrous
A metal object which does not give a 'positive' or attractive
response
to
a
magnet,
e.g.,
brass,
lead,
aluminum,
etc.
(Note: other ferromagnetic materials such as nickel are non-
ferrous but would give positive response to a magnet).
occ
PET
Old corrugated
containers; variously
called,
old corrugated
cardboard.
Polyethylene terephthalate; the
plastic used to manufacture
the common 2
litre pop bottles.
polyolefin
precision
in
the
sense
used
here,
a
grouping
of
chemically
related
plastics whose chemical building blocks are either ethylene or
propylene.
in
a
statistical
sense,
the term
gives an
indication
of the
repeatability of a series of observations, estimates, etc.
The
Standard
Error
is one
kind
of estimate
of the
precision
or
repeatability or "tightness" of the grouping of the observations
(=data).
putrescible
A material which
is biodegradable; usually a term reserved for
animal or vegetable matter.
PVC
Polyvinyl chloride; a
plastic containing chlorine; well known
as siding, plastic window sashes and frames, pipe and a few
rigid containers.
random number table
regression
regression
line
These tables (which are found
in many statistical textbooks)
consist of blocks of numbers that meet certain properties of
"randomness", including that numbers in the range
to 9 are
equally likely to occur; and that the numbers are not serially
ordered
in any way.
Starting at any point on the Table, the
user moves
systematically
through
the
Table
taking
the
required number of digits.
The general process of predicting one variable from another
by statistical means.
A line fitted to a set of data points to estimate the relationship
between two variables,
ie.
line of best
fit.
residential waste
scatter diagram
slope
Discarded materials generated by individuals in the course of
their daily activities at their place of residence;
in this case,
exclusive of yard wastes and leaves.
A graph of points on a grid; the X- and Y-coordinates of each
point correspond to the two measurements made on some
particular sample element, and the pattern of points illustrates
the relationship between the two variables.
A constant
for any given
straight
line, the value of which
represents how much each
unit change of the independent
variable changes the dependent variable.
standard deviation
A
measure
of
the
variation
or
difference
of
sample
measurements from the mean of
all measurements taken.
standard error
A measure of how much sample means can be expected to
fluctuate (±) from the true mean due to chance.
tare weight
Y-intercept
The weight of an empty container.
A constant for any given straight line, whose value represents
the predicted value of the Y-variable when the X-variable has
a value of 0.
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
OPERATIONS IMPROVEMENT
ADVISORY SERVICES
Blue␣Box␣
Program␣
Enhancement␣
and␣Best␣
Practices␣
Assessment␣
Project␣
Final␣Report␣␣
Volume␣I␣-␣July␣31,␣2007
2
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Draft Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Table␣of␣Contents␣
EXECUTIVE␣SUMMARY␣
2
INTRODUCTION␣
4
Project␣Overview␣
4
APPROACH␣AND␣METHODOLOGY␣
6
Team␣Structure␣
6
Project␣Approach␣
7
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Visits␣
9
Documentation␣
11
Analysis␣and␣Assessment␣
12
Secondary␣Research␣
12
BEST␣PRACTICES␣DEFINITION␣AND␣ASSESSMENT␣CRITERIA␣
15
Definition␣of␣Best␣Practices␣
15
Best␣Practices␣Attributes␣
15
KEY␣OBSERVATIONS␣
16
Use␣of␣E&E␣Factor␣as␣a␣Performance␣Measure␣
16
Program␣Diversity␣
17
Challenges␣of␣Comparability␣
19
Factors␣Contributing␣to␣Good␣and␣Poor␣Performance␣
20
Other␣Observations␣
24
BEST␣PRACTICES␣FOR␣ONTARIO␣BLUE␣BOX␣PROGRAMS␣
25
Introduction␣to␣Best␣Practices␣
25
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣
26
Development␣and␣Implementation␣of␣an␣Up-to-date␣Plan␣for␣Recycling,␣as␣Part␣of␣an␣Integrated␣
Waste␣Management␣System␣
28
Multi-Municipal␣Planning␣Approach␣to␣Collection␣and␣Processing␣Recyclables␣
33
Establishing␣Defined␣Performance␣Measures,␣Including␣Diversion␣Targets,␣Monitoring,␣and␣a␣
Continuous␣Improvement␣Program␣
37
Optimization␣of␣Operations␣in␣Collections␣and␣Processing␣
41
Training␣of␣Key␣Program␣Staff␣in␣Core␣Competencies␣
44
Following␣Generally␣Accepted␣Principles␣for␣Effective␣Procurement␣and␣Contract␣Management␣49
Appropriately␣Planned,␣Designed,␣and␣Funded␣Promotion␣and␣Education␣Program␣
56
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Established␣and␣Enforced␣Policies␣that␣Induce␣Waste␣Diversion␣
63
Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣
69
Best␣Practice␣Spotlights␣
69
Best␣Practices␣in␣Curbside␣Collection␣
70
Best␣Practices␣in␣Processing␣of␣Recyclable␣Materials␣
77
Successful␣Marketing␣Strategy␣for␣Processed␣Recyclables␣
88
Best␣Practices␣in␣Multi-Family␣Recycling␣
96
Best␣Practices␣in␣the␣Use␣of␣Recycling␣Depots␣
107
Best␣Practices␣in␣Collection␣and␣Processing␣of␣Challenging␣Plastics␣
113
Other␣Practices␣Meriting␣Consideration␣
126
DECISION␣TREE␣FOR␣CONDITIONAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣
132
Overview␣of␣Decision␣Tree␣
132
Decision␣Tree␣Structure␣
133
Small␣Rural␣Southern␣Blue␣Box␣Program␣
137
Small␣Suburban␣Southern␣Blue␣Box␣Program␣
143
Small␣Urban␣Southern␣Blue␣Box␣Program␣
149
Medium␣Rural␣Southern␣Blue␣Box␣Program␣
154
Medium␣Suburban␣Southern␣Blue␣Box␣Program␣
159
Medium␣Urban␣Southern␣Blue␣Box␣Program␣
164
Large␣Suburban␣Southern␣Blue␣Box␣Program␣
169
Large␣Urban␣Southern␣Blue␣Box␣Program␣
175
Small␣Rural␣Northern␣Blue␣Box␣Program␣
181
Small␣Suburban␣Northern␣Blue␣Box␣Program␣
187
Small␣Urban␣Northern␣Blue␣Box␣Program␣
192
Medium␣Suburban␣Northern␣Blue␣Box␣Program␣
197
DIFFUSION␣OF␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣
203
Next␣Steps␣for␣Best␣Practice␣Diffusion␣
203
E&E␣Fund␣Options␣for␣Diffusing␣Best␣Practices␣
206
APPENDIX␣A:␣VISITED␣MUNICIPAL␣PROGRAMS␣
210
APPENDIX␣B:␣TABLE␣OF␣CONTENTS␣OF␣A␣SAMPLE␣PROGRAM␣REPORT␣
211
␣
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Use␣of␣This␣Report
This␣report␣is␣intended␣solely␣for␣the␣use␣of␣the␣MIPC␣Steering␣Committee␣of␣the␣
Recycling␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Project␣(2006/2007)␣and␣Ontario␣
municipalities␣with␣respect␣to␣this␣specific␣matter␣and␣is␣not␣intended␣for␣other␣
general␣use,␣circulation␣or␣publication.␣␣Neither␣KPMG␣LLP,␣its␣affiliates,␣employees␣
of␣advisors␣assume␣any␣responsibility␣or␣liability␣for␣any␣claims,␣costs,␣damages,␣
losses,␣liabilities␣or␣expenses␣incurred␣by␣anyone␣as␣a␣result␣of␣the␣circulation,␣
publication,␣reproduction,␣use␣of␣or␣reliance␣upon␣our␣report␣contrary␣to␣the␣
provisions␣of␣this␣paragraph.␣␣The␣comments␣in␣this␣report␣are␣not␣intended,␣nor␣
should␣they␣be␣interpreted␣to␣be,␣legal␣advice␣or␣opinion.␣
As␣with␣any␣planning␣assignment,␣the␣role␣of␣this␣document␣is␣to␣estimate␣future␣
events␣based␣on␣information␣available␣and/or␣provided␣to␣us␣at␣the␣time␣of␣our␣report,␣
primarily␣interview␣results,␣field␣observations,␣consultation␣with␣industry␣
representatives␣and␣available␣published␣information.␣␣There␣are,␣however,␣a␣number␣
of␣uncontrollable␣political,␣social␣and␣internal␣factors␣that␣may␣affect␣the␣findings␣
outlined␣in␣this␣document.␣␣As␣a␣result,␣this␣document␣should␣be␣viewed␣in␣the␣
context␣of␣being␣an␣estimate␣based␣on␣information,␣which␣may␣or␣may␣not␣be␣
influenced␣by␣unforeseen␣or␣uncontrollable␣events.␣␣We␣caution␣the␣reader␣that␣the␣
ultimate␣success␣any␣Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣initiatives␣can␣vary␣
significantly␣from␣the␣projections␣outlined␣in␣this␣report␣due␣to␣economic␣or␣
regulatory␣changes,␣cost␣escalations,␣decisions␣of␣communities,␣the␣emergence␣of␣
new␣competitors,␣changes␣in␣government␣funding␣programs␣and/or␣priorities,␣or␣the␣
inability␣of␣the␣program␣improvement␣process␣to␣achieve␣certain␣key␣milestones.␣
␣
2
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Executive␣Summary␣
In␣September␣2006,␣the␣Municipal-Industry␣Programs␣Committee␣(MIPC)␣of␣Waste␣
Diversion␣Ontario␣(WDO)␣directed␣a␣KPMG-led␣consortium␣to␣identify␣Best␣Practices␣
in␣Ontario␣municipal␣Blue␣Box␣recycling␣and␣to␣determine␣2006␣Net␣System␣Cost␣
under␣Best␣Practices.␣␣Identification␣of␣opportunities␣for␣improvement␣among␣a␣
number␣of␣recycling␣programs␣was␣also␣sought␣by␣MIPC.␣
The␣Project␣Team␣was␣comprised␣of␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣recognized␣Canadian␣advisory␣
services␣firm,␣R.␣W.␣Beck␣Inc.,␣a␣leading␣US-based␣recycling␣and␣solid␣waste␣
management␣consulting␣organization,␣and␣Entec␣Consulting␣Ltd.,␣a␣local␣recycling␣
services␣consultancy;␣municipal␣and␣industry␣secondees␣augmented␣the␣consulting␣
team.␣␣
Working␣collaboratively,␣the␣Team␣developed␣a␣project␣definition␣of␣Best␣Practices␣in␣
the␣context␣of␣Ontario␣Blue␣Box␣recycling.␣␣Best␣Practices␣were␣defined␣as␣waste
system practices that affect Blue Box recycling programs and that result in the
attainment of provincial and municipal Blue Box material diversion goals in the
most cost-effective way possible.␣␣
In␣order␣to␣glean␣Best␣Practices␣and␣identify␣opportunities␣for␣improvement␣among␣
the␣province's␣recycling␣programs,␣detailed␣questionnaires␣were␣completed␣by␣
program␣staff␣and␣the␣Project␣Team␣then␣conducted␣site␣visits␣at␣32␣Ontario␣
municipal␣recycling␣programs.␣␣Programs␣were␣selected␣on␣the␣basis␣of␣cost␣and␣
recovery␣performance,␣size,␣geography,␣program␣type,␣and␣contract␣structure.␣
On␣site␣visits,␣team␣members␣interviewed␣key␣program␣staff,␣observed␣collection␣
routes,␣and␣toured␣transfer␣stations␣and␣processing␣facilities.␣␣Interviews␣and␣visit␣
observations␣were␣thoroughly␣documented␣and␣shared␣across␣the␣team␣using␣web-
based␣collaboration␣tools.␣␣Over␣1,000␣photographs␣and␣videos␣were␣collected␣as␣part␣
of␣the␣field␣evidence.␣␣␣Site␣visits␣were␣augmented␣by␣secondary␣research␣of␣Best␣
Practices␣from␣Canadian␣and␣International␣sources.␣␣Previous␣Best␣Practice␣studies␣
by␣Ontario␣provincial,␣municipal,␣and␣industry␣entities␣were␣also␣leveraged.␣␣
Information␣gathered␣from␣site␣visits␣and␣industry␣research␣was␣subsequently␣used␣
to␣formulate␣Best␣Practices,␣analyze␣issues␣and␣barriers,␣and␣identify␣opportunities␣
for␣improvement.␣␣
Following␣a␣significant␣analytical␣exercise␣and␣a␣consensus␣building␣process␣among␣
the␣team␣members,␣preliminary␣Best␣Practices␣were␣identified.␣␣A␣fact-based␣
approach,␣rooted␣in␣site␣visit␣evidence,␣expert␣contributions,␣and␣statistical␣analysis,␣
was␣used␣to␣finalize␣a␣set␣of␣Best␣Practices␣for␣municipal␣Blue␣Box␣programs.␣␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣-␣Best␣Practices␣as␣defined␣above␣that␣apply␣to␣all␣
Ontario␣programs␣-␣are␣presented␣below:␣
Development␣and␣implementation␣of␣an␣up-to-date␣plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣an␣
integrated␣Waste␣Management␣system␣
Project Team visited 32 programs to
understand causes of good and poor
performance and to glean Best
Practices.
Best Practices needed to be
measurable, comparable,
transferable, and replicable.
Best Practices also needed to result in
minimized unit cost, while
maintaining or improving diversion,
and producing net positive effects,
related to cost and diversion.
Programs were observed to have a
wide variety of attributes. They varied
in geography, size, household
density, maturity, governance,
demographics, and materials
accepted in the Blue Box, among
other factors.
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣3
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣to␣collection␣and␣processing␣of␣recyclables␣␣
Establishing␣defined␣performance␣measures,␣including␣diversion␣targets,␣
monitoring␣and␣a␣continuous␣improvement␣program␣
Optimization␣of␣operations␣in␣collections␣and␣processing␣␣
Training␣of␣key␣program␣staff␣in␣core␣competencies␣␣
Following␣generally␣accepted␣principles␣for␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣
management␣
Appropriately␣planned,␣designed,␣and␣funded␣Promotion␣and␣Education␣program␣
Established␣and␣enforced␣policies␣that␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣␣
A␣set␣of␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlights␣-␣descriptions␣of␣leading␣practices␣in␣specific␣
program␣components␣-␣was␣developed␣to␣help␣recycling␣coordinators␣address␣
commonly␣encountered␣challenges␣and␣issues.␣␣These␣program␣areas␣include:␣
Multi-Family␣Recycling␣
Recycling␣of␣Challenging␣Plastic␣Materials␣
Curbside␣Collection␣of␣Materials␣
Depot␣Collection␣of␣Materials␣
Processing␣of␣Materials␣␣
Marketing␣of␣Materials␣
Conditional␣Best␣Practices,␣which␣apply␣only␣to␣programs␣with␣specific␣characteristics␣
and␣under␣certain␣conditions,␣were␣delineated␣for␣specific␣program␣types␣using␣a␣
Decision␣Tree␣approach.␣␣␣The␣Decision␣Tree␣takes␣into␣consideration␣three␣main␣
factors␣in␣program␣variability:␣geography,␣size,␣and␣density.␣␣␣Based␣on␣the␣
combination␣of␣these␣three␣factors,␣12␣program␣types␣were␣identified.␣Conditional␣
Best␣Practices,␣along␣with␣other␣helpful␣guidance,␣are␣detailed␣in␣Program␣Profile␣
documents,␣customized␣for␣each␣program␣type.␣␣
Individualized␣reports␣on␣opportunities␣for␣improvement␣were␣developed␣for␣23␣of␣
the␣visited␣municipalities.␣␣These␣customized␣reports␣contain␣an␣overview␣of␣the␣
current␣state,␣the␣future␣state␣under␣Best␣Practices,␣and␣provide␣specific␣action␣items␣
to␣be␣implemented␣by␣the␣municipality␣to␣improve␣the␣performance␣of␣its␣Blue␣Box␣
program.␣␣These␣documents␣were␣distributed␣directly␣to␣the␣respective␣municipalities,␣
and␣are␣not␣included␣in␣this␣report.␣␣Reports␣to␣communities␣that␣have␣agreed␣to␣
make␣them␣public␣can␣be␣found␣on␣the␣WDO␣website.␣
In␣addition␣to␣identifying␣Best␣Practice␣activities␣in␣municipal␣recycling,␣the␣Project␣
Team␣developed␣an␣estimate␣of␣2006␣Blue␣Box␣Program␣Net␣System␣Costs␣under␣
Best␣Practices␣for␣the␣purposes␣of␣setting␣2008␣Stewards'␣fees.␣␣This␣cost␣estimate␣
ranges␣from␣$134.1M␣to␣$144.9M,␣depending␣on␣the␣method␣of␣calculation.␣
Volume␣I␣of␣this␣document␣provides␣information␣related␣to␣Best␣Practice␣activities.␣
Volume␣II␣provides␣information␣on␣the␣cost␣model␣and␣determination␣of␣2006␣Net␣
System␣Cost␣under␣Best␣Practices.␣␣␣
Decision Tree Factors
The basis for geographic delineation is
the Blue Box Program Plan legislation,
which defines physical boundaries of
Northern and Southern parts of the
province.
Program size is defined by the annual
Blue Box material tonnes marketed by
the program.
Household density is defined by the
number of households per kilometre
of road in served by the program.
4
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Introduction␣
The Ontario Blue Box Recycling Program Effectiveness
and Best Practices Assessment Project is driven by the
need to identify Best Practices in municipal recycling
and determine the 2006 Net System Cost under Best
Practices.
Project␣Overview␣
Key Drivers
In␣September␣2006,␣the␣Municipal-Industry␣Program␣Committee␣(MIPC)␣of␣Waste␣
Diversion␣Ontario␣(WDO)␣engaged␣KPMG␣and␣its␣associates␣to␣review␣current␣
practices␣across␣a␣number␣of␣Ontario␣municipal␣recycling␣programs,␣identify␣and␣
document␣Best␣Practices,␣formulate␣opportunities␣for␣implementing␣and␣diffusing␣
Best␣Practices,␣and␣quantify␣the␣effects␣of␣province-wide␣Best␣Practice␣adoption.␣␣
The␣key␣drivers␣for␣this␣project␣are␣as␣follows:␣
The␣Minister␣of␣the␣Environment␣has␣determined␣that␣Stewards'␣obligation␣will␣be␣
confined␣to␣50%␣of␣Best␣Practice␣system␣costs␣by␣2008␣
Stewards'␣fees␣for␣2008␣are␣to␣be␣based␣on␣2006␣Net␣System␣Cost␣under␣Best␣
Practices␣
There␣is␣lack␣of␣understanding␣and␣consensus␣among␣stakeholders␣on␣what␣
constitutes␣Best␣Practices␣in␣municipal␣recycling␣
Municipalities␣are␣seeking␣guidance␣on␣how␣to␣employ␣Best␣Practices␣in␣order␣to␣
increase␣diversion␣and␣lower␣program␣costs␣
Project Objectives and Expected Outcomes
To␣address␣the␣Minister's␣direction␣and␣help␣municipalities␣to␣implement␣Best␣
Practices,␣MIPC␣defined␣several␣key␣project␣objectives.␣␣Two␣primary␣objectives␣are␣
as␣follows:␣
To␣identify␣Ontario␣Blue␣Box␣Recycling␣Program␣Best␣Practice␣activities,␣
opportunities,␣and␣associated␣costs␣
To␣determine␣the␣2006␣Ontario␣Net␣System␣Cost␣under␣Best␣Practices␣for␣the␣
purpose␣of␣defining␣Stewards'␣contributions␣
A␣secondary␣objective,␣aimed␣at␣diffusing␣project␣deliverables␣and␣implementing␣Best␣
Practices␣is:␣
To␣identify␣and␣assess␣options␣for␣the␣use␣of␣the␣Effectiveness␣and␣Efficiency␣
(E&E)␣Fund␣in␣promoting␣the␣adoption␣of␣Best␣Practices␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣5
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
The␣attainment␣of␣these␣objectives␣relates␣directly␣to␣expected␣outcomes␣for␣the␣
project.␣␣MIPC's␣expectations␣for␣project␣outcomes␣are␣as␣follows:␣
List␣of␣Best␣Practice␣activities␣
Individual␣plans␣on␣how␣to␣adopt␣Best␣Practices␣for␣selected␣participant␣
municipalities␣
Total␣2006␣Net␣System␣Cost␣under␣Best␣Practices␣for␣the␣purpose␣of␣setting␣of␣
2008␣Steward␣Fees␣
Options␣for␣the␣use␣of␣the␣E&E␣Fund␣to␣promote␣Best␣Practice␣diffusion␣
Success Criteria
In␣order␣to␣define␣what␣constitutes␣success␣for␣this␣project,␣KPMG␣interviewed␣
several␣MIPC␣members␣and␣received␣feedback␣on␣their␣vision␣for␣a␣successful␣
outcome.␣␣While␣a␣number␣of␣factors␣were␣articulated,␣the␣main␣criteria␣for␣success␣
were␣documented␣as␣follows:␣
Consensus␣is␣reached␣on␣Best␣Practice␣Net␣System␣Cost␣figure␣for␣2006␣
Deliverables␣are␣developed␣in␣a␣transparent,␣inclusive,␣collaborative␣manner␣
Recommendations␣made␣by␣the␣KPMG␣Team␣are␣accepted␣by␣MIPC␣
Recommendations␣institutionalize␣a␣continuous␣improvement␣approach␣within␣
municipalities␣
MIPC,␣as␣the␣Steering␣Committee␣for␣the␣project,␣is␣the␣governing␣body␣that␣decides␣
whether␣the␣above␣criteria␣have␣been␣met␣and␣the␣project␣deemed␣to␣be␣successful.␣␣
Upon␣being␣accepted␣and␣signed␣off␣by␣MIPC,␣project␣deliverables␣are␣to␣be␣
presented␣to␣the␣WDO␣Board,␣Stewardship␣Ontario␣Board,␣and␣Association␣of␣
Municipalities␣of␣Ontario␣(AMO)␣Board.␣
␣
␣
6
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Approach␣and␣Methodology␣
To effectively execute this engagement, the Project
Team employed a rigorous, fact-based, collaborative
approach in gathering and analyzing data, engaging
stakeholders, and producing project deliverables.
Team␣Structure␣
Consortium of KPMG, R.W. Beck, and Entec
Project␣scope␣and␣objectives␣required␣a␣multifaceted␣consulting␣team,␣with␣the␣ability␣
to␣bring␣experience␣in␣identifying␣best␣management␣practices,␣adopting␣leading␣
recycling␣processes,␣and␣leveraging␣the␣knowledge␣of␣Ontario␣Blue␣Box␣programs.␣␣A␣
consortium␣of␣firms␣was␣established␣that␣included␣KPMG,␣R.W.␣Beck,␣and␣Entec␣
Consulting.␣
KPMG␣team␣members␣are␣professionals␣in␣the␣firm's␣large␣and␣rapidly-growing␣
Advisory␣Services␣practice,␣focusing␣mainly␣on␣business␣improvement␣and␣strategic␣
cost␣management.␣␣They␣have␣worked␣across␣the␣broader␣public␣sector,␣and␣in␣a␣
diverse␣range␣of␣industries,␣including␣financial␣services,␣manufacturing,␣healthcare,␣
and␣retail.␣␣On␣previous␣projects␣they␣have␣helped␣organizations␣to␣reduce␣operational␣
costs,␣streamline␣processes,␣determine␣strategic␣direction,␣manage␣change,␣and␣
review␣or␣implement␣new␣programs␣or␣services.␣
R.W.␣Beck␣professionals␣have␣completed␣major␣strategic␣planning␣and␣recycling␣
policy␣and␣program␣development␣projects␣for␣multiple␣US␣municipalities,␣state␣
governments␣and␣the␣US␣EPA,␣as␣well␣as␣trade␣associations␣representing␣nearly␣all␣of␣
the␣major␣recycling␣commodities.␣␣Additionally,␣R.␣W.␣Beck␣has␣collaborated␣with␣
numerous␣Fortune␣500␣companies,␣including␣Wal-Mart,␣Weyerhaeuser,␣Dow␣
Chemical,␣Coca␣Cola␣and␣Procter␣&␣Gamble,␣to␣develop␣corporate␣sustainability␣and␣
recycling␣program␣initiatives.␣
Entec's␣main␣principal␣has␣been␣actively␣involved␣in␣providing␣consulting␣services␣to␣
Ontario␣municipalities␣for␣over␣30␣years.␣During␣that␣time,␣he␣has␣worked␣both␣
directly␣with␣individual␣municipal␣clients,␣as␣well␣as␣indirectly␣through␣clients␣such␣as␣
OMMRI,␣CSR,␣WDO␣and␣more␣recently␣Stewardship␣Ontario,␣on␣a␣wide␣variety␣of␣
solid␣waste␣system␣design␣and␣evaluation␣projects␣for␣collection␣systems,␣MRFs,␣and␣
transfer␣stations.␣He␣has␣also␣worked␣on␣a␣number␣of␣International␣recycling␣and␣
solid␣waste␣projects.␣␣
A␣number␣of␣industry␣and␣functional␣advisors␣were␣relied␣on␣at␣key␣points␣in␣the␣
project␣to␣bring␣subject␣matter␣expertise␣and␣analyze,␣validate,␣and␣review␣the␣
Team's␣findings.␣␣Specifically,␣guidance␣was␣provided␣in␣the␣following␣areas:␣
KPMG LLP is the Canadian member
firm of KPMG International, the
coordinating entity for a global network
of professional services firms that aim
to turn knowledge into value for the
benefit of their clients, people and the
capital markets.
With nearly 94,000 people worldwide,
and more than 3,500 people in 35
offices across Canada, KPMG provides
a range of management advisory, audit
and tax services.
R.W. Beck Inc. is an employee-owned
corporation, founded in 1942, with 25
offices in the US and project experience
in over 50 countries.
With a portfolio of more than 500
recycling studies in the United State
and abroad, R.W. Beck is widely
regarded as the leading recycling
consulting firm in the United States.
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣7
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Cost␣management␣
Statistical␣analysis␣
Industry␣insight␣
Emerging␣and␣existing␣recycling␣technologies␣
Promotion␣and␣advertising␣
Procurement␣and␣supply␣chain␣management␣
Stakeholder␣engagement␣␣
Change␣management␣
Municipal and Steward Secondees
To␣augment␣the␣consulting␣team␣and␣bring␣first-hand␣knowledge␣of␣Ontario␣recycling␣
programs,␣nine␣municipal␣and␣steward␣employees␣were␣deployed␣to␣this␣project␣on␣a␣
secondment␣basis.␣Municipal␣secondees␣represented␣large,␣small␣and␣mid␣sized␣
programs␣across␣the␣province.␣␣Steward␣representatives␣had␣extensive␣municipal␣
recycling␣work␣experience␣and␣specialized␣expertise␣relevant␣to␣the␣project.␣␣
Collectively,␣the␣secondees'␣␣expertise␣and␣experience␣spanned␣virtually␣all␣elements␣
of␣a␣recycling␣program,␣including:␣
Program␣coordination␣and␣management␣
Promotion␣and␣education␣
Policy␣development␣
Procurement␣and␣contract␣management␣
Collections␣
Processing␣
Marketing␣
␣
Project␣Approach␣
KPMG Methodology
On␣this␣project␣The␣KPMG␣Team␣employed␣a␣robust␣Project␣Management␣
methodology␣that␣has␣been␣used␣effectively␣on␣numerous␣previous␣large␣scale␣
assignments.␣This␣methodology␣enabled␣the␣Project␣Team␣to␣meet␣the␣objectives␣of␣
the␣engagement␣and␣complete␣the␣project␣in␣the␣allotted␣timeframe.␣␣
To␣develop␣the␣project␣work␣plan,␣the␣Team␣leveraged␣KPMG's␣Business␣
Transformation␣Methodology,␣which␣is␣designed␣to␣help␣organizations␣transition␣from␣
current␣state␣to␣a␣desired␣future␣state.␣␣All␣project␣phases,␣activities,␣and␣tasks␣were␣
aligned␣along␣the␣main␣components␣of␣this␣methodology,␣as␣depicted␣below:␣
Start Up
Insight
Design
Implement
Sustain
Start Up
Insight
Design
Implement
Sustain
8
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Collaboration
All␣major␣deliverables␣produced␣in␣this␣project␣were␣developed␣through␣a␣
collaborative␣and␣iterative␣process␣that␣involved␣consultants,␣secondees,␣and␣key␣
stakeholders.␣␣By␣employing␣communication␣and␣workflow␣tools,␣all␣members␣of␣the␣
Team␣were␣able␣to␣write,␣revise,␣review,␣and/or␣comment␣on␣work␣products␣at␣
various␣stages␣of␣their␣completion.␣␣To␣communicate,␣share␣documents,␣schedule␣
events,␣and␣store␣data,␣the␣Team␣used␣KClient␣-␣a␣proprietary␣web-based␣project␣
management␣and␣collaboration␣tool.␣␣␣␣
Weekly␣team␣meetings␣contributed␣to␣heightened␣levels␣of␣engagement,␣awareness,␣
participation,␣and␣responsibility␣by␣all␣members␣of␣the␣Team.␣␣␣
Program␣site␣visits␣and␣interviews␣were␣conducted␣jointly␣by␣consultants␣and␣
secondees,␣with␣at␣least␣one␣member␣of␣KPMG␣or␣R.␣W.␣Beck␣participating␣in␣each␣
visit.␣␣
Stakeholder Involvement
To␣understand␣and␣incorporate␣perspectives␣of␣various␣stakeholders␣affected␣by␣this␣
project,␣the␣Team␣developed␣and␣executed␣a␣Stakeholder␣Engagement␣Plan.␣␣Key␣
stakeholders␣of␣this␣project␣were␣identified␣as:␣
MIPC␣
Stewardship␣Ontario␣
Municipal␣programs␣and␣their␣representatives␣
WDO␣
Ministry␣of␣the␣Environment␣
Private␣sector␣service␣companies␣␣
Municipal␣leaders␣in␣recycling␣
Secondees␣
Regular␣meetings␣with␣MIPC␣were␣held␣to␣report␣on␣project␣progress,␣make␣
decisions␣in␣the␣direction␣of␣the␣work,␣and␣review␣and␣comment␣on␣interim␣and␣final␣
deliverables.␣␣Also,␣a␣MIPC-appointed␣Project␣Coordinator␣liaised␣with␣the␣team␣on␣a␣
regular␣basis.␣␣Furthermore,␣all␣MIPC␣members␣were␣interviewed␣individually␣as␣part␣
of␣the␣initial␣stakeholder␣engagement␣strategy.␣␣
Stewardship␣Ontario␣was␣involved␣in␣providing␣insight␣into␣current␣industry␣issues␣
and␣opportunities,␣conveying␣International␣leading␣practices,␣obtaining␣program␣data,␣
and␣coordinating␣the␣secondment␣of␣municipal␣and␣steward␣resources.␣␣Also,␣several␣
presentations␣were␣made␣to␣the␣Stewardship␣Ontario␣Projects␣Committee.␣␣
Individual␣interviews␣were␣also␣conducted␣with␣selected␣steward␣representatives.␣␣
Municipal␣programs␣coordinators␣and␣staff␣were␣involved␣in␣site␣visit␣interviews␣and␣
facility␣tours.␣They␣were␣also␣primary␣reviewers␣and␣recipients␣of␣individual␣program␣
reports␣on␣opportunities␣for␣improvement.␣␣Presentations␣on␣project␣work␣scope␣and␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣9
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
progress␣were␣made␣to␣municipal␣entities,␣such␣as␣AMO,␣Association␣of␣Municipal␣
Recycling␣Coordinators␣(AMRC),␣and␣at␣the␣Ontario␣Recyclers'␣Workshop␣(ORW).␣␣
Individual␣interviews␣on␣project␣expectations␣and␣desired␣outcomes␣were␣conducted␣
with␣members␣of␣the␣WDO␣Cost␣Effectiveness␣Committee␣and␣with␣senior␣
personnel␣within␣the␣Ontario␣Ministry␣of␣Environment.␣␣␣␣
To␣gain␣insights␣and␣seek␣answers␣to␣specific␣technical␣questions,␣interviews␣were␣
conducted␣with␣selected␣recycling␣equipment␣manufacturers,␣private␣operators,␣and␣
recycling␣industry␣consultants.␣␣␣␣
Workshops␣focusing␣on␣project␣expectations,␣interim␣deliverables,␣and␣input␣for␣
implementation␣of␣work␣products␣were␣held␣with␣representatives␣of␣large␣and␣
influential␣Ontario␣municipal␣recycling␣programs.␣
Municipal␣and␣steward␣secondees␣were␣integrated␣into␣the␣Project␣Team␣and␣
worked␣jointly␣with␣consultants␣on␣all␣major␣work␣products.␣Professional␣
development␣training␣sessions␣were␣held␣at␣regular␣intervals␣to␣enhance␣skills␣in␣the␣
areas␣of␣teamwork,␣project␣planning,␣meeting␣effectiveness,␣and␣negotiations,␣
among␣others.␣␣
␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Visits␣
Program Selection Process
In␣order␣to␣glean␣Best␣Practices␣and␣identify␣opportunities␣for␣improvement␣among␣
province's␣recycling␣programs,␣the␣Project␣Team␣conducted␣site␣visits␣of␣several␣
Ontario␣municipalities.␣␣
Selection␣of␣municipalities␣to␣be␣visited␣was␣based␣on␣the␣following␣Project␣Charter␣
criteria:␣
Eight␣to␣ten␣programs␣regarded␣as␣high␣performing,␣based␣on␣having␣low␣
Effectiveness␣and␣Efficiency␣(E&E)␣ratios,␣were␣to␣be␣visited␣for␣the␣purpose␣of␣
identifying␣Best␣Practices␣and␣determining␣factors␣that␣lead␣to␣high␣performance.␣
(The␣definition␣and␣components␣of␣the␣E&E␣ratio␣are␣discussed␣in␣the␣"Key␣
Observations"␣section␣of␣this␣report.)␣
Twenty␣to␣thirty␣programs,␣believed␣to␣be␣moderately␣to␣poorly␣performing,␣
(having␣high␣E&E␣ratios),␣were␣to␣be␣visited␣for␣the␣purpose␣of␣identifying␣
opportunities␣for␣improvement␣and␣determining␣factors␣that␣lead␣to␣moderate␣or␣
poor␣performance.␣␣Best␣Practices␣and␣factors␣that␣lead␣to␣high␣performance␣
were␣also␣to␣be␣observed␣and␣documented␣within␣these␣programs.␣
Largest␣programs,␣as␣measured␣by␣tonnage␣of␣marketed␣materials␣were␣to␣be␣
visited␣due␣to␣the␣potential␣magnitude␣of␣impact␣on␣cost␣and␣tonnage␣of␣diverted␣
materials.␣␣␣
Within␣these,␣to␣be␣selected␣were:␣five␣to␣ten␣programs␣with␣contracts␣expiring␣in␣
the␣next␣24␣months,␣five␣to␣ten␣programs␣expiring␣after␣24␣months,␣and␣five␣to␣ten␣
10 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
municipally-operated␣programs.␣In␣order␣to␣identify␣individual␣communities␣that␣fall␣
within␣the␣parameters␣of␣the␣Project␣Charter␣criteria,␣additional␣selection␣criteria␣were␣
developed.␣These␣criteria,␣aimed␣at␣maximizing␣the␣value␣of␣the␣project,␣are␣as␣
follows:␣
Municipal␣Groupings␣(clusters␣of␣programs,␣based␣on␣size,␣density,␣geography,␣and␣
collection␣type)␣-␣within␣municipal␣groupings,␣at␣least␣one␣high␣performing␣
program␣and␣one␣or␣more␣moderate␣to␣poor␣performing␣programs␣were␣to␣be␣
selected.␣␣In␣depot␣collection␣groups,␣only␣the␣high␣performing␣programs␣were␣to␣
be␣selected␣
Geography␣-␣while␣representation␣of␣geography␣is␣facilitated␣by␣the␣Municipal␣
Groupings␣criterion,␣the␣final␣sample␣of␣programs␣was␣to␣contain␣a␣mix␣of␣
Southern␣and␣Northern␣municipalities␣to␣ensure␣balanced␣representation␣
Transferable␣-␣the␣aim␣of␣Best␣Practice␣analysis␣was␣to␣identify␣those␣practices␣
and␣circumstances␣that␣can␣duplicated␣across␣a␣large␣number␣of␣communities␣
Clustered␣programs␣-␣programs␣were␣to␣be␣selected␣that␣are␣located␣close␣to␣each␣
other,␣thereby␣presenting␣opportunities␣for␣project␣efficiency␣and␣the␣potential␣to␣
identify␣multi-municipal␣cooperation␣structures␣
Learning␣value␣-␣programs␣that␣are␣known␣in␣the␣industry␣to␣exhibit␣leading␣
practices␣were␣to␣be␣considered␣
Programs␣meeting␣the␣above␣criteria␣were␣invited␣to␣participate␣in␣this␣study.␣Upon␣
receipt␣of␣the␣responses,␣a␣list␣of␣32␣programs␣to␣be␣visited␣was␣finalized␣and␣
approved␣by␣MIPC.␣␣The␣list␣of␣participating␣municipalities␣is␣presented␣in␣Appendix␣A.␣
Nine␣of␣these␣municipalities␣were␣selected␣as␣well␣performing␣programs␣as␣
measured␣by␣the␣E&E␣factor,␣while␣23␣were␣selected␣as␣poorer␣performing␣programs␣
as␣measured␣by␣the␣␣E&E␣factor.␣␣Individual␣program␣reports␣on␣opportunities␣for␣
improvement␣were␣to␣be␣developed␣and␣distributed␣only␣to␣the␣latter␣set␣of␣
municipalities.␣␣Due␣to␣the␣program-specific␣information␣outlined␣in␣the␣community␣
reports␣and␣the␣confidentiality␣agreement␣between␣the␣Project␣Team␣and␣
municipalities,␣these␣work␣products␣are␣not␣presented␣as␣part␣of␣this␣final␣report.␣␣A␣
table␣of␣contents␣for␣a␣sample␣program␣is␣presented␣in␣Appendix␣B.␣␣Reports␣for␣
communities␣that␣have␣agreed␣to␣make␣them␣public␣will␣be␣posted␣on␣the␣WDO␣
website.␣
Questionnaire Development
In␣order␣to␣obtain␣reliable␣and␣comprehensive␣information␣from␣visited␣programs,␣a␣
consistent␣and␣repeatable␣process␣of␣gathering␣data␣was␣required.␣The␣Project␣Team␣
worked␣collaboratively␣to␣define␣the␣objectives␣of␣the␣site␣visit,␣assess␣the␣means␣of␣
facilitating␣the␣interview,␣and␣determine␣the␣options␣for␣site␣visit␣documentation.␣␣
A␣significant␣element␣of␣the␣interview␣protocol␣was␣the␣administration␣of␣a␣
questionnaire␣to␣learn␣details␣about␣each␣program.␣␣The␣questionnaire␣was␣developed␣
through␣an␣iterative␣process␣involving␣the␣consulting␣team,␣secondees,␣and␣MIPC␣
members.␣␣Stakeholder␣suggestions␣and␣amendments␣were␣integrated␣into␣the␣
questionnaire␣to␣ensure␣that␣information␣on␣key␣aspects␣of␣the␣program␣was␣
The site visit questionnaire was
designed to gather information on
numerous program areas, including:
general program management,
promotion and education, collection,
processing marketing, tendering and
contracts, and monitoring and
evaluation.
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣11
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
captured.␣The␣final␣questionnaire␣contained␣121␣questions␣split␣into␣two␣sections:␣
pre-visit␣and␣site-visit.␣
The␣resulting␣questionnaire␣was␣used␣as␣an␣interview␣guide␣that␣enabled␣the␣Team␣to␣
ask␣the␣same␣set␣of␣questions␣in␣each␣community,␣leading␣to␣greater␣comparability␣
and␣consistency␣of␣documented␣program␣information.␣
Site Visits
Members␣of␣the␣Project␣Team␣visited␣32␣Ontario␣municipal␣recycling␣programs␣to␣
glean␣Best␣Practices␣and␣identify␣opportunities␣for␣improvement.␣␣For␣smaller␣
programs,␣a␣site␣visit␣lasted␣one␣day.␣␣For␣larger␣programs,␣time␣spent␣on␣site␣
typically␣consisted␣of␣two␣to␣three␣days␣to␣gather␣program␣data␣and␣information.␣A␣
typical␣visit␣consisted␣of␣an␣interview␣with␣key␣program␣staff,␣observations␣of␣a␣
collection␣route,␣and␣a␣tour␣of␣a␣processing␣facility␣and/or␣a␣depot/transfer␣station.␣␣␣
The␣interview␣was␣usually␣conducted␣with␣the␣program␣coordinator;␣in␣larger␣
programs,␣specialized␣staff␣were␣also␣present␣to␣answer␣questions␣on␣specific␣
questionnaire␣topics.␣␣Promotional␣materials␣used␣by␣the␣program␣were␣collected␣for␣
further␣study␣and␣analysis.␣␣
Tours␣were␣usually␣facilitated␣by␣a␣municipal␣staff␣member␣or␣a␣contractor␣
representative.␣␣Collection␣vehicles,␣curbside␣set␣outs,␣depot␣areas,␣and␣loading␣
processes,␣were␣photographed␣or␣videotaped.␣Where␣allowed␣by␣the␣
contractor/municipality,␣processing␣facilities␣were␣also␣photographed␣or␣videotaped.␣␣
Over␣1,000␣photographs␣and␣videos␣were␣collected␣as␣part␣of␣the␣field␣evidence.␣␣
Information␣gathered␣from␣site␣visits␣was␣subsequently␣used␣to␣define␣Best␣
Practices,␣analyze␣issues␣and␣barriers,␣and␣formulate␣opportunities␣for␣improvement.␣␣
␣
Documentation␣
Use of KClient
To␣facilitate␣capturing,␣storing,␣and␣sharing␣of␣information,␣the␣Team␣utilized␣KClient␣
as␣a␣dynamic␣document␣and␣record␣repository.␣␣A␣mix␣of␣databases,␣shared␣
directories,␣and␣calendars␣was␣used.␣
All␣pertinent␣documents␣that␣were␣identified␣and␣reviewed␣as␣part␣of␣the␣primary␣and␣
secondary␣research␣were␣filed␣in␣KClient.␣All␣site␣visit␣information,␣including␣
completed␣questionnaires,␣background␣reports,␣WDO␣audits,␣photographs␣and␣
videos,␣electronic␣versions␣of␣promotional␣materials,␣and␣other␣relevant␣program␣
documents␣were␣stored␣on␣KClient␣for␣team␣access␣and␣review.␣␣
All␣quantitative␣and␣qualitative␣analyses␣conducted␣on␣available␣and␣acquired␣data␣
were␣stored␣on␣KClient␣for␣Team␣access␣and␣review.␣All␣interim␣and␣final␣deliverables,␣
including␣Project␣Charter,␣presentations␣to␣stakeholders,␣and␣status␣reports␣were␣
filed␣on␣KClient␣for␣full␣access␣by␣the␣Team.␣
12 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Collectively,␣these␣supporting␣documents␣act␣as␣a␣foundation␣of␣the␣fact-based␣
analysis␣conducted␣by␣the␣Team.␣␣They␣comprise␣a␣set␣of␣working␣papers␣that␣can␣be␣
used␣to␣trace␣the␣source,␣rationale,␣and␣basis␣for␣the␣Team's␣findings.␣␣Due␣to␣its␣
importance␣to␣project's␣final␣results,␣all␣electronic␣documentation␣from␣KClient␣has␣
been␣made␣available␣to␣MIPC␣to␣support␣the␣information␣contained␣in␣this␣report.␣␣
␣
Analysis␣and␣Assessment␣␣
Range of Analytical Tools
A␣combination␣of␣quantitative␣and␣qualitative␣analyses␣was␣used␣to␣support␣or␣reject␣
hypotheses,␣validate␣findings,␣and␣confirm␣our␣recommendations.␣Quantitatively,␣the␣
following␣methods␣were␣used:␣
Regression␣analysis␣
Correlation␣analysis␣
Frequency␣distribution␣analysis␣
Mean␣and␣median␣calculations␣
The␣Team␣also␣relied␣on␣an␣evidence␣framework␣in␣analyzing␣qualitative␣elements␣of␣
programs␣and␣identifying␣Best␣Practices.␣␣This␣framework␣included␣considerations␣of␣
the␣following:␣
Best␣Practices␣definition␣and␣criteria,␣agreed␣to␣by␣MIPC␣
Site␣visit␣evidence␣
Best␣Practice␣reports␣on␣other␣communities␣and␣jurisdictions␣
Industry␣expert␣opinion␣and␣other␣previous␣Best␣Practices␣studies␣(AMRC,␣Ontario␣
Waste␣Management␣Association,␣Ontario␣Centre␣for␣Municipal␣Best␣Practices,␣
R.W.␣Beck␣studies,␣and␣other␣data␣sources)␣
Further␣details␣on␣the␣methodology␣utilized␣are␣provided␣in␣the␣following␣sections␣
describing␣specific␣project␣work␣steps.␣
␣
Secondary␣Research␣
Document Research and Review
Members␣of␣the␣Best␣Practices␣Project␣Team␣performed␣a␣search␣and␣review␣of␣
literature,␣available␣in␣print␣and␣on␣line,␣related␣to␣residential␣recycling␣practices.␣␣
Team␣members␣were␣asked␣to␣research␣information␣on␣assigned␣topics,␣so␣they␣
could␣become␣team␣"experts"␣in␣their␣assigned␣topic␣areas␣on␣behalf␣of␣the␣Team␣as␣
a␣whole.␣␣These␣individuals␣were␣later␣called␣upon␣to␣do␣subsequent␣project␣tasks␣
related␣to␣their␣areas␣of␣expertise␣and␣to␣serve␣as␣technical␣resources␣to␣other␣team␣
members␣as␣needed.␣␣␣
Regression analysis examines the
relation of a dependent variable
(response variable) to specified
independent variables (predictors). In
this project it was used to determine
how and to what degree a change in
process/activity/practice has the ability
to influence program performance.
Correlation indicates the strength and
direction of a linear relationship
between two random variables. In this
project it was used to determine factors
that correlate to good and poor
performance by programs.
Frequency distribution is an
assessment of values that a variable
takes in a given sample. In this project it
was used to assess the probability of a
performance outcome based on a
change in one or more parameters.
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣13
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
The␣literature␣that␣was␣reviewed␣encompassed␣over␣100␣documents,␣available␣from␣
numerous␣Ontario,␣Canadian,␣and␣international␣sources.␣␣Local␣research␣sources␣
included:␣
Stewardship␣Ontario␣and␣the␣Stewardship␣Ontario␣Knowledge␣Network␣
Waste␣Diversion␣Ontario␣
AMO␣
AMRC␣
Federation␣of␣Canadian␣Municipalities␣
Ontario␣Center␣for␣Municipal␣Best␣Practices␣
Selected␣Ontario␣local␣government␣websites␣
Other␣Canada␣province␣websites,␣including␣Nova␣Scotia␣and␣New␣Brunswick␣
Selected␣recycling␣industry␣trade␣associations␣
Municipal␣programs␣
Documents␣and␣information␣from␣Project␣Team␣member␣files␣and␣reference␣
libraries␣␣
International␣Best␣Practices␣research␣focused␣on␣leading␣global␣recycling␣jurisdictions,␣
including␣the␣following:␣
U.S.␣Environmental␣Protection␣Agency␣
Selected␣U.S.␣states,␣including␣Minnesota,␣California,␣Pennsylvania,␣New␣York,␣
and␣Massachusetts␣
Selected␣U.S␣cities␣and␣counties,␣including␣Alameda␣County,␣CA;␣Kansas␣City,␣MO;␣
New␣York␣City,␣NY␣
The␣United␣Kingdom␣
Australia␣
Sweden␣
Japan␣
Scotland␣
Germany␣
Many␣of␣the␣reviewed␣documents␣or␣their␣associated␣web␣links␣were␣uploaded␣to␣
KClient␣so␣they␣could␣be␣accessed␣by␣the␣Team␣for␣reference␣throughout␣the␣project.␣␣
To␣aid␣other␣team␣members␣in␣accessing␣information␣pertinent␣to␣their␣work,␣
significant␣documents␣were␣catalogued␣in␣the␣Team's␣Documents␣Review␣Database␣
on␣KClient,␣with␣notations␣made␣regarding␣topics␣covered,␣key␣insights,␣and␣
relevance.␣␣
Other Research
In␣addition␣to␣reviewing␣recycling␣industry␣literature␣and␣reference␣materials,␣
information␣on␣specific␣topics␣was␣also␣obtained␣through␣e-mail␣communications␣and␣
interviews␣with␣selected␣recycling␣professionals␣and␣industry␣experts.␣␣Among␣these␣
14 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
were␣processing␣equipment␣manufacturers,␣MRF␣operators,␣trade␣association␣
technical␣staff,␣and␣recycling␣program␣managers␣in␣Canada,␣the␣US,␣and␣abroad.␣␣␣For␣
the␣most␣part,␣such␣communications␣served␣to␣validate␣Project␣Team␣assumptions␣
regarding␣Best␣Practices␣or␣to␣obtain␣specific␣information␣(e.g.,␣leading␣International␣
Best␣Practices␣information)␣not␣available␣through␣other␣sources.␣␣␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣15
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Best␣Practices␣Definition␣and␣
Assessment␣Criteria␣
A definition and assessment criteria for Best Practices
allow for determination of what constitutes a Best
Practice and provides direction on how to differentiate
practices that are "Good" from those that are "Best"
Definition␣of␣Best␣Practices␣
The␣Project␣Team␣worked␣collaboratively␣to␣determine␣a␣working␣definition␣of␣the␣
term␣"Best␣Practice",␣as␣it␣applies␣to␣the␣recycling␣industry.␣␣Team␣members'␣
proposals␣and␣suggestions␣were␣evaluated␣based␣on␣the␣need␣to␣maintain␣a␣balance␣
of␣municipalities'␣and␣stewards'␣objectives,␣respect␣municipal␣autonomy,␣adhere␣to␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Plan␣guidelines,␣and␣to␣be␣clear␣and␣easy␣to␣understand.␣␣␣
As␣an␣outcome␣of␣this␣process,␣the␣following␣definition␣was␣formulated␣and␣approved␣
by␣MIPC:␣
"Best Practices are defined as waste system practices that affect Blue Box
recycling programs and that result in the attainment of provincial and
municipal Blue Box material diversion goals in the most cost-effective way
possible"
Best␣Practices␣Attributes␣
To␣help␣identify␣and␣qualify␣observed␣practices␣as␣"Best␣Practices",␣the␣Team␣
developed␣a␣set␣of␣criteria␣and␣attributes␣that␣further␣augment␣the␣formulated␣
definition.␣Thus,␣Best␣Practices␣in␣municipal␣Blue␣Box␣recycling␣are:␣
Measurable␣
Comparable␣
Transferable␣
Replicable␣
Result␣in␣minimized␣unit␣cost,␣while␣maintaining␣or␣improving␣diversion␣␣
Result␣in␣net␣positive␣effect,␣as␣it␣relates␣to␣cost␣and␣diversion␣
Temporal␣in␣nature␣-␣continuous␣improvement␣and␣evolution␣of␣technology␣will␣
yield␣new␣Best␣Practices␣
Best␣Practices␣are␣not␣confined␣to␣any␣specific␣area␣of␣the␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣They␣
could␣be␣operational,␣promotional,␣administrative,␣or␣legislative.␣
16 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Key␣Observations␣
Team's observations from site visits, research, and
analysis are presented in this section. Collectively, they
serve as a foundation for project findings and
recommendations.
Use␣of␣E&E␣Factor␣as␣a␣Performance␣Measure␣
E&E Factor Definition
The␣Effectiveness␣and␣Efficiency␣Factor␣(E&E␣Factor)␣was␣developed␣as␣part␣of␣the␣
WDO␣Cost␣Containment␣plan␣requested␣by␣the␣Minister␣of␣the␣Environment,␣and␣
takes␣into␣consideration␣two␣fundamental␣program␣metrics␣-␣recovery␣rate␣and␣net␣
cost␣per␣tonne.␣␣It␣is␣derived␣by␣dividing␣net␣cost␣per␣tonne␣by␣the␣recovery␣rate␣
percentage␣for␣a␣given␣program.␣Lower␣E&E␣Factor␣figures␣are␣meant␣to␣convey␣
better␣performance,␣as␣programs␣strive␣to␣minimize␣unit␣costs␣(numerator)␣and␣
maximize␣recovery␣rates␣(denominator).␣
Net␣cost␣per␣tonne␣is␣determined␣by␣deducting␣program␣revenues␣from␣gross␣
program␣costs␣and␣dividing␣the␣resulting␣net␣program␣cost␣by␣the␣tonnage␣of␣
materials␣marketed.␣
The␣recovery␣rate␣portion␣of␣the␣Factor,␣measured␣in␣percent,␣conveys␣the␣
relationship␣between␣kilograms␣per␣household␣per␣year␣recovered␣and␣kilograms␣per␣
household␣per␣year␣available␣for␣a␣given␣community.␣␣The␣available␣kilograms␣are␣
assigned␣to␣a␣program␣based␣on␣a␣number␣of␣factors,␣chief␣of␣which␣is␣extrapolation␣
of␣results␣of␣material␣audits␣across␣the␣province.␣␣
Observations on the use of the E&E Factor
The␣Factor␣serves␣as␣a␣good␣overall␣metric␣to␣assess␣program␣performance␣at␣a␣high␣
level.␣␣Programs␣with␣low␣unit␣costs␣and␣high␣recovery␣rates␣do␣demonstrate␣better␣
E&E␣Factor␣numbers␣than␣those␣with␣high␣unit␣costs␣and␣poor␣recovery␣rates.␣
However,␣there␣are␣a␣number␣of␣inherent␣issues␣with␣the␣E&E␣Factor.␣␣
First,␣as␣municipal␣program␣operators␣have␣pointed␣out,␣the␣recovery␣rate␣percentage␣
is␣a␣calculated␣number,␣based␣on␣the␣availability␣of␣recyclable␣materials␣assigned␣by␣
WDO.␣␣If␣the␣availability␣of␣materials␣does␣not␣accurately␣represent␣a␣community's␣
retailing␣landscape,␣demographic␣profile,␣or␣residents'␣purchasing␣patterns,␣the␣
recovery␣rate␣figures␣will␣be␣skewed.␣␣␣
Second,␣the␣net␣cost␣per␣tonne␣does␣not␣adequately␣allocate␣program␣capital␣costs␣to␣
current␣tonnes␣if␣the␣employed␣capital␣is␣fully␣depreciated.␣␣Therefore,␣if␣a␣program␣
with␣an␣older,␣amortized␣MRF␣opts␣to␣replace␣it␣with␣a␣new␣facility,␣its␣net␣cost␣will␣
most␣likely␣rise,␣and␣so␣will␣the␣E&E␣Factor.␣␣In␣this␣situation,␣program␣performance␣
Examples of feedback received on
the use of the E&E ratio:
"...it has some merit when used with
proper data and in context."
" ...(a) performance measure is a good
idea and (E&E Ratio) ties two key
performance factors together -
costs/tonne and recovery - to give a
quick comparative snapshot."
"...the recovery rate is an artificial
number based upon extrapolation of a
study."
"... (E&E Ratio) works well for (a
program in which) MRF is fully
amortized."
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣17
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
may␣not␣have␣changed␣(or␣may␣have␣even␣improved),␣while␣the␣E&E␣Factor␣would␣
indicate␣lower␣levels␣of␣performance.␣␣Thus,␣as␣an␣observation,␣programs␣with␣fully␣
amortized␣MRFs␣tend␣to␣exhibit␣lower␣E&E␣Factor␣metrics.␣␣
Third,␣the␣Factor␣is␣designed␣to␣assign␣equal␣importance␣to␣unit␣costs␣and␣recovery␣
levels.␣This␣may␣not␣account␣for␣the␣differences␣in␣municipal␣goals␣and␣perspectives,␣
as␣some␣municipalities␣place␣priority␣on␣maximizing␣diversion␣and␣are␣prepared␣to␣
incur␣higher␣costs␣because␣of␣it,␣while␣others␣may␣pursue␣opposite␣objectives.␣␣Thus,␣
from␣a␣municipal␣point␣of␣view,␣if␣a␣program␣is␣recovering␣80%␣of␣recyclables␣at␣
$160/tonne,␣it␣may␣be␣considered␣to␣perform␣significantly␣better␣than␣a␣program␣that␣
recovers␣50%␣of␣recyclables␣at␣$100/tonne␣(both␣programs␣would␣have␣the␣same␣
E&E␣Factor␣of␣2).␣␣␣
Finally,␣the␣Factor␣tends␣to␣penalize␣municipalities␣with␣recently␣introduced␣programs␣
and␣reward␣communities␣with␣established,␣mature␣programs.␣␣Newer␣programs␣tend␣
to␣exhibit␣higher␣costs␣and␣lower␣recovery␣levels␣due␣to␣start␣up␣activities␣and␣low␣
initial␣resident␣participation␣rates.␣There␣is␣a␣dual␣effect␣on␣the␣E&E␣Factor:␣low␣
tonnages␣of␣recyclables␣recovered␣significantly␣reduce␣the␣calculated␣recovery␣rate,␣
and␣fixed␣and␣variable␣program␣costs␣are␣spread␣out␣over␣a␣smaller␣number␣of␣tonnes,␣
leading␣to␣higher␣unit␣costs.␣␣Consequently,␣programs␣within␣the␣same␣municipal␣
group␣(similar␣size,␣geography,␣collection␣method)␣will␣exhibit␣different␣E&E␣Factors␣
due␣to␣variance␣in␣their␣maturity.␣␣
As␣a␣result␣of␣these␣shortcomings,␣the␣use␣of␣the␣E&E␣Factor␣alone␣to␣evaluate␣
program␣performance␣may␣not␣be␣optimal,␣as␣perceived␣by␣municipal␣program␣
coordinators␣and␣operators.␣␣It␣is␣important␣to␣understand␣other␣factors␣in␣assessing␣a␣
program's␣performance.␣
␣
Program␣Diversity␣
The␣challenge␣of␣identifying␣Best␣Practices␣becomes␣more␣difficult␣when␣one␣
considers␣the␣sheer␣variety␣of␣municipal␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣that␣exist␣in␣Ontario.␣␣
While␣some␣of␣the␣differences␣are␣captured␣by␣the␣use␣of␣Municipal␣Groupings,␣
which␣aim␣to␣categorize␣programs␣based␣on␣size,␣geography,␣density,␣and␣collection␣
process,␣other␣variations␣that␣appear␣to␣have␣significant␣program␣implications␣still␣
exist.␣␣␣
One␣of␣the␣major␣differences␣among␣programs␣is␣size,␣as␣measured␣by␣population␣
and␣tonnage.␣␣Larger␣cities␣and␣municipalities,␣even␣within␣municipal␣groups,␣tend␣to␣
generate␣greater␣economies␣of␣scale.␣␣They␣have␣more␣staff␣dedicated␣to␣waste␣
management␣and␣recycling.␣␣Their␣fixed␣costs␣are␣distributed␣over␣a␣larger␣number␣of␣
tonnes␣and/or␣households,␣thereby␣reducing␣unit␣costs.␣␣Larger␣cities␣also␣tend␣to␣
have␣more␣pressing␣landfill␣issues,␣leading␣to␣increased␣emphasis␣on␣recycling.␣␣
Geography␣is␣an␣important␣differentiator␣of␣programs.␣␣Northern␣Ontario␣
municipalities␣tend␣to␣deal␣with␣issues␣that␣are␣not␣prevalent␣in␣the␣southern␣parts␣of␣
the␣province.␣␣These␣include␣distance␣to␣markets␣and␣equipment␣suppliers,␣lack␣of␣
Examples of feedback received on
the use of the E&E ratio (cont):
"...It appears to try to consider too
much, and if you slightly fall outside
different steps, your program is
considered ineffective."
"...it does not take into account that
programs are in different developmental
stages."
18 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
competition,␣lack␣of␣diversion␣drivers␣(greater␣landfill␣capacities),␣large␣distances␣
between␣programs,␣weather␣complexities,␣and␣conflict␣with␣the␣natural␣resource-
based␣economy␣of␣the␣North,␣among␣others.␣␣Southern␣Ontario␣municipalities␣exhibit␣
differences␣in␣their␣proximity␣to␣the␣Golden␣Horseshoe␣region␣(and␣the␣associated␣
markets,␣equipment␣suppliers,␣and␣contractors),␣proximity␣to␣highways,␣topography,␣
seasonal␣and␣transient␣population,␣and␣labour␣availability.␣␣
Household␣density␣is␣an␣essential␣component␣of␣program␣design␣and␣operation,␣and␣
even␣within␣municipal␣groupings,␣it␣varies␣substantially.␣␣Moreover,␣some␣
municipalities␣have␣uniform␣distribution␣of␣households,␣while␣others␣have␣pockets␣of␣
density,␣requiring␣different␣collection␣methods.␣␣The␣percentage␣of␣multi-family␣
households,␣which␣is␣a␣function␣of␣household␣density,␣also␣varies␣across␣programs,␣
adding␣further␣complexity␣to␣program␣operations.␣␣
Program␣maturity␣varies␣significantly␣among␣municipalities␣in␣the␣same␣group.␣␣
Recently␣established␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣tend␣operate␣in␣an␣investment␣mode,␣which␣␣
requires␣substantial␣emphasis␣and␣effort␣on␣optimizing␣program␣components␣and␣
increasing␣residents'␣participation␣and␣recovery␣rates.␣␣Mature␣programs␣tend␣to␣
concentrate␣on␣maintaining␣or␣tweaking␣existing␣processes,␣seeking␣to␣gain␣
incremental␣improvements␣in␣costs␣or␣recovery␣rates.␣␣The␣Project␣Team␣visited␣
communities␣with␣Blue␣Box␣history␣ranging␣from␣three␣years␣to␣several␣decades.␣␣
A␣variety␣of␣governance␣structures␣was␣also␣observed␣in␣site␣visits.␣In␣some␣
municipalities,␣decisions␣on␣all␣strategic,␣tactical,␣and␣operational␣issues␣need␣to␣be␣
escalated␣to␣full␣council␣level.␣␣In␣others,␣a␣council␣sub-committee␣has␣the␣authority␣
to␣make␣final␣decisions.␣In␣some,␣only␣strategic␣issues␣are␣dealt␣with␣by␣the␣council,␣
whereas␣operational␣decisions␣are␣made␣at␣the␣staff␣level.␣␣In␣some␣regional␣
programs,␣a␣Board,␣comprised␣of␣representatives␣from␣participating␣municipalities,␣
makes␣the␣majority␣of␣decisions.␣There␣also␣exist␣instances,␣where␣a␣non-profit␣
municipal␣entity␣operates␣the␣regional␣Blue␣Box␣program,␣with␣only␣periodic␣guidance␣
from␣its␣constituent␣municipalities.␣␣
Demographic␣characteristics␣of␣community␣residents␣are␣varied␣across␣and␣within␣
programs.␣␣Some␣municipalities␣have␣homogenous␣demographic␣traits,␣while␣others␣
exhibit␣high␣diversity␣in␣resident␣ethnicity,␣language,␣age,␣and␣economic␣status.␣␣The␣
degree␣of␣attention␣afforded␣by␣the␣recycling␣program␣to␣address␣these␣demographic␣
differences␣also␣varies␣greatly␣among␣municipalities.␣␣␣␣
The␣range␣of␣materials␣accepted␣by␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣varied␣widely␣across␣the␣
province.␣␣While␣the␣basic␣five␣materials␣legislated␣by␣Regulation␣101␣under␣the␣
Environmental␣Protection␣Act␣were␣accepted␣by␣all␣programs,␣the␣combination␣of␣
additional␣recyclable␣materials␣was␣unique␣in␣almost␣every␣program.␣␣Some␣
municipalities,␣in␣an␣effort␣to␣maximize␣diversion,␣include␣all␣major␣plastic,␣paper,␣and␣
metal␣recyclables␣in␣their␣program.␣Others␣include␣only␣those␣products␣that␣are␣
economically␣viable␣to␣collect␣and␣process,␣and␣have␣developed␣mature␣markets.␣
Other␣program␣differentiators,␣observed␣through␣site␣visits␣and␣data␣analysis,␣include,␣
but␣not␣limited␣to:␣␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣19
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Synergies␣between␣waste␣streams␣
Economic␣conditions␣of␣the␣region␣
Degree␣of␣contractor␣competition␣available␣
Environmental␣focus␣in␣the␣community␣
Pool␣of␣available␣labour␣
␣
Challenges␣of␣Comparability␣
Challenges of Identifying and Quantifying Best Practices
The␣large␣degree␣of␣variability␣makes␣the␣identification␣of␣Best␣Practices␣extremely␣
challenging.␣␣The␣main␣barrier␣to␣determining␣what␣constitutes␣a␣Best␣Practice␣is␣that␣
some␣of␣the␣observed␣practices␣employed␣by␣municipalities␣may␣have␣yielded␣good␣
performance␣results␣only␣due␣to␣the␣specific␣nature␣of␣a␣given␣community,␣and,␣thus,␣
they␣are␣not␣transferable␣to␣other␣programs.␣␣␣
Even␣when␣a␣practice␣is␣deemed␣to␣result␣in␣net␣positive␣effects␣in␣a␣broad␣range␣of␣
municipalities,␣quantifying␣the␣effect␣of␣employing␣that␣practice␣poses␣
insurmountable␣difficulties.␣␣For␣example,␣if␣a␣recently␣established␣program␣were␣to␣
begin␣employing␣a␣good␣practice␣and␣experience␣a␣positive␣outcome␣of␣a␣certain␣
magnitude,␣the␣outcome␣of␣the␣same␣magnitude␣cannot␣be␣realistically␣expected␣
from␣a␣mature,␣well-established␣program.␣␣␣
Another␣factor␣that␣complicates␣comparability␣and␣quantification␣of␣Best␣Practice␣is␣
the␣method␣in␣which␣municipalities␣make␣changes␣to␣their␣programs.␣␣In␣most␣cases,␣
when␣introducing␣a␣new␣process␣or␣employing␣a␣new␣practice,␣municipalities␣tend␣to␣
make␣multiple␣other␣program␣amendments␣at␣the␣same␣time.␣␣As␣a␣consequence,␣
when␣program␣performance␣is␣evaluated␣to␣measure␣the␣impact␣of␣implemented␣
modifications,␣it␣is␣difficult␣to␣attribute␣the␣resulting␣outcome␣to␣any␣one␣specific␣
practice.␣␣
Additionally,␣Blue␣Box␣recycling␣programs␣are␣usually␣one␣of␣many␣components␣of␣a␣
community's␣waste␣management␣system,␣and␣operations␣often␣have␣interdependent␣
aspects.␣As␣an␣example,␣one␣contractor␣might␣be␣hired␣to␣provide␣both␣Blue␣Box␣
recycling␣and␣waste␣collection␣services,␣and␣certain␣communities␣perform␣co-
collection␣of␣recyclable␣materials␣and␣waste␣items.␣␣␣
These␣observations␣and␣realizations␣precluded␣the␣Project␣Team␣from␣determining␣
costs␣of␣or␣assigning␣"prices"␣to␣individual␣Blue␣Box␣program␣Best␣Practices.␣␣
Furthermore,␣the␣Team␣concluded␣that␣extrapolating␣financial␣or␣operational␣results␣
of␣individual␣Best␣Practices␣to␣other␣programs␣is␣neither␣practically␣feasible␣nor␣
defensible␣in␣the␣context␣of␣Ontario␣municipal␣Blue␣Box␣recycling.␣␣Consequently,␣it␣
was␣not␣deemed␣feasible␣to␣aggregate␣the␣effect␣of␣all␣individual␣Best␣Practices␣in␣
order␣to␣quantify␣the␣"Best␣Practice␣Program␣Cost".␣␣␣
20 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
As␣an␣alternative␣approach,␣the␣Team␣utilized␣a␣holistic,␣system-wide␣approach␣to␣
identifying␣the␣effects␣of␣Best␣Practices␣adoption.␣␣Components␣of␣well-performing␣
programs␣were␣analyzed␣with␣respect␣to␣their␣collective␣implications␣to␣determine␣
whether␣a␣program␣was␣operating␣at␣Best␣Practice␣level.␣␣Descriptions␣of␣programs␣
that␣were␣observed␣to␣utilize␣a␣large␣number␣of␣Best␣Practices␣are␣presented␣in␣
Volume␣II␣of␣this␣report.␣␣␣
␣
Factors␣Contributing␣to␣Good␣and␣Poor␣Performance␣
The␣Project␣Team␣utilized␣various␣approaches␣for␣determining␣specific␣factors␣that␣
contribute␣to␣good␣and␣poor␣Blue␣Box␣program␣performance.␣␣Initial␣attempts␣were␣
focused␣on␣identifying␣the␣correlation␣between␣distinct␣program␣attributes␣and␣the␣
program's␣E&E␣ratio.␣␣However,␣as␣described␣in␣the␣"Key␣Observations"␣section␣of␣
this␣report,␣the␣Project␣Team␣found␣that␣the␣E&E␣ratio␣was␣influenced␣by␣a␣number␣of␣
elements␣that␣are␣not␣representative␣of␣program␣performance,␣such␣as␣location,␣
geography,␣and␣population␣demographics.␣␣
The␣project␣team␣attempted␣to␣analyze␣the␣2005␣WDO␣Datacall␣data␣to␣see␣if␣good␣
and␣poor␣performance␣could␣be␣correlated␣to␣certain␣program␣items,␣despite␣
understanding␣that␣non-programmatic␣factors␣contribute␣to␣performance.␣However,␣it␣
was␣often␣found␣that␣correlation␣analysis␣was␣not␣meaningful␣due␣to␣lack␣of␣data␣
points␣and␣multiple␣contributing␣factors.␣␣The␣following␣example␣may␣help␣to␣illustrate␣
this.␣␣The␣number␣of␣program␣options␣exponentially␣affects␣the␣number␣of␣possible␣
permutations␣-␣a␣set␣of␣only␣ten␣options␣with␣two␣choices␣each␣results␣in␣210␣␣or␣
1,024␣possible␣program␣configurations.␣␣In␣fact,␣combinations␣of␣more␣than␣seven␣
program␣options␣exceed␣the␣available␣number␣of␣data␣points␣(189␣total␣programs␣in␣
2005).␣␣
Because␣of␣data␣limitations,␣the␣Project␣Team␣sought␣to␣identify␣which␣attributes␣
appeared␣to␣contribute␣positively␣or␣negatively␣to␣program␣performance␣as␣defined␣by␣
a␣variety␣of␣other␣performance␣measures␣and␣did␣not␣rely␣on␣the␣E&E␣ratio␣alone␣as␣
the␣measure␣of␣performance.␣␣␣
Methods␣used␣in␣this␣modified␣approach␣to␣the␣analysis␣were␣as␣follows:␣␣
Documenting␣specific␣factors␣and␣program␣attributes␣identified␣through␣site␣visits␣
that␣appeared␣to␣influence␣program␣performance␣␣
Interviewing␣program␣representatives␣to␣gain␣their␣insights␣and␣opinions␣regarding␣
program␣attributes␣that␣they␣believe␣affected␣program␣performance␣␣
Reviewing␣and␣assessing␣program␣data␣and␣interview␣records␣to␣glean␣information␣
indicating␣potential␣contributors␣to␣good␣or␣poor␣program␣performance␣␣
Comparing␣the␣results␣across␣visited␣communities␣to␣look␣for␣patterns␣indicating␣
common␣contributing␣factors␣␣
Performing␣limited␣sets␣of␣statistical␣analyses␣on␣WDO␣Datacall␣data␣regarding␣
very␣specific␣factors␣to␣assess␣the␣extent␣to␣which␣the␣presence␣or␣absence␣of␣
these␣factors␣appeared␣to␣affect␣program␣results␣␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣21
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Holding␣field␣team␣and␣full␣team␣meetings␣to␣discuss␣the␣results␣of␣the␣activities␣
described␣above␣and␣to␣develop␣a␣common␣list␣of␣factors␣and␣program␣attributes␣
for␣reference␣purposes␣in␣determining␣Best␣Practices␣␣
A␣list␣of␣potential␣contributors␣to␣program␣performance␣identified␣through␣qualitative␣
analysis␣and␣as␣reported␣to␣the␣Project␣Team␣by␣community␣representatives␣
interviewed␣was␣compiled.␣␣␣Although␣regression␣analysis␣could␣not␣provide␣
confidence␣in␣correlation␣of␣many␣specific␣program␣factors␣to␣performance,␣a␣
quantitative␣and␣qualitative␣analysis␣(e.g.,␣including␣support␣from␣other␣studies,␣field␣
work␣and␣expert␣opinion)␣of␣certain␣data␣sets␣provided␣strong␣support␣that␣certain␣
factors␣contribute␣to␣good␣or␣poor␣performance.␣␣Conclusions␣that␣were␣derived␣from␣
these␣analyses␣are␣as␣follows:␣
Reducing␣solid␣waste␣services␣(e.g.,␣two-bag␣limit,␣reduced␣frequency␣of␣solid␣
waste␣collection)␣supported␣by␣diversion␣alternatives␣was␣found␣to␣result␣in␣
higher␣recovery␣rates␣for␣Blue␣Box␣materials.␣␣This␣is␣illustrated␣in␣the␣following␣
figure,␣which␣shows␣the␣relationship␣between␣recovery␣rate␣and␣the␣garbage␣bag␣
limit␣imposed␣on␣residents.␣
Bag␣Limit␣Effect␣on␣the␣
Recovery␣Rate␣␣
Collecting␣an␣expanded␣list␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣above␣that␣required␣by␣Ontario␣
Regulation␣101␣was␣found␣to␣result␣in␣higher␣recovery␣rates␣for␣Blue␣Box␣
materials.␣
Reducing␣the␣frequency␣of␣garbage␣collection␣and/or␣increasing␣the␣frequency␣of␣
Blue␣Box␣collection␣was␣found␣to␣have␣a␣positive␣effect␣on␣recovery␣rate,␣as␣
illustrated␣in␣the␣figure␣below.␣␣
Municipalities with lower weekly
garbage bag limits tend to exhibit
higher recovery rates.
40%
42%
44%
46%
48%
50%
52%
54%
56%
58%
60%
1
2
3
4
5
Weekly Garbage Bag Limit
22 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
␣
␣
␣
␣
Frequency␣of␣Garbage␣and␣
Blue␣Box␣Collection␣
While␣the␣correlation␣between␣P&E␣expenditures␣and␣corresponding␣recovery␣
rates␣was␣low,␣on␣average,␣programs␣that␣obtain␣60%␣recovery␣tend␣to␣spend␣
approximately␣$1␣on␣Promotion␣and␣Education.␣␣This␣is␣illustrated␣in␣the␣
following␣figure.
Promotion␣and␣Education␣
Expenditures␣among␣
Medium␣and␣Large␣
Municipalities␣
Distinct␣processing␣efficiency␣differences␣were␣observed␣between␣facilities␣that␣
process␣more␣than␣10,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣of␣Blue␣Box␣recyclables␣and␣those␣
that␣process␣less.␣␣␣
A␣number␣of␣other␣factors␣were␣reported␣to␣the␣Project␣Team␣on␣site␣visits␣as␣
potential␣factors␣influencing␣performance.␣␣␣
54%
44%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Frequency Same
Blue Box Less Frequent
Municipalities that collect
recyclables less frequently than
garbage tend to exhibit lower
recovery rates, as compared to
municipalities where collection
frequency of garbage and
recyclables is equal.
Municipalities achieving 60%
recovery levels, on average, tend to
spend approximately $1 on
Promotion and Education.
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Recovery Rate
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣23
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Factors␣that␣appeared␣to␣positively␣affect␣program␣performance:␣
Promotion␣of␣environmental␣awareness␣as␣community␣focus␣-␣comprehensive␣
menu␣of␣environmental␣programs␣that␣develops/reinforces␣a␣broad␣
environmental␣ethic␣
Existence␣of␣an␣integrated␣Waste␣Management␣Plan␣
Regional␣cooperation␣
Established␣relationships␣with␣and␣knowledge␣of␣end␣markets␣
At␣least␣one␣depot␣for␣Blue␣Box␣overflow,␣additional␣materials,␣or␣to␣serve␣multi-
family␣who␣otherwise␣don't␣have␣Blue␣Box␣service␣
Programs␣that␣forego␣revenue␣for␣low␣cost␣collection/processing␣from␣a␣local␣MRF␣
can␣be␣very␣efficient␣
Short␣distance␣to␣MRFs␣and␣markets␣
Clear␣instructions␣to␣residents,␣operators,␣collectors,␣etc.␣
Consistent␣enforcement␣of␣rules␣and␣limits␣
Staff␣consistency,␣especially␣on␣collection␣
Collaborative␣P&E,␣with␣schools/civic␣organizations/young␣persons␣groups,␣etc.␣
High␣availability␣of␣P&E,␣such␣as␣local␣phonebooks,␣visible␣on␣trucks,␣calendars,␣etc.␣
High␣tipping␣fees␣at␣landfills␣
Factors␣that␣appeared␣to␣negatively␣affect␣program␣performance:␣
Long␣distance␣to␣MRFs␣and␣markets␣
Contracts␣not␣fully␣understood,␣e.g.,␣fuel␣surcharge␣amounts␣
High␣residue␣rates␣-␣may␣be␣poor␣setout,␣collection,␣processing,␣or␣"high-grading"␣
at␣MRF␣
Poor␣baling␣-␣not␣dense␣enough␣
Inconsistent␣collection␣or␣enforcement␣of␣rules␣
Poor␣education␣of␣municipal/contractor␣employees␣
No␣provision␣of␣Blue␣boxes␣
High␣degree␣of␣seasonal␣residents␣
High␣degree␣of␣private,␣narrow,␣roads␣
Dispersed␣population␣
Poor␣location␣of␣MRF␣within␣municipality␣(not␣centralized)␣
Lack␣of␣Audits␣of␣materials␣
Low␣importance␣by␣management␣
Lack␣of␣skills␣and␣resources␣
Recently␣established␣recycling␣program␣
24 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Other␣Observations␣
The␣Project␣Team␣documented␣a␣number␣of␣other␣observations,␣drawn␣from␣site␣
visits,␣research,␣and␣data␣analysis.␣␣These␣are␣presented␣in␣this␣document␣as␣
perceived␣issues;␣further␣review,␣analysis,␣and␣validation␣is␣required␣to␣substantiate␣
these␣observations.␣␣
The␣system␣appears␣to␣be␣under-capitalized,␣as␣many␣programs␣continue␣to␣
operate␣processing␣facilities␣that␣are␣old,␣rudimentary,␣and␣fully␣depreciated␣for␣
accounting␣purposes.␣␣A␣wave␣of␣new␣MRFs␣is␣expected␣to␣be␣constructed␣or␣
retrofitted␣(or␣have␣recently␣been␣constructed␣or␣retrofitted)␣in␣the␣next␣several␣
years␣to␣address␣this␣issue.␣␣This␣will␣likely␣cause␣reported␣capital␣costs␣to␣
escalate.␣
Program␣variance,␣detailed␣above,␣may␣have␣been␣caused␣by␣factors␣that␣were␣
within␣municipality's␣span␣of␣control,␣rather␣than␣by␣inherent,␣unchangeable␣
factors.␣␣This␣implies␣that␣some␣programs␣are␣different␣due␣to␣historic␣elements␣
and␣program␣decisions␣that␣have␣been␣made␣in␣the␣past.␣
Generally,␣municipal␣program␣staff␣are␣trying␣to␣be␣efficient␣and␣seeking␣cost␣
effective␣methods␣of␣operating␣the␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣In␣some␣isolated␣cases,␣
neglect␣and␣lack␣of␣priority␣of␣recycling␣within␣other␣competing␣municipal␣
programs,␣causes␣program␣inefficiencies␣and␣inhibits␣improvement.␣␣
Transportation␣practices,␣specifically␣in␣transferring␣materials␣from␣the␣curb␣to␣a␣
processing␣facility,␣appear␣to␣be␣non-standardized␣in␣rural␣remote␣communities.␣␣
Where␣no␣major␣urban␣center␣exists␣in␣the␣area,␣rural␣programs␣face␣challenges␣
in␣finding␣effective␣transportation␣methods␣for␣hauling␣materials␣to␣the␣closest␣
MRF␣(which␣is␣often␣situated␣very␣far␣from␣the␣rural␣community).␣
Pricing␣for␣processing␣of␣commingled␣(unsorted␣single␣stream␣or␣two-stream)␣
material␣appears␣to␣vary␣significantly␣across␣Ontario␣MRFs␣that␣receive␣
recyclables␣from␣other␣communities.␣␣The␣same␣MRF␣may␣be␣paying␣a␣fee,␣
receiving␣materials␣free␣of␣charge,␣or␣charging␣a␣tipping␣fee␣for␣seemingly␣similar␣
material␣compositions␣from␣varying␣communities.␣␣
Inter-municipal␣cooperation␣has␣reportedly␣not␣been␣widely␣practiced␣across␣
Ontario␣programs.␣␣Some␣rivalries␣between␣neighbouring␣municipalities␣exist,␣
and␣some␣political␣figures␣or␣program␣staff␣don't␣like␣working␣together␣with␣their␣
neighbours␣for␣historical␣reasons.␣␣
There␣is␣a␣perceived␣lack␣of␣communications␣between␣MIPC/WDO␣and␣Ontario␣
municipalities␣(this␣may␣be␣due␣to␣the␣fact␣that␣municipal␣MIPC␣members␣have␣
few␣full-time␣MIPC-dedicated␣resources).␣␣Furthermore,␣there␣is␣a␣perceived␣lack␣
of␣transparency␣in␣MIPC's␣decision-making␣process.␣␣
␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣25
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Best␣Practices␣for␣Ontario␣
Blue␣Box␣Programs␣
Best Practices were formulated as a result of a fact-
based analysis, incorporating site visit evidence, multi-
jurisdictional research, contribution of industry experts,
and use of advanced statistical tools.
Introduction␣to␣Best␣Practices␣
As␣previously␣stated,␣"Best␣Practices"␣for␣the␣purpose␣of␣this␣project␣are␣defined␣as␣
"waste system practices that affect Blue Box recycling programs and that result in
the attainment of provincial and municipal Blue Box material diversion goals in the
most cost-effective way possible".␣
To␣distinguish␣practices␣that␣are␣"best"␣from␣those␣that␣may␣be␣good,␣poor,␣or␣
irrelevant,␣the␣Project␣Team␣used␣an␣evidence␣framework␣built␣on␣a␣combination␣of␣
research␣findings,␣analytical␣assessments,␣and␣defined␣screening␣criteria.␣␣
First,␣the␣original␣definition␣and␣criteria,␣presented␣earlier␣in␣this␣report,␣were␣
expanded␣upon␣to␣further␣clarify␣what␣is␣and␣is␣not␣a␣Best␣Practice.␣␣These␣criteria␣
helped␣team␣members␣to␣identify␣and␣document␣candidate␣Best␣Practices.␣␣␣
Next,␣a␣Best␣Practices␣Database␣was␣established␣for␣collective␣team␣use␣on␣KClient.␣␣
Team␣members␣identified␣and␣posted␣candidate␣Best␣Practices␣pertaining␣to␣specific␣
recycling␣program␣components,␣along␣with␣supporting␣information.␣In␣addition␣to␣
Best␣Practice␣description␣and␣its␣applicability,␣the␣database␣provided␣for␣capture␣of␣
the␣following␣information␣for␣each␣record:␣
Potential␣impact␣resulting␣from␣use␣of␣the␣practice␣
Ontario␣municipalities␣demonstrating␣use␣of␣the␣practice␣
International/other␣Canada␣locations␣demonstrating␣use␣of␣the␣practice␣
Expert␣comment/stakeholder␣consensus␣(AMRC,␣OWMA,␣consulting␣teams,␣etc.)␣
regarding␣the␣practice␣as␣a␣best␣practice␣
Proof␣of␣concept/validation␣(documentation␣that␣the␣practice␣is␣a␣best␣practice)␣
Quantified␣costs/benefits␣␣
Community␣type␣that␣the␣practice␣is␣suited␣for␣
Resource␣requirements␣for␣implementing␣the␣practice␣
Constraining␣variables␣limiting␣applicability␣of␣the␣practice␣
Through␣this␣documentation␣process,␣the␣Best␣Practices␣Database␣served␣as␣a␣
common␣repository␣for␣all␣candidate␣Best␣Practices␣information␣derived␣from␣the␣field␣
26 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
work,␣literature␣review,␣interviews,␣and␣other␣means␣of␣gathering␣Best␣Practices␣
information␣in␣this␣project.␣
Finally,␣candidate␣Best␣Practices␣were␣subjected␣to␣a␣screening␣process,␣which␣took␣
into␣account␣the␣degree␣of␣fact-based␣evidence␣available␣to␣support␣them.␣␣Main␣
evidence␣categories␣included:␣
Site␣visit␣evidence␣suggesting␣a␣Best␣Practice␣
Canadian␣and␣International␣sources␣citing␣the␣Best␣Practice␣
Documented␣expert␣opinion␣and␣published␣reports␣citing␣the␣Best␣Practice␣
Quantitative␣analysis␣suggesting␣correlation␣of␣performance␣and␣use␣of␣Best␣
Practice␣
This␣analytical␣framework␣served␣as␣the␣foundation␣for␣identifying␣a␣preliminary␣list␣of␣
"Fundamental Best Practices"␣that␣apply␣to␣all␣Ontario␣Blue␣Box␣recycling␣
programs␣and␣"Conditional Best Practices" that␣appeared␣to␣apply␣to␣some␣but␣not␣
all␣programs␣depending␣on␣prevailing␣circumstances.␣␣In␣some␣cases␣these␣
conditional␣practices␣were␣identified␣as␣alternative␣methods␣or␣"toolsets"␣for␣
achieving␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices.␣␣Certain␣other␣candidate␣practices,␣
reported␣to␣the␣Team␣by␣staff␣of␣visited␣municipalities␣or␣documented␣through␣
research,␣were␣deemed␣as␣"Other Practices Meriting Consideration"␣if␣some␣or␣
all␣evidentiary␣criteria␣were␣not␣met.␣␣Several␣workshops␣aimed␣at␣validating␣the␣
preliminary␣Best␣Practices␣and␣gaining␣consensus␣on␣their␣applicability␣were␣held␣
with␣the␣entire␣team.␣␣Subsequent␣to␣that␣process,␣a␣set␣of␣narrative␣descriptions␣of␣
each␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣was␣developed.␣␣Furthermore,␣at␣the␣request␣of␣
MIPC,␣the␣Project␣Team␣developed␣description␣Best␣Practices␣applications␣in␣several␣
key␣program␣areas.␣␣These␣are␣presented␣in␣this␣report␣as␣"Best Practice
Spotlights".␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣
The␣Project␣Team␣identified␣eight␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣that␣apply␣to␣all␣
municipal␣recycling␣programs␣in␣Ontario.␣␣These␣are␣as␣follows:␣
Development␣and␣implementation␣of␣an␣up-to-date␣plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣an␣
integrated␣Waste␣Management␣system␣
Multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣to␣collection␣and␣processing␣recyclables␣␣
Establishing␣defined␣performance␣measures,␣including␣diversion␣targets␣and␣
monitoring␣and␣a␣continuous␣improvement␣program␣
Optimization␣of␣operations␣in␣collections␣and␣processing␣␣
Training␣of␣key␣program␣staff␣in␣core␣competencies␣␣
Following␣generally␣accepted␣principles␣for␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣
management␣
Appropriately␣planned,␣designed,␣and␣funded␣Promotion␣and␣Education␣program␣
Established␣and␣enforced␣policies␣that␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣␣
Fundamental Best Practices apply to all
Municipal Programs
Conditional Best Practices apply to
programs with certain characteristics or
are included as alternative methods or
"toolsets" for achieving Fundamental
Best Practices
Other Practices have not been
substantiated by fact-based analysis;
they may, however, produce positive
results in isolated cases
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣27
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Each␣of␣these␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣is␣described␣in␣detail␣in␣this␣section.␣
It␣is␣important␣to␣note␣that␣all␣of␣the␣Best␣Practices␣discussed␣herein␣were␣based␣on␣
research,␣field␣observations,␣and␣careful␣deliberation␣and␣consensus␣building␣among␣
members␣of␣the␣Project␣Team.␣␣When␣information␣was␣conflicting␣or␣team␣member␣
opinions␣differed,␣additional␣research␣was␣performed␣to␣make␣a␣decision.␣If␣
inadequate␣information␣was␣found␣to␣resolve␣conflicting␣positions,␣the␣disputed␣
practice␣was␣omitted.␣␣␣The␣reader␣should␣keep␣in␣mind,␣however,␣that␣in␣discussing␣
Best␣Practices␣at␣the␣profile␣or␣program␣component␣level,␣the␣information␣presented␣
is␣inherently␣general␣in␣nature.␣Furthermore,␣the␣more␣detailed␣and␣specific␣the␣
information␣presented,␣the␣less␣supporting␣documentation␣is␣available␣to␣substantiate␣
that␣a␣particular␣practice␣is␣indeed␣Best␣Practice.␣␣␣
The␣Project␣Team␣has␣worked␣to␣balance␣stakeholder␣desires␣for␣detailed␣guidance␣
with␣the␣need␣for␣"proof"␣with␣respect␣to␣Best␣Practices.␣␣This␣is␣not␣a␣perfect␣
science;␣consequently␣neither␣are␣the␣results.␣␣However␣the␣guidance␣provided␣
herein␣is␣the␣result␣of␣extensive␣scrutiny␣and␣fine␣tuning␣which␣adds␣confidence␣to␣its␣
validity.␣␣␣Future␣projects␣will␣be␣needed␣to␣develop␣more-detailed␣guidance␣and␣
technical␣assistance␣tools␣such␣as␣worksheets,␣checklists,␣training␣modules,␣to␣help␣
ensure␣that␣the␣practices␣identified␣herein␣are␣implemented␣in␣a␣best␣practices␣
fashion␣by␣communities␣seeking␣to␣do␣so.␣
28 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Development and Implementation of an Up-to-date
Plan for Recycling, as Part of an Integrated Waste
Management System
␣
Overview
A␣recycling␣program␣plan␣that␣results␣from␣a␣thorough␣planning␣process␣is␣a␣strategic␣
and␣practical␣guide␣for␣the␣design,␣management,␣operation,␣and␣optimization␣of␣a␣
community's␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣To␣be␣effective,␣it␣should␣reflect␣careful␣
examination␣of␣all␣program␣components,␣and␣direct␣goal␣setting,␣action␣steps,␣and␣
resource␣allocation␣to␣achieve␣meaningful␣results␣over␣time.␣␣Implementation␣of␣a␣
well-conceived␣plan␣is␣facilitated␣by␣an␣overarching␣vision,␣purpose,␣and␣direction,␣
allowing␣synergies␣to␣be␣realized␣across␣operational,␣geographical,␣and␣political␣
boundaries.␣␣The␣recycling␣plan␣may␣be␣a␣stand␣alone␣document␣or␣may␣be␣
incorporated␣into␣a␣larger␣integrated␣waste␣management␣plan.␣
On␣June␣12,␣2007␣the␣Ministry␣of␣the␣Environment␣issued␣a␣policy␣statement␣on␣
planning␣that␣"articulates␣the␣province's␣expectations␣for␣waste␣management␣in␣
Ontario,␣outlines␣a␣framework␣and␣principles␣for␣decision-making␣by␣all␣waste␣
managers␣and␣provides␣specific␣direction␣to␣guide␣the␣development␣of␣long-term␣
municipal␣waste␣management␣plans.␣It␣is␣intended␣to␣achieve␣more␣consistent␣and␣
timely␣waste␣management␣planning␣across␣the␣province␣and␣to␣make␣the␣decision-
making␣process␣more␣transparent.␣This␣Policy␣Statement␣sets␣out␣best␣management␣
practices␣for␣the␣management␣of␣waste␣and␣creation␣of␣waste␣management␣plans,␣
and␣the␣Province␣encourages␣all␣waste␣managers␣to␣face␣the␣challenge␣of␣waste␣
management␣and␣follow␣this␣policy."␣
This␣28-page␣policy␣statement␣should␣also␣be␣referenced␣as␣a␣source␣of␣best␣practice␣
guidance␣for␣Blue␣Box␣program␣planning␣as␣one␣component␣of␣integrated␣waste␣
management␣planning.␣
Key Benefits and Outcomes
Program␣planning␣is␣a␣long-term␣investment␣that␣will␣result␣in␣the␣following␣benefits:␣
A␣clear␣vision␣to␣guide␣program␣development␣␣
Defined␣program␣goals␣and␣objectives␣against␣which␣progress␣can␣be␣measured␣
Focused␣use␣of␣staff␣and␣monetary␣resources␣aimed␣at␣achieving␣cost-effective␣
results␣
Clarification␣of␣what␣is␣needed␣to␣proactively␣bring␣about␣change␣rather␣than␣just␣
react␣to␣change␣
Provision␣of␣a␣"roadmap"␣on␣how␣to␣meet␣program␣needs␣and␣objectives␣
Enhanced␣operational␣and␣political␣decision-making␣process␣
Integration␣of␣solid␣waste␣services,␣leading␣to␣lower␣system␣costs␣
Overall␣improved␣program␣effectiveness␣and␣efficiency␣
Fundamental␣Best␣
Practice
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣29
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
␣
Description of Best Practice
Integrated waste management␣is␣defined␣as␣a␣combination␣of␣techniques␣and␣
programs␣to␣manage␣all␣municipal␣waste␣streams␣in␣a␣manner␣that␣is␣appropriate␣
based␣on␣local␣needs␣and␣circumstances␣and␣considerate␣of␣potential␣economic,␣
environmental,␣and␣social␣implications␣of␣the␣choices␣made.␣␣Critical␣to␣the␣success␣
of␣any␣Blue␣Box␣recycling␣program␣is␣up-front␣planning␣of␣how␣the␣program␣will␣be␣
developed␣and␣implemented,␣with␣the␣recognition␣that␣Blue␣Box␣recycling␣is␣an␣
integral␣part␣of␣the␣overall␣waste␣management␣system.␣␣␣
The␣value␣of␣recycling␣program␣planning␣comes␣not␣just␣with␣the␣development␣of␣a␣
document,␣but␣is␣realized␣during␣the␣process␣of␣planning␣itself.␣␣While␣the␣nature␣and␣
extent␣of␣the␣planning␣process␣will␣vary,␣depending␣on␣the␣level␣of␣resources␣
available␣for␣planning␣and␣the␣complexity␣of␣programs␣being␣planned␣for,␣planning␣is␣
fundamental␣to␣all␣programs.␣␣␣␣␣
Regardless␣of␣the␣size␣or␣complexity␣of␣the␣planning␣document,␣a␣recycling␣plan␣
should␣ask␣and␣provide␣answers␣to␣four␣basic␣questions:␣
1 Where␣do␣we␣want␣to␣be?␣
2 Where␣are␣we␣now?␣
3 How␣do␣we␣get␣from␣Current␣State␣to␣Future␣State?␣
4 How␣do␣we␣measure/track␣our␣progress?␣
The␣kind␣of␣information␣that␣can␣be␣presented␣to␣answer␣each␣of␣these␣questions␣is␣
provided␣below.␣␣The␣amount␣of␣information␣and␣the␣degree␣of␣its␣detail␣will␣vary␣with␣
program␣size␣and␣resources␣available␣for␣planning.␣
1.
Where do we want to be (Future State)?
This␣component␣of␣the␣plan␣establishes␣a␣long-range␣vision␣for␣how␣the␣recycling␣
program␣would␣look,␣if␣fully␣and␣successfully␣implemented,␣and␣sets␣the␣goals␣and␣
objectives␣of␣the␣program␣to␣be␣achieved␣during␣the␣planning␣timeframe.␣␣Typical␣
planning␣horizon␣is␣around␣three␣to␣five␣years;␣however,␣program␣planning␣can␣have␣a␣
longer␣time␣frame␣-␣five␣to␣ten␣years␣-␣depending␣on␣the␣extent␣to␣which␣
infrastructure␣is␣needed.␣␣An␣important␣part␣of␣this␣planning␣step␣is␣to␣engage␣
community␣stakeholders␣in␣the␣visioning␣process,␣so␣that␣the␣resultant␣vision␣is␣
shared␣by␣all.␣␣␣
Equally␣important␣is␣recognizing␣that␣recycling␣as␣just␣one␣component␣of␣an␣overall␣
waste␣management␣system.␣The␣entire␣system␣should␣be␣aimed␣at␣minimizing␣
waste␣generation␣and␣capturing␣valuable␣energy␣and␣material␣resources␣from␣waste␣
prior␣to␣disposing␣of␣materials␣that␣cannot␣be␣technically␣and/or␣economically␣
recovered␣for␣further␣use.␣␣Establishing␣an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣
and␣determining␣the␣appropriate␣role␣for␣recycling␣within␣that␣vision␣serves␣as␣a␣guide␣
to␣further␣recycling␣planning␣and␣decision-making.␣In␣addition,␣recycling␣and␣waste␣
management␣planning␣should␣be␣integrated␣with␣other␣broad␣municipal␣planning␣
30 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
activities,␣such␣as␣planning␣for␣growth,␣economic␣development,␣or␣sustainability␣and␣
would␣benefit␣from␣being␣part␣of␣a␣comprehensive␣environmental␣management␣
system␣providing␣a␣systematic␣approach␣to␣addressing␣institutional␣and␣operating␣
program␣objectives.␣
␣
2.
Where are we now (Current State)?
Developing␣an␣answer␣to␣this␣question␣will␣entail␣a␣review␣and␣assessment␣of␣the␣
current␣recycling␣and␣related␣waste␣management␣programs,␣operations,␣and␣
activities␣including:␣
Population␣and␣recyclable␣materials␣tonnage␣projections␣for␣the␣planning␣period,␣
estimates␣of␣current␣diversion␣levels␣
A␣description␣of␣the␣strengths␣and␣weaknesses␣of␣all␣aspects␣of␣the␣recycling␣
program␣and␣related␣policies,␣procedures,␣facilities,␣and␣operations.␣This␣review␣
should␣include␣an␣assessment␣of␣the␣current␣and␣projected␣capacity␣of␣the␣
recyclable␣materials␣handling␣infrastructure,␣an␣assessment␣of␣recyclable␣
materials␣market␣conditions,␣and␣market␣trends,␣and␣any␣circumstances␣or␣
conditions␣that␣may␣affect␣the␣program␣over␣the␣course␣of␣the␣planning␣period␣
Documenting␣current␣costs␣for␣programs␣␣
Identifying␣how␣the␣current␣recycling␣program␣works␣in␣conjunction␣with␣other␣
waste␣management␣programs␣
Identifying␣remaining␣needs␣and␣gaps␣to␣be␣addressed␣
3.
How do we get from Current State to Future State?
With␣respect␣to␣answering␣this␣question,␣plans␣should␣describe␣the␣strategies␣and␣
action␣steps␣to␣be␣used␣in␣order␣to␣address␣the␣identified␣needs␣and␣gaps␣and␣meet␣
the␣Blue␣Box␣program's␣goals␣and␣objectives.␣␣Topics␣to␣be␣addressed␣in␣the␣
development␣of␣these␣plan␣strategies␣could␣include:␣
Potential␣program␣and␣policy␣options␣␣
Opportunities␣for␣cooperation␣(both␣internal␣and␣external,␣with␣respect␣to␣
neighbouring␣jurisdictions)␣
Opportunities␣for␣coordination␣and␣integration␣of␣recycling␣programs␣and␣
operations␣with␣other␣components␣of␣the␣resource/waste␣management␣system␣␣
Opportunities␣for␣public/private␣partnerships␣
Clarification␣of␣the␣roles␣and␣responsibilities␣of␣various␣stakeholders␣
Costing/budget␣estimates␣and␣financing␣approach␣
Continuous␣improvements␣measures␣␣
An␣implementation␣timetable␣reflecting␣short,␣mid␣and␣long␣term␣planning␣
milestones␣
4.
How do we measure/track progress?
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣31
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
To␣address␣this␣planning␣question,␣plans␣should␣outline␣the␣methods␣to␣be␣used␣to␣
measure␣the␣Blue␣Box␣program's␣progress␣and␣performance␣results.␣␣Having␣
performance␣measures␣and␣tracking␣performance␣against␣these␣measures␣will␣
ensure␣that␣continuous␣improvement␣will␣be␣an␣integral␣part␣of␣the␣system.␣␣This␣will␣
include:␣
Adoption␣of␣the␣plan␣by␣the␣appropriate␣decision-making␣bodies␣␣
Identifying␣the␣means␣by␣which␣data␣and␣information␣can␣be␣captured␣to␣measure␣
progress␣toward␣defined␣program␣targets␣␣
Timelines␣for␣review␣of␣the␣program␣and␣the␣recycling␣plan␣itself␣
Program␣plans␣should␣include␣specific␣diversion␣targets␣against␣which␣program␣
effectiveness␣can␣be␣measured␣(see␣Best␣Practice␣on␣Performance␣Measurement).␣
␣
Implementation
Any␣municipality␣should␣be␣able␣to␣develop␣a␣basic␣recycling␣plan␣and␣will␣benefit␣
from␣doing␣so.␣␣The␣key␣aspect␣in␣developing␣a␣plan␣is␣to␣match␣the␣plan␣to␣the␣
program␣needs,␣size␣and␣complexity.␣␣There␣is␣no␣"one␣size␣fits␣all"␣solution␣for␣a␣
plan,␣but␣a␣good␣planning␣process␣will␣have␣the␣following␣common␣characteristics:␣
Is␣flexible,␣applicable␣to␣the␣program␣and␣user␣friendly␣
Is␣participatory␣--␣has␣the␣involvement␣of␣all␣the␣key␣"stakeholders"␣in␣the␣planning␣
process␣and,␣ultimately,␣their␣support␣
Is␣practical␣and␣realistic␣with␣respect␣to␣goals,␣objectives,␣resources␣and␣outcomes␣
Accounts␣for␣budget␣and␣resource␣allocations␣and␣limitations␣
Provides␣for␣realistic␣and␣achievable␣recommendations␣for␣the␣program␣
Establishes␣and␣ensures␣accountability␣for␣results␣
Leads␣to␣resource␣decisions␣and␣acknowledges␣the␣reality␣of␣the␣limitations␣of␣
financial␣and␣other␣resources␣
Is␣not␣static␣-␣the␣process␣and␣plan␣have␣to␣be␣reviewed␣and␣revised␣on␣a␣regular␣
basis␣
Is␣not␣done␣in␣isolation␣of␣other␣planning␣processes,␣such␣as␣for␣other␣waste␣
management␣system␣components,␣as␣well␣as␣for␣broader␣municipal␣planning,␣
such␣as␣community␣master␣planning␣
Lastly,␣a␣recycling␣plan␣should␣address␣and␣incorporate␣elements␣from␣other␣defined␣
Best␣Practices.␣
␣
Source and Links
32 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
"Preparing a Waste Management Plan - A methodological guidance note"␣
http://www.eukn.org/eukn/themes/Urban_Policy/Transport_and_infrastructure/Techni
cal_infrastructure/Waste_collection/Waste-management-plan_1002.html␣
"Guidelines for Strategic Planning",␣US␣Department␣of␣Energy␣
http://www.orau.gov/pbm/links/sp-guide.pdf␣
"Guide to the Preparation of Regional Solid Waste Management Plans by Regional
Districts,"␣Ministry␣of␣the␣Environment␣Environmental␣Protection␣Division,␣British␣
Columbia:␣␣http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/mpp/gprswmp1.html#s17␣
European␣Topic␣Centre␣on␣Resource␣and␣Waste␣Management␣
http://waste.eionet.europa.eu␣
Ontario␣Centre␣for␣Municipal␣Best␣Practices␣
http://www.amo.on.ca/Content/ocmbp/PolicyIssues/WasteManagement/default.htm␣
Policy␣Statement␣on␣Waste␣Management␣Planning:␣Best␣Practices␣for␣Waste␣
Managers,␣Ministry␣of␣the␣Environment,␣Published␣on:␣June␣12,␣2007␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣33
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Multi-Municipal Planning Approach to Collection and
Processing Recyclables
Overview
A␣widely-recognized␣principle␣of␣business␣is␣that␣significant␣efficiencies␣and␣
economies␣can␣be␣obtained␣from␣larger␣scale␣activities.␣The␣same␣principle␣applies␣to␣
recycling␣programs.␣Therefore,␣it␣is␣considered␣a␣fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣for␣
municipalities␣to␣explore␣a␣multi-municipal␣approach␣to␣planning␣recycling␣activities.␣␣
Considerable␣amount␣of␣industry␣research␣and␣data␣analysis␣indicates␣that␣nearly␣all␣
municipalities␣can␣benefit␣from␣a␣co-operative␣approach␣to␣planning␣and/or␣providing␣
recycling␣services.␣
␣
Key Benefits and Outcomes
Many␣communities␣have␣found␣it␣advantageous␣to␣work␣co-operatively␣in␣providing␣
solid␣waste␣management␣services.␣␣Working␣jointly,␣municipalities␣can␣increase␣
bargaining␣power␣with␣private␣service␣providers␣for␣collection␣and␣processing␣of␣
recyclables.␣␣Pooling␣resources,␣such␣as␣processing␣equipment,␣collection␣equipment,␣
or␣facilities,␣can␣result␣in␣increasing␣equipment,␣labour,␣and/or␣facility␣utilization,␣
thereby␣realizing␣financial␣and␣operational␣efficiencies.␣␣
Co-operation␣between␣two␣or␣more␣municipalities␣is␣becoming␣more␣common␣as␣
municipalities␣face␣increasing␣budgetary␣constraints.␣␣Co-operative␣planning␣can␣lead␣
to␣improved␣performance␣across␣virtually␣all␣recycling␣program␣components,␣
enhancing␣effectiveness␣and␣efficiency␣in␣the␣following␣areas:␣
Economies␣of␣scale␣
Increased␣resident␣participation/satisfaction␣
Optimized␣program␣funding␣
Shared␣staff/time/costs/skills/equipment␣
Improved␣supplier/contractor␣relations␣
Reduced␣need␣for␣management␣supervision␣␣
Reduced␣need␣for␣council␣time␣and␣attention␣
Increased␣capacity␣to␣adopt␣new␣technologies␣and␣methods␣␣
Material␣markets␣and␣pricing␣advantages,␣yielding␣higher␣revenues␣
Increased␣innovation␣in␣strategies,␣services␣and␣products␣␣
Shared␣risk␣management␣␣
Shared␣capital␣requirements␣
␣
Description of Best Practice
Fundamental␣Best␣Practice
Fundamental␣Best␣
Practice
34 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
While␣multi-municipal␣cooperation␣can␣yield␣positive␣results␣in␣all␣circumstances,␣its␣
applicability␣is␣highest␣when:␣
Municipalities␣within␣the␣region␣are␣in␣need␣of␣the␣same␣set␣of␣services␣
Jurisdictions␣have␣worked␣together␣successfully␣in␣the␣past␣
Responsibilities␣and␣roles␣are␣clearly␣defined␣
There␣are␣clear␣advantages␣to␣working␣cooperatively␣
Entry␣and␣exit␣protocols␣for␣contractual␣relationships␣are␣clearly␣defined␣
A␣successful␣multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣will␣focus␣on␣supporting␣municipal␣
objectives,␣including;␣
Cost Containment
Economies␣of␣scale␣can␣result␣in␣dramatic␣savings␣for␣municipalities␣due␣to␣volume␣
discounts;␣standardized␣equipment␣size,␣features,␣and␣specifications;␣standardized␣
service␣levels;␣and␣promotion␣and␣education␣synergies.␣For␣example,␣a␣2006,␣
cooperative␣collection␣contract␣among␣six␣municipalities␣in␣York␣Region␣reportedly␣
resulted␣in␣annual␣Blue␣Box␣and␣waste␣cost␣savings␣of␣over␣$900,000.␣
Improved Quality and Productivity
Municipalities␣that␣share␣some␣of␣the␣workload␣across␣a␣multitude␣of␣components␣of␣
a␣recycling␣program␣can␣lower␣their␣unit␣cost␣and␣develop␣staff␣expertise␣through␣
common␣resources.␣␣This␣often␣results␣in␣improved␣quality␣and␣consistency␣of␣the␣
services␣delivered␣and␣increased␣staff␣productivity.␣␣A␣desirable␣bonus␣obtained␣from␣
interaction␣with␣knowledgeable␣staff␣is␣an␣increase␣in␣resident␣satisfaction␣with␣the␣
program,␣which,␣in␣turn,␣results␣in␣increased␣participation␣and␣diversion.␣
Transferability
Multi-municipal␣cooperation␣can␣result␣in␣greater␣resident␣participation␣and␣smoother␣
operation␣of␣the␣recycling␣program.␣␣As␣residents␣commute␣and␣relocate␣from␣one␣
community␣to␣another,␣common␣messages␣through␣co-operative␣promotion␣and␣
education␣and␣common␣service␣levels/procedures␣make␣it␣easy␣for␣residents␣to␣
maintain␣their␣participation␣and␣diversion␣levels.␣␣
Over␣time,␣cost␣reductions␣will␣be␣realized␣through␣staff␣time␣and␣promotional␣
savings␣obtained␣from␣less␣re-education␣and␣reduced␣collection␣rejections.␣
Contamination␣levels␣often␣decrease␣and␣diversion␣is␣maintained␣or␣increased␣as␣a␣
result␣of␣the␣diminished␣need␣to␣educate␣residents.␣
Competitiveness
Many␣municipalities␣struggle␣to␣attract␣bidders␣for␣recycling␣RFP's␣or␣tenders.␣One␣
obvious␣benefit␣of␣multi-municipal␣planning␣is␣to␣take␣advantage␣of␣the␣larger␣tonnage␣
offered␣under␣co-operative␣contracts␣to␣attract␣more␣bidders,␣as␣well␣as␣non-local␣
bidders.␣␣WDO␣Datacall␣statistics␣confirm␣that␣recycling␣costs␣are␣steeply␣reduced␣
when␣greater␣quantities␣of␣materials␣are␣collected␣and␣processed␣above␣a␣10,000␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣35
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
tonnes␣per␣year␣threshold␣level.␣␣Clearly,␣the␣more␣tonnage␣that␣can␣be␣combined␣
under␣a␣single␣contract,␣the␣more␣contractors␣are␣willing␣to␣participate␣and␣to␣pass␣on␣
savings␣to␣municipalities.␣␣␣
The␣inverse␣also␣holds␣true.␣A␣contract␣that␣requires␣half␣a␣truck␣per␣week␣to␣collect␣
is␣much␣less␣likely␣to␣attract␣multiple␣bidders␣than␣a␣contract␣that␣requires␣five␣trucks␣
per␣week.␣
Market Revenue
Revenues␣for␣larger␣amounts␣of␣recyclables␣often␣increase␣because␣of␣shipping,␣
storage␣and␣handling␣economies.␣
Recyclable␣markets␣are␣usually␣willing␣to␣pay␣better␣prices␣for␣a␣larger,␣continuous␣
supply␣of␣good␣quality␣material.␣A␣multi-municipal␣approach␣to␣planning/marketing␣
material␣may␣provide␣some␣of␣these␣benefits.␣␣
␣
Implementation
In␣order␣to␣implement␣this␣Best␣Practice,␣municipalities␣are␣advised␣to␣follow␣a␣
seven-step␣approach␣outlined␣below:␣
1 Identify␣service␣needs␣of␣each␣potential␣co-operating␣jurisdiction␣
2 Identify␣and␣communicate␣advantages␣to␣working␣co-operatively␣
3 Identify␣and␣implement␣communication␣and␣working␣protocols␣among␣potential␣
cooperating␣municipalities␣(a␣steering␣committee␣or␣a␣task␣group␣may␣be␣
required)␣
4 Determine␣and␣document␣clearly␣how␣the␣multi-municipal␣program␣will␣be␣funded,␣
using␣financial␣projections␣and␣a␣business␣plan␣
5 Identify␣the␣governance␣strategies␣for␣providing␣for␣accountability,␣monitoring,␣and␣
decision-making␣authority␣to␣participating␣jurisdictions.␣␣These␣may␣include␣a␣
utility-type␣board,␣a␣sub-committee␣of␣municipal␣representatives,␣a␣municipal␣
corporation,␣or␣a␣combination␣of␣the␣above.␣␣
6 Identify␣costs␣(and␣cost␣savings)␣associated␣with␣the␣co-operative␣program,␣using␣
financial␣projections␣and␣business␣plan␣from␣Step␣4.␣
7 Test␣multi-municipal␣strategies␣in␣low-risk␣circumstances,␣such␣as␣a␣joint␣
advertising,␣container␣purchasing,␣promotion␣&␣education,␣etc.,␣and␣build␣on␣
successes␣of␣such␣efforts␣
Co-operative␣recycling␣activities,␣more␣often␣than␣not,␣simply␣entail␣establishing␣good␣
contracts␣that␣align␣with␣activities␣and␣services␣municipal␣neighbours␣are␣already␣
providing.␣Communication␣is␣the␣key␣to␣engaging␣in␣the␣co-operative␣planning␣
process.␣
For␣example,␣it␣is␣possible␣to␣begin␣a␣co-operative␣planning␣process␣by␣synchronizing␣
the␣expiry␣date␣of␣neighbouring␣municipal␣contracts,␣so␣that␣when␣the␣next␣tender␣is␣
issued,␣contractors␣may␣bid␣on␣multiple␣contracts␣simultaneously.␣Municipalities␣may␣
36 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
or␣may␣not␣have␣different␣service␣levels␣and␣features␣under␣each␣contract.␣␣Such␣
minimal␣multi-municipal␣planning␣may␣result␣in␣considerable␣economies␣of␣scale␣for␣a␣
supplier␣who␣is␣often␣willing␣to␣share␣a␣portion␣of␣savings␣with␣the␣municipalities␣in␣
order␣to␣win␣the␣bid.␣
Another␣example␣is␣the␣co-operative␣purchasing␣of␣blue␣boxes.␣␣Since␣suppliers␣will␣
almost␣always␣offer␣volume␣discounts,␣savings␣can␣be␣obtained␣simply␣by␣
coordinating␣annual␣blue␣box␣(or␣any␣other␣program␣consumable)␣purchase␣
requirements.␣␣
No␣cross␣governance␣structures,␣utility␣boards␣or␣joint␣ventures␣are␣required␣to␣
participate␣in␣these␣or␣many␣other␣types␣of␣recycling␣activities.␣␣
Potential Challenges and Suggested Solutions
Municipalities␣often␣have␣reservations␣about␣planning␣activities␣and␣services␣with␣
communities␣outside␣their␣own␣boundaries.␣␣Concerns␣frequently␣center␣on␣loss␣of␣
autonomy.␣␣Staff␣and␣council␣may␣be␣concerned␣that␣they␣do␣not␣want␣to␣lose␣control␣
of␣their␣program.␣␣Suggested␣solutions␣to␣overcome␣these␣issues␣are:␣
Explore␣opportunities␣for␣shared␣decision-making␣and␣management␣authority;␣and␣
Clearly␣document␣roles␣and␣responsibilities,␣such␣that␣control␣is␣not␣lost,␣but␣
economies␣are␣gained.␣
Another␣frequent␣concern␣is␣that␣services␣provided␣are␣often␣different␣in␣surrounding␣
jurisdictions.␣Suggested␣solutions␣to␣overcome␣these␣issues␣are:␣
Consider␣some␣programs␣that␣you␣could␣work␣together␣on.␣␣Share␣educational␣
items,␣for␣example,␣or␣share␣model␣contracts␣or␣communication␣literature␣that␣
can␣be␣adjusted␣to␣suit␣individual␣programs;␣
Consider␣why␣programs␣are␣different,␣and␣if␣it␣might␣be␣mutually␣beneficial␣to␣join␣
forces,␣even␣if␣it␣means␣altering␣a␣program;␣and␣
Design␣contracts␣and␣RFP's␣to␣provide␣for␣different␣services␣in␣different␣locations.␣␣
␣
Sources and Links
There␣are␣numerous␣sources␣of␣online␣information␣that␣will␣offer␣help␣with␣multi-
municipal␣planning␣activities.␣Below␣are␣some␣identified␣source␣documentation/links␣
for␣additional␣information:␣
Blue␣Box␣Assistance␣Team␣(A-Team)␣
http://www.vubiz.com/V5/Stewardship/bluebox.htm␣␣
Association␣of␣Municipal␣Recycling␣Coordinators␣http://www.amrc.ca␣
Stewardship␣Ontario␣http://www.stewardshipontario.ca␣
Recyclers'␣Knowledge␣Network␣http://www.vubiz.com/stewardship/Welcome.asp␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣37
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Establishing Defined Performance Measures,
Including Diversion Targets, Monitoring, and a
Continuous Improvement Program
Overview
Proper␣management␣of␣a␣recycling␣program␣includes␣the␣monitoring␣and␣
measurement␣of␣the␣program␣goals␣through␣the␣establishment␣of␣diversion␣targets␣
and␣performance␣objectives.␣␣Targets␣and␣objectives␣must␣be␣realistic,␣measurable␣
and␣relevant.␣Furthermore,␣targets␣and␣objectives␣are␣needed␣for␣the␣individual␣
program␣components␣to␣be␣evaluated␣(e.g.,␣curbside␣collection,␣depots,␣processing,␣
promotion␣and␣education,␣etc.)␣␣Evaluation␣facilitates␣continuous␣improvement␣within␣
the␣recycling␣program.␣
␣
Key Benefits and Outcomes
Effective␣monitoring␣and␣evaluation␣allows␣program␣managers␣to␣continuously␣
improve␣their␣municipal␣recycling␣programs␣and␣track␣progress␣through␣the␣use␣of␣
targets␣and␣performance␣measures.␣␣Specifically,␣program␣staff␣are␣able␣to:␣
Set␣objectives␣and␣targets␣for␣recycling␣programs␣that␣are␣implemented␣and␣
evaluated␣within␣a␣defined␣time␣period␣
Collect␣specific␣program␣data␣to␣evaluate␣the␣effectiveness␣of␣recycling␣programs␣
before␣and␣after␣implementation␣
Make␣decisions␣on␣recycling␣programs␣based␣on␣a␣detailed␣analysis␣of␣diversion␣
rates␣and␣associated␣costs␣
Evaluate␣program␣objectives␣against␣the␣pre-defined␣targets␣
Tailor␣data␣collected␣to␣match␣the␣specific␣goal,␣avoiding␣the␣collection␣of␣data␣that␣
are␣not␣pertinent␣
␣
Description and Implementation of Best Practice
The␣monitoring␣and␣evaluation␣program␣should␣be␣developed␣with␣appropriate␣
resources␣to␣gather␣and␣evaluate␣the␣required␣information.␣␣The␣collected␣data␣must␣
be␣relevant␣to␣the␣recycling␣program␣and␣the␣target␣set␣must␣be␣measurable.␣␣The␣
effectiveness␣of␣the␣recycling␣program␣should␣be␣evaluated␣and␣goals␣should␣be␣set␣
for␣continuous␣improvement.␣␣Specific␣steps␣for␣implementation␣are␣detailed␣below.␣
Step 1: Establishing Program Objectives
Objectives␣and␣targets␣must␣be␣reasonably␣established␣by␣the␣municipality␣to␣meet␣
the␣requirements␣of␣the␣specific␣program␣to␣which␣they␣will␣apply.␣␣The␣desired␣
outcomes␣and␣the␣associated␣benefits␣to␣the␣program␣should␣be␣defined.␣␣The␣
targets␣must␣be␣measurable␣and␣achievable,␣but␣challenging,␣and␣lead␣to␣increased␣
benefits.␣␣An␣example␣of␣setting␣program␣objectives␣and␣targets␣would␣be␣the␣setting␣
Fundamental␣Best␣
Practice
38 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
of␣a␣diversion␣target,␣establishing␣steps␣to␣meet␣the␣target,␣and␣then␣monitoring␣the␣
diversion␣rate␣to␣evaluate␣if␣the␣target␣is␣being␣met.␣␣Ongoing␣assessments␣of␣the␣
targets␣and␣objectives␣must␣be␣made␣to␣ensure␣that␣the␣recycling␣program␣goals␣are␣
being␣met.␣
Step 2: Baseline Measurements and Waste Audits
In␣evaluating␣program␣performance,␣it␣is␣often␣desirable␣to␣first␣establish␣a␣baseline.␣␣
This␣baseline␣will␣be␣specific␣to␣the␣program␣under␣consideration␣and␣can␣be␣used␣to␣
compare␣the␣future␣performance␣of␣the␣program.␣␣Data␣collected␣as␣part␣of␣the␣
baseline␣must␣be␣appropriately␣suited␣to␣accomplish␣the␣objectives.␣␣Understanding␣
the␣specific␣waste␣stream␣that␣the␣program␣is␣targeting␣is␣a␣critical␣first␣step.␣This␣is␣
generally␣accomplished␣through␣the␣completion␣of␣waste␣audits.␣␣Waste␣audits␣
determine␣the␣composition␣of␣waste␣being␣generated,␣can␣measure␣the␣
effectiveness␣of␣existing␣programs␣and␣can␣identify␣opportunities␣for␣improvements␣
in␣the␣waste␣management␣program.␣Please␣refer␣to␣the␣Step␣by␣Step:␣Waste␣Audits␣
link␣in␣the␣source␣documentation␣reference␣section␣for␣this␣fundamental␣leading␣
practice.␣
Step 3: Defining Data Requirements
Best␣practices␣associated␣with␣program␣evaluation␣are␣aimed␣at␣tracking␣program␣
effectiveness␣(how␣successful␣has␣the␣program␣been␣in␣achieving␣its␣target␣goals␣and␣
objectives)␣as␣well␣as␣efficiency␣(the␣extent␣to␣which␣the␣program␣accomplished␣its␣
objectives␣with␣minimal␣use␣of␣resources).␣
In␣defining␣data␣requirements,␣the␣following␣questions␣should␣be␣answered:␣␣␣
Will␣the␣measure␣track␣program␣outcomes␣as␣opposed␣to␣just␣outputs␣and␣inputs?␣␣
Is␣the␣measure␣for␣absolute␣impacts␣or␣relative␣impacts?␣
Can␣information␣pertaining␣to␣the␣measure␣be␣gathered␣systematically,␣
consistently,␣and␣objectively?␣
Is␣there␣sufficient␣time␣and␣resources␣to␣gather,␣organize␣and␣interpret␣that␣
information␣in␣order␣to␣tell␣a␣meaningful␣story␣to␣the␣evaluation␣audience?␣␣
Will␣the␣intended␣audiences␣perceive␣the␣measure␣as␣credible?␣
Will␣the␣knowledge␣gained␣through␣use␣of␣the␣measure␣be␣useful␣(e.g.,␣for␣
program␣improvement,␣adjustment␣in␣funding)?␣
Types␣of␣data␣collected␣can␣consist␣of␣set-out␣rate,␣capture␣rate,␣participation␣rate,␣
residue␣rate,␣material␣tonnages,␣cost␣allocation,␣recyclable␣market␣statistics,␣MRF␣
residue␣audits,␣MRF␣productivity␣statistics,␣staff␣requirements,␣facility␣requirements,␣
supplies␣(i.e.,␣blue␣boxes),␣and␣equipment.␣Selected␣definitions␣are␣provided␣in␣the␣
last␣section␣of␣this␣Best␣Practice␣narrative.␣
Step 4: Data Collection and Management
Next␣determine␣how␣the␣data␣will␣be␣gathered␣and␣stored.␣␣Different␣data␣collection␣
methods␣include␣mechanical␣(scales),␣surveys,␣focus␣groups,␣visually,␣etc.␣␣If␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣39
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
appropriate␣develop␣a␣database␣to␣store␣the␣data␣in␣a␣secure␣location.␣␣Throughout␣
the␣monitoring␣phase␣evaluate␣the␣data␣being␣collected␣to␣ensure␣that␣they␣are␣
relevant␣to␣measuring␣the␣desired␣outcome,␣and␣accurate.␣␣Monitor␣the␣steps␣as␣part␣
of␣the␣target␣and␣if␣required,␣adjust␣the␣steps␣and␣target␣as␣data␣is␣evaluated.␣
Step 5: Assessment and Reporting
Compile␣the␣data␣and␣analyze␣it␣by␣comparing␣to␣the␣baseline␣information.␣␣Assess␣
the␣monitoring␣and␣evaluation␣program␣against␣the␣desired␣and␣measurable␣outcome.␣␣
Report␣on␣the␣outcome␣of␣the␣objectives␣and␣targets.␣␣Identify␣and␣analyze␣the␣
factors␣that␣influence␣your␣program's␣ability␣to␣meet␣established␣goals.␣␣Overall,␣use␣
the␣findings␣to␣identify␣barriers␣to␣recycling,␣assess␣program␣performance␣relative␣to␣
the␣objectives,␣assess␣MRF␣performance,␣and␣improve␣the␣effectiveness␣of␣the␣
recycling␣program.␣␣Once␣a␣goal␣is␣met,␣continuously␣build␣and␣improve␣on␣future␣
goals␣for␣the␣program.␣␣␣
Step 6: Reviewing Goals and Objectives
Evaluation␣for␣continuous␣improvement␣is␣an␣ongoing␣activity.␣␣Program␣performance␣
must␣be␣monitored␣at␣appropriate␣intervals,␣often␣determined␣by␣the␣needs␣of␣
individual␣program␣components.␣␣The␣effectiveness␣of␣prior␣evaluation␣methods␣
should␣also␣be␣evaluated,␣so␣that␣this␣program␣component,␣too,␣can␣be␣improved␣
upon.␣
␣
Select Definitions
Capture Rate␣-␣The␣capture␣rate␣is␣the␣amount␣of␣recyclables␣set␣out␣for␣recycling␣
divided␣by␣the␣total␣amount␣of␣recyclables␣set␣out␣for␣recycling␣plus␣recyclables␣left␣in␣
the␣garbage.␣␣Capture␣rates␣can␣also␣be␣compared␣for␣each␣material␣type.␣␣
Participation Rate␣-␣The␣participation␣rate␣is␣typically␣defined␣as␣the␣percentage␣of␣
households␣on␣a␣curbside␣collection␣route␣who␣set␣out␣recyclables␣at␣least␣once␣in␣a␣
consecutive␣four␣week␣period.␣␣It␣is␣different␣from␣Set-Out␣Rate␣(see␣below),␣as␣it␣
measures␣the␣percentage␣of␣residents␣participating␣in␣the␣program␣in␣general,␣not␣
necessarily␣on␣every␣given␣collection␣day␣(some␣households␣may␣not␣generate␣
enough␣recyclables␣to␣set-out␣the␣Blue␣Box␣on␣every␣collection␣day).␣
Residue Rate␣-␣The␣percent␣of␣material␣in␣a␣recycling␣stream␣that␣is␣rejected␣during␣
processing.␣
Set-Out Rate␣-␣Percentage␣of␣households␣on␣a␣curbside␣collection␣route␣setting␣out␣
recyclables␣on␣the␣day␣of␣collection.␣␣As␣a␣percent␣the␣set-out␣rate␣is␣the␣#␣of␣
households␣setting␣out␣recycling␣on␣collection␣day␣divided␣by␣the␣total␣number␣of␣
households␣available␣to␣set␣out␣material.␣␣
Waste Audit␣-␣A␣formal,␣structured␣process␣used␣to␣quantify␣the␣amount␣and␣type␣of␣
waste␣including␣recyclables␣being␣generated.␣
␣
40 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Source and Links
Stewardship␣Ontario's␣Plan␣Your␣Own␣Waste␣Audit␣webpage:␣
http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/eefund/projects/audits/waste_audit_own.htm␣
E&E␣Project␣#105␣-␣Protocol␣for␣MRF␣Residual␣Sampling␣April,␣2006:␣
http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/pdf/eefund/reports/105/105_tech_memo_2.pdf␣
E&E␣Project␣#164␣-␣Markets␣Help␣Desk␣(see␣Appendix␣C:␣Protocols␣and␣Procedures␣
for␣Conducting␣Audits␣at␣the␣PIWMF)␣
http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/pdf/eefund/reports/164/164_final_report.pdf␣
California␣Division␣of␣Recycling␣Project␣Evaluation␣Tips:␣
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DOR/grants/grant_seekers/ProEval.htm␣
Evaluation␣of␣Recycling␣Programs,␣East␣Central␣Iowa␣Council␣of␣Governments:␣
http://www.iowadnr.com/waste/pubs/files/ecicogfinal.pdf␣
EPA␣Measuring␣Recycling␣A␣Guide␣for␣State␣and␣Local␣Governments:␣
http://www.epa.gov/recyclable.measure/download.htm␣␣
Step␣by␣Step:␣Waste␣Audits␣
http://www.wme.com.au/magazine/downloads/WasteAudit_dec2002.pdf␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣41
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Optimization of Operations in Collections and
Processing
␣
Overview
Optimization␣of␣operations␣is␣a␣process␣of␣critically␣assessing␣collection␣and␣
processing␣functions␣and␣making␣changes␣that␣have␣a␣net␣positive␣effect␣on␣recovery␣
rates␣and/or␣cost.␣A␣combination␣of␣data-driven,␣expertise-driven,␣and␣heuristic␣
approaches␣can␣be␣used␣to␣optimize␣operations.␣Where␣collection␣and/or␣processing␣
are␣outsourced,␣close␣collaboration␣with␣the␣contractor,␣sufficient␣flexibility␣in␣the␣use␣
of␣contractor␣labour␣and␣assets,␣and␣thorough␣understanding␣of␣cost␣drivers␣
contribute␣to␣optimization␣of␣the␣system.␣␣
␣
Key Benefits and Outcomes
Collection␣efficiency␣means␣getting␣more␣for␣less--picking␣up␣more␣recyclables␣
using␣fewer␣trucks,␣fewer␣staff␣and/or␣less␣time.␣Optimized␣curbside␣collection␣
operations␣maximize␣the␣quantity␣of␣target␣materials␣set␣out␣at␣each␣stop␣on␣
collection␣day␣and␣minimize␣the␣amount␣of␣time␣required␣to␣collect␣that␣material,␣
thereby␣minimizing␣the␣unit␣costs␣involved.␣␣
Optimized␣processing␣operations␣make␣full␣use␣of␣the␣available␣processing␣
capacity,␣minimize␣the␣amount␣of␣manual␣and␣mechanical␣sorting␣required␣to␣
produce␣recyclable␣products␣that␣meet␣target␣market␣specifications,␣and␣
maximize␣the␣quantities␣of␣these␣materials␣from␣the␣incoming␣feed,␣while␣
minimizing␣the␣amount␣of␣out␣throws,␣residue␣and␣prohibitives␣associated␣with␣
the␣captured␣material.␣␣
Description and Implementation of Best Practice
Optimization␣entails␣evaluation␣and␣implementation␣steps␣aimed␣at␣improving␣the␣
performance␣and␣efficiency␣of␣those␣operations␣being␣evaluated.␣␣There␣are␣basic␣
principles␣associated␣with␣optimization␣that␣apply␣to␣both␣collection␣and␣processing.␣␣
Key␣principles␣are␣as␣follows:␣
Have␣an␣integrated␣approach␣to␣design␣and␣management␣of␣operations␣so␣as␣to␣
take␣advantage␣of␣opportunities␣to␣share␣facilities␣and␣other␣resources,␣such␣as␣
those␣associated␣with␣P&E␣program␣design␣and␣implementation,␣and␣reduce␣the␣
costs␣of␣the␣system␣as␣a␣whole␣
Pursue␣the␣"low␣hanging␣fruit"␣first:␣␣options␣that␣provide␣the␣greatest␣return␣on␣
investment␣with␣respect␣to␣meeting␣operational␣performance␣and␣efficiency␣
targets␣set␣by␣the␣jurisdiction␣(see␣Best␣Practice␣on␣Monitoring␣and␣Evaluation)␣
Use␣existing␣infrastructure␣as␣appropriate␣prior␣to␣establishing␣additional␣
infrastructure␣that␣may␣duplicate␣or␣compete␣with␣that␣already␣in␣existence␣
Provide␣for␣a␣reasonable␣degree␣of␣redundancy␣to␣minimize␣down␣time,␣while␣
avoiding␣unnecessary␣duplication␣of␣infrastructure.␣␣An␣example␣of␣this␣is␣to␣have␣
Fundamental␣Best␣
Practice
42 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
spare␣collection␣vehicles␣or␣arrange␣for␣a␣neighbouring␣processing␣facility␣to␣
accept␣material␣in␣the␣event␣of␣processing␣facility␣down␣time␣
Match␣the␣scale␣and␣nature␣of␣operational␣infrastructure␣to␣the␣task␣at␣hand␣and␣
use␣appropriate␣technology␣-␣the␣right␣tool␣for␣the␣job␣
Balance␣the␣use␣of␣mechanization␣with␣use␣of␣labour␣
Avoid␣double␣handling␣of␣materials␣(e.g.,␣moving␣materials␣from␣place␣to␣place␣
within␣a␣MRF␣when␣conveyors␣could␣do␣the␣job␣more␣cost-effectively)␣␣
Provide␣incentives␣to␣workers␣and␣contractors␣for␣spawning␣innovation␣and␣
continuous␣improvement.␣One␣means␣of␣doing␣this␣is␣to␣offer␣spot␣bonuses␣for␣
ideas␣that␣generate␣significant␣cost␣savings␣
Use␣ergonomic,␣worker␣friendly␣equipment␣and␣systems,␣such␣as␣sorting␣
conveyors␣of␣proper␣height␣and␣width,␣comfortable␣safety␣equipment,␣and␣good␣
lighting␣and␣air␣conditioning␣
Maintain␣a␣flexible␣design␣and␣operational␣approach␣to␣respond␣to␣changing␣needs␣
and␣circumstances␣
Make␣an␣appropriate␣level␣of␣capital␣investment␣to␣maximize␣benefits␣over␣the␣
long␣term␣at␣a␣reasonable␣payback␣level␣
Utilize␣a␣preventative␣maintenance␣program␣by␣servicing␣equipment␣prior␣to␣
breakdowns␣instead␣of␣fixing␣it␣upon␣breakage,␣thus␣reducing␣downtime␣␣
Address␣operational␣issues␣when␣they␣arise␣by␣understanding␣the␣underlying␣
causes,␣developing␣potential␣solutions,␣and␣minimizing␣adverse␣impact.␣␣An␣
example␣is␣to␣introduce␣compaction-enabled␣collection␣trucks␣when␣low␣material␣
density␣has␣been␣identified␣as␣an␣issue␣
Provide␣appropriate␣levels␣of␣management␣and␣supervisory␣personnel␣who␣are␣
trained␣on␣optimization␣techniques␣and␣use␣of␣Best␣Practices␣
Plan␣and␣provide␣for␣emergencies,␣contingencies,␣and␣growth␣
In␣working␣to␣optimize␣operations,␣it␣is␣important␣to␣recognize␣that␣other␣objectives␣
beyond␣optimization␣merit␣focus␣and␣attention,␣such␣as␣providing␣for␣worker␣safety␣
and␣acceptable␣working␣conditions,␣and␣protecting␣public␣health␣and␣welfare.␣␣
Consequently,␣optimization␣must␣be␣performed␣in␣a␣manner␣consistent␣with␣meeting␣
other␣such␣important␣community␣objectives.␣
Additional␣optimization␣best␣practices␣and␣considerations␣specific␣to␣curbside␣
collection␣and␣processing␣are␣provided␣in␣separate␣sections␣on␣these␣topics.␣␣Best␣
practices␣for␣depot␣and␣multi-family␣recycling␣programs␣are␣also␣discussed␣in␣
separate␣sections␣so␣titled.␣
␣
Sources and Links
E&E␣Fund␣Project␣Number␣207.␣␣York␣Collection␣and␣Processing␣Optimization␣Study,␣
2006␣
http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/eefund/projects/benchmark.htm#207␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣43
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Efficient␣Recycling␣Collection␣Routing␣in␣Pictou␣County,␣2001␣
http://www.cogs.ns.ca/planning/projects/plt20014/images/research.pdf␣
US␣Environmental␣Protection␣Agency.␣Getting␣More␣for␣Less:␣Improving␣Collection␣
Efficiency,␣1999␣
www.epa.gov/garbage/coll-eff/r99038.pdf␣
Single␣Stream␣Best␣Practices␣Manual␣and␣Implementation␣Guide,␣Susan␣Kinsella,␣
Conservatree,␣2007␣
http://conservatree.com/learn/SolidWaste/bestpractices.shtml␣
44 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Training of Key Program Staff in Core Competencies
␣
Overview
Municipalities␣need␣to␣ensure␣that␣management␣program␣personnel␣are␣adequately␣
trained␣on␣position-related␣competencies␣and␣responsibilities.␣␣Training␣provides␣the␣
skills␣needed␣to␣develop,␣manage,␣monitor,␣document␣and␣promote␣the␣numerous␣
and␣complex␣components␣of␣a␣successful␣recycling␣program.␣Regardless␣of␣the␣size␣
or␣type␣of␣municipal␣program,␣training␣acts␣as␣an␣enabler␣of␣performance,␣facilitating␣
the␣achievement␣of␣objectives␣in␣a␣cost-effective␣manner.␣␣␣␣Equally␣important␣to␣
training␣is␣ensuring␣that␣structure,␣authority␣and␣responsibility␣are␣well␣established␣
and␣understood.␣
␣
Key Benefits and Outcomes
Proper␣staffing␣and␣training␣leads␣to␣improved␣performance␣in␣all␣key␣program␣
components,␣including␣both␣effectiveness␣and␣efficiency␣in␣the␣following␣areas:␣
Resident␣participation␣and␣satisfaction␣
Optimized␣program␣funding␣
Staff␣time/costs␣
Supplier/contractor␣relations␣
Reduced␣need␣for␣management␣supervision␣␣
Reduced␣need␣for␣council␣time␣and␣attention␣
Job␣satisfaction,␣motivation␣and␣morale␣among␣employees␣␣
Process␣efficiencies␣␣
Capacity␣to␣adopt␣new␣technologies␣and␣methods␣␣
Knowledge␣of␣material␣markets␣and␣pricing,␣yielding␣higher␣revenues␣
Innovation␣in␣business␣strategies␣and␣products␣␣
Reduced␣employee␣turnover␣␣
Enhanced␣municipal␣image␣␣
Risk␣management␣␣
Increased␣ability␣to␣attract/promote␣staff␣␣
␣
Description of Best Practice
Municipalities␣that␣take␣on␣the␣responsibility␣of␣providing␣recycling␣services␣also␣
assume␣the␣duty␣to␣provide␣adequate␣amounts␣of␣time␣from␣knowledgeable␣
management␣and␣operations␣staff␣to␣deliver␣those␣services.␣It␣is␣assumed␣that␣all␣
Fundamental␣Best␣
Practice
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣45
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
municipalities␣and␣private␣contractors␣train␣operations␣staff␣to␣levels␣that␣ensure␣the␣
safety␣and␣efficiency␣of␣the␣program.␣␣␣
Additionally,␣municipalities␣need␣to␣recognize␣the␣importance␣of␣having␣appropriately␣
trained␣management␣staff␣to␣effectively␣perform␣the␣assigned␣responsibilities.␣
Providing␣adequate␣staff␣time␣may␣be␣a␣challenge␣to␣smaller␣municipalities,␣however,␣
all␣effective␣and␣efficient␣recycling␣programs␣depend␣on␣the␣availability␣of␣enough␣
time␣from␣knowledgeable␣people.␣Therefore,␣all␣municipalities␣are␣encouraged␣to␣
strive␣for␣the␣appropriate␣staffing␣and␣management␣training␣levels.␣␣
Knowledgeable␣staff␣routinely␣achieve␣higher␣levels␣of␣success␣within␣their␣local␣
recycling␣program,␣as␣measured␣by␣greater␣resident␣participation␣and␣satisfaction,␣
along␣with␣increased␣diversion␣and␣optimized␣program␣funding.␣␣Business␣research␣
shows␣that␣productivity␣increases␣while␣training␣takes␣place␣(see␣end␣of␣this␣section␣
for␣references).␣␣Staff␣who␣receive␣formal␣training␣can␣be␣significantly␣more␣
productive␣than␣untrained␣colleagues␣who␣are␣working␣in␣the␣same␣role.␣␣As␣a␣result,␣
most␣businesses␣provide␣on-the-job␣training,␣which␣generally␣yields␣a␣positive␣return␣
on␣investment.␣
While␣rationale␣and␣objectives␣for␣training␣vary␣across␣organizations,␣municipalities␣
seeking␣to␣improve␣program␣performance␣should␣consider␣focusing␣on␣the␣following␣
goals:␣
Improved Quality and Productivity
Training␣that␣meets␣both␣staff␣and␣employer␣needs␣can␣increase␣the␣quality␣and␣
flexibility␣of␣municipal␣recycling␣services␣by␣encouraging:␣
accuracy␣and␣efficiency␣
strong␣work␣safety␣practices␣
better␣customer␣service␣
Enhanced Transferability
The␣benefits␣of␣training␣in␣one␣area␣can␣flow␣through␣to␣all␣levels␣of␣an␣organization.␣
Over␣time,␣training␣will␣reduce␣costs␣by␣decreasing:␣
wasted␣time␣and␣materials␣
redundant␣work␣
workplace␣accidents␣
recruitment␣costs␣through␣the␣internal␣promotion␣of␣skilled␣staff␣
absenteeism␣
Increased Competitiveness
Municipalities␣must␣continually␣change␣their␣work␣practices␣and␣infrastructure␣to␣
improve␣diversion␣and␣contain␣recycling␣costs.␣Training␣staff␣to␣manage␣the␣
implementation␣of␣new␣technology,␣work␣practices␣and␣business␣strategies␣can␣also␣
act␣as␣a␣benchmark␣for␣future␣recruitment␣and␣quality␣assurance␣practices.␣
46 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
In␣addition␣to␣impacting␣municipal␣costs,␣training␣can␣improve:␣
staff␣morale␣and␣satisfaction␣
inter-staff/department␣communication␣and␣leadership␣
time␣management␣
customer␣satisfaction␣
Effective Recruiting
Training␣aids␣the␣recruiting␣process.␣If␣a␣municipality␣is␣committed␣to␣training,␣it␣may␣
be␣more␣willing␣to␣hire␣a␣desirable␣candidate␣who␣lacks␣a␣specific␣skill.␣Training␣also␣
makes␣a␣municipality␣more␣attractive␣in␣the␣eyes␣of␣potential␣employees␣because␣it␣
shows␣them␣that␣they␣have␣room␣to␣grow␣and␣accept␣new␣challenges.␣Additionally,␣
training␣existing␣employees␣often␣reduces␣the␣need␣to␣hire␣new␣staff.␣␣
Training␣rewards␣long-time␣employees.␣Municipalities␣are␣more␣willing␣to␣promote␣
existing␣employees␣who␣have␣learned␣new␣skills␣and␣are␣ready␣to␣take␣on␣new␣
challenges.␣␣
Training␣reduces␣the␣need␣for␣supervision.␣Not␣only␣does␣skill-based␣training␣teach␣
employees␣how␣to␣do␣their␣jobs␣better,␣but␣it␣also␣helps␣them␣work␣more␣
independently␣and␣develop␣a␣can-do␣attitude.␣␣
Perhaps␣the␣most␣important␣benefit␣of␣a␣healthy␣training␣culture␣is␣that␣the␣skills␣of␣
your␣staff␣are␣formally␣recognized␣and␣their␣contribution␣to␣the␣municipality␣and␣the␣
recycling␣program␣is␣openly␣valued.␣
Staff Retention
Training␣increases␣staff␣retention,␣resulting␣in␣significant␣cost␣savings.␣The␣loss␣of␣
one␣competent␣person␣can␣equal␣the␣equivalent␣of␣one␣year's␣pay␣and␣benefits.␣In␣
some␣companies,␣training␣programs␣have␣reduced␣staff␣turnover␣by␣70␣per␣cent␣and␣
led␣to␣substantial␣returns␣on␣investment.␣
␣
Implementation
Ontario␣recycling␣program␣coordinators␣and␣senior␣staff␣need␣the␣skills␣and␣expertise␣
to␣effectively␣employ␣all␣of␣the␣fundamental␣best␣practices␣described␣in␣this␣report.␣
Such␣skills␣include:␣
Recycling␣program␣planning,␣development,␣evaluation,␣and␣continuous␣
improvement␣
Recycling␣services␣procurement␣and␣contract␣administration␣
Use␣of␣policy␣mechanisms␣to␣promote␣waste␣diversion␣and␣recycling,␣and␣
promotion␣and␣education␣
Operations␣planning␣and␣management␣(where␣the␣municipality␣provides␣that␣
function)␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣47
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
It␣is␣important␣to␣ensure␣this␣training␣is␣ongoing␣-␣i.e.,␣refresher␣training␣to␣ensure␣
staff␣are␣kept␣current␣and␣cross-training␣of␣departmental␣staff␣that␣rotate␣positions.␣␣
The␣competency␣of␣staff␣should␣be␣monitored␣via␣annual␣performance␣reviews.␣␣␣
Numerous␣organizations␣offer␣opportunities␣to␣acquire␣training,␣information␣and␣
networking.␣
The␣Association␣of␣Municipal␣Recycling␣Coordinators␣(AMRC)␣offers␣several␣
recycling␣conferences␣and␣workshops␣each␣year:␣␣
Waste␣Diversion␣Ontario␣(WDO)␣offers␣many␣guides␣and␣informational␣packages␣to␣
assist␣with␣municipal␣Datacall␣completion,␣funding␣and␣CAN/OCNA␣in␣kind␣
advertising.␣␣
Association␣of␣Municipalities␣of␣Ontario␣(AMO)␣is␣a␣non-profit␣organization␣
representing␣the␣municipal␣order␣of␣government␣and␣provides␣a␣variety␣of␣
services␣and␣products␣to␣members␣and␣non-members.␣
Stewardship␣Ontario,␣WDO,␣and␣AMO␣regularly␣host␣"Ontario␣Recycler␣
Workshops"␣(ORWs)␣for␣Ontario␣municipal␣waste␣management␣staff␣and␣private␣
sector␣service␣providers,␣as␣well␣as␣for␣municipal␣councillors␣and␣interested␣
stewards␣of␣Blue␣Box␣recyclables.␣These␣workshops␣and␣web␣casts␣provide␣
information␣about␣how␣to␣optimize␣WDO␣funding␣to␣support␣municipal␣
residential␣Blue␣Box␣recycling␣programs.␣␣Project␣studies␣and␣reports␣
commissioned␣under␣the␣Effectiveness␣and␣Efficiency␣Fund␣are␣available,␣along␣
with␣tendering␣tools␣and␣information␣from␣the␣Recyclers'␣Knowledge␣Network.␣
The␣Solid␣Waste␣Association␣of␣North␣America␣(SWANA)␣has␣been␣a␣leading␣
source␣of␣information␣and␣training␣programs␣for␣solid␣waste␣professionals␣for␣
over␣40␣years.␣SWANA␣offers␣training␣and␣certification␣as␣a␣Recycling␣Systems␣
Professional.␣
Although␣all␣of␣the␣above␣organizations␣offer␣some␣training␣and␣information␣services,␣
there␣is␣no␣coordinated␣recycling␣management␣training␣system␣currently␣available␣in␣
Ontario.␣␣␣
Broader␣and␣more␣comprehensive␣training␣resources␣and␣tools␣may␣be␣implemented␣
in␣the␣near␣future␣to␣equip␣municipal␣recycling␣staff␣with␣adequate␣skills␣to␣effectively␣
manage␣and␣operate␣Blue␣Box␣programs.␣␣
For␣example,␣in␣the␣United␣Kingdom,␣WRAP␣(the␣Waste␣&␣Resources␣Action␣
Programme)␣has␣announced␣phase␣four␣of␣its␣free␣training␣courses␣for␣recycling␣
managers.␣The␣training␣program,␣developed␣to␣support␣recycling␣managers␣in␣
improving␣existing␣recycling␣schemes␣and␣introducing␣new␣collection␣initiatives,␣has␣
proved␣very␣popular.␣In␣the␣first␣year␣of␣operation,␣25␣courses␣have␣been␣run␣and␣400␣
delegates␣from␣across␣the␣UK␣have␣received␣training.␣
The␣three-day␣residential␣courses␣are␣aimed␣at␣people␣from␣local␣authorities,␣the␣
community␣and␣private␣sectors␣who␣manage␣or␣develop␣and␣promote␣collections␣of␣
recyclable␣or␣compostable␣materials.␣The␣content␣focuses␣on␣equipping␣delegates␣
with␣the␣knowledge,␣skills␣and␣tools␣to␣develop␣cost-effective␣systems␣with␣high␣
48 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
participation␣and␣recovery␣rates␣for␣the␣collection␣and␣sorting␣of␣materials␣that␣meet␣
end␣market␣requirements.␣␣
Based␣on␣this␣and␣other␣examples,␣the␣Team␣estimated␣that␣annual␣costs␣for␣
recycling␣program␣management␣training␣would␣amount␣to␣approximately␣$412,000.␣␣
This␣assumes␣that␣two␣staff␣members␣from␣the␣largest␣40␣programs␣and␣one␣staff␣
member␣from␣the␣remaining␣150␣programs␣need␣to␣be␣trained.␣␣Training-related␣
expenses␣range␣from␣$1,600␣to␣$2,150␣per␣delegate.␣␣␣
␣
Source and Links
There␣are␣numerous␣sources␣of␣online␣information␣about␣training␣and␣development.␣
Below␣are␣some␣identified␣source␣documentation/links␣for␣additional␣information:␣
Association␣of␣Municipalities␣of␣Ontario␣␣http://www.amo.on.ca␣␣
Association␣of␣Municipal␣Recycling␣Coordinators␣http://www.amrc.ca␣
Waste␣Diversion␣Ontario␣␣␣http://www.wdo.ca␣
Stewardship␣Ontario␣␣http://www.stewardshipontario.ca␣
Recyclers'␣Knowledge␣Network␣http://www.vubiz.com/stewardship/Welcome.asp␣
Ontario␣Recycler␣Workshops␣
http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/eefund/orw/orw_main.htm␣
Solid␣Waste␣Association␣of␣North␣America␣␣http://www.swana.org␣␣
Research␣on␣training␣in␣the␣workplace:␣Smith␣A.,␣2001,␣Return␣on␣Investment␣in␣
Training:␣Research␣Readings␣␣http://www.ncver.edu.au/research/proj/nr1002.pdf␣␣␣␣
2001,␣Australian␣National␣Training␣Authority.␣
WRAP␣launches␣phase␣4␣of␣its␣recycling␣manager␣training␣programs␣␣
http://www.wrap.org.uk/wrap_corporate/news/wrap_launches_6.html␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣49
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Following Generally Accepted Principles for Effective
Procurement and Contract Management
␣
Overview
A␣vast␣majority␣of␣Ontario␣Blue␣Box␣municipal␣programs␣involve␣the␣use␣of␣
contractors␣for␣collection␣and/or␣processing␣of␣recyclables.␣␣Since␣contractor␣
selection␣and␣performance␣in␣these␣municipalities␣has␣a␣substantial␣impact␣on␣
program␣design,␣service␣delivery,␣cost,␣and␣sustainability,␣effective␣practices␣in␣
procurement␣and␣contract␣management␣need␣to␣be␣employed.␣␣␣
␣
Key Benefits and Outcomes
Well␣designed␣and␣executed␣procurement␣and␣contract␣management␣processes␣can␣
yield␣a␣number␣of␣effectiveness␣benefits.␣␣Specifically,␣it␣
Ensures␣high␣quality␣service␣to␣specified␣requirements␣
Offers␣flexibility␣to␣address␣changing␣needs␣
Provides␣incentives␣to␣maximize␣participation,␣tonnage␣and␣material␣revenues␣
Provides␣a␣proper␣system␣(or␣system␣component)␣design␣that␣increases␣diversion␣
at␣a␣lower␣cost␣␣
Opens␣the␣door␣to␣innovation␣
Efficiencies␣that␣can␣be␣gained␣include:␣
Cost␣savings␣due␣to␣increased␣competition␣
Cost␣savings␣due␣to␣economies␣of␣scale␣
Cost␣savings␣due␣to␣properly␣structured␣contract␣terms␣
␣
Description and Implementation of Best Practice
The␣majority␣of␣Ontario␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣involve␣some␣element␣of␣contracting␣of␣
services.␣␣It␣is,␣therefore,␣essential␣to␣employ␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣
management␣processes␣within␣these␣programs␣to␣yield␣positive␣province-wide␣
diversion␣and␣fiscal␣results.␣␣
The␣goals␣of␣good␣procurement␣and␣contract␣management␣are␣to:␣
Secure␣the␣desired␣level␣of␣services␣from␣competent␣contractors␣at␣the␣lowest␣
possible␣cost,␣and␣␣
Create␣an␣effective␣working␣partnership␣between␣contracting␣parties␣that␣
continues␣through␣the␣duration␣of␣the␣contract.␣␣
Accepted␣leading␣practices␣for␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣management␣to␣
extract␣the␣best␣value␣for␣municipal␣Blue␣Box␣contract␣needs␣include:␣
Fundamental␣Best␣
Practice
50 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Planning␣procurements␣well␣in␣advance␣of␣service␣requirements.␣␣Useful␣life␣of␣
existing␣equipment,␣lead␣times␣for␣replacing␣this␣equipment,␣and␣lead␣times␣for␣
the␣execution␣of␣the␣procurement␣process␣itself␣all␣require␣careful␣consideration.␣␣
Failure␣to␣plan␣properly␣may␣mean␣costly␣maintenance␣and␣breakdowns␣and␣sub-
optimal␣contracting.␣
Investigating␣and␣understanding␣suppliers'␣markets␣to␣understand␣the␣players,␣
dynamics,␣cost␣drivers,␣and␣innovators␣in␣order␣to␣maximize␣value␣when␣setting␣
procurement␣strategy.␣␣This␣results␣in␣municipal␣staff␣becoming␣informed␣buyers.␣
Involving␣suppliers␣(in␣pre-procurement␣consultations)␣to␣help␣refine␣requirements,␣
where␣own␣experience␣is␣limited,␣and␣to␣leverage␣innovation␣and␣capabilities␣of␣
experienced␣suppliers.␣␣This␣results␣in␣municipal␣staff␣becoming␣smart␣buyers.␣
Developing␣a␣clear␣definition␣of␣services␣and␣performance␣requirements␣
Using␣the␣appropriate␣procurement␣instrument,␣such␣as␣a␣Tender␣or␣an␣RFP␣␣
Using␣a␣competitive␣procurement␣process␣and␣working␣to␣encourage␣multiple␣
proponents/bidders␣
Using␣a␣two-envelope␣bid␣process␣(when␣a␣Request␣for␣Proposal␣process␣is␣
appropriate)␣
Using␣a␣pre-defined␣(transparent␣&␣fair)␣bid␣evaluation␣process␣
Using␣knowledgeable␣evaluators.␣␣This␣may␣include␣a␣cross-functional␣team,␣
supplemented␣with␣independent␣experts,␣as␣required.␣
A␣partnership-oriented␣approach␣to␣monitoring␣and␣managing␣the␣contract␣and␣
contractor␣to␣achieve␣objectives␣and␣take␣mutual␣advantage␣of␣opportunities␣for␣
improvement␣
Implementation␣of␣an␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣management␣involves␣a␣
series␣of␣sequential␣steps.␣␣These␣steps␣are␣presented␣below:␣
Step 1: Precisely define services to be contracted
This␣involves␣developing␣answers␣to␣questions␣such␣as:␣
Who␣is␣the␣service␣recipient?␣␣Is␣it␣one␣or␣more␣municipalities?␣␣
What␣services␣are␣to␣be␣provided?␣␣What␣is␣the␣nature␣and␣type␣of␣service␣(e.g.,␣
collection,␣processing,␣transportation,␣marketing␣of␣materials,␣communication␣
and␣education,␣program␣administration␣and␣operation)?␣
What␣is␣the␣length␣of␣contract?␣For␣contracts␣involving␣the␣supply␣of␣equipment,␣
the␣best␣contracts␣match␣the␣lifecycle␣of␣the␣equipment␣being␣supplied.␣␣If␣the␣
contract␣is␣too␣short,␣the␣contractor␣must␣capitalize␣the␣equipment␣over␣the␣
period␣of␣the␣contract,␣resulting␣in␣less␣than␣optimal␣unit␣pricing␣and␣overall␣cost.␣␣
If␣the␣contract␣exceeds␣the␣equipment␣life␣by␣a␣year␣or␣more,␣the␣contractor␣will␣
incur␣new␣equipment␣or␣expensive␣maintenance␣costs␣that␣must␣be␣built␣in␣to␣
the␣price.␣␣Current␣lifecycle␣expectations␣for␣new␣collection␣trucks␣are␣about␣7␣
years;␣new␣materials␣recovery␣facility␣(MRF)␣equipment␣10␣-15␣years.␣␣␣␣␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣51
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Municipalities␣should␣also␣evaluate␣options␣prior␣to␣proposal/bid␣process␣through␣
informal␣dialogue␣with␣potential␣service␣providers␣and␣other␣stakeholders.␣␣
Municipalities␣should␣clearly␣and␣specifically:␣
Examine␣weaknesses␣in␣past␣agreements␣and␣any␣issues␣with␣service␣
Review␣agreements␣from␣other␣communities␣
Identify␣both␣short-␣and␣long-term␣needs␣
Identify␣where␣flexibility␣can␣be␣incorporated␣without␣leaving␣too␣much␣open␣to␣
interpretation␣
Program␣managers␣and␣procurement␣personnel␣should␣provide␣adequate␣data␣and␣
technical␣specifications␣for␣accurate␣pricing␣of␣services.␣␣A␣typical␣collection␣contract␣
may␣include:␣services␣to␣be␣provided,␣collection␣frequency,␣stream␣separation␣and␣
number␣of␣streams,␣volume␣tonnage␣and␣types␣of␣material␣(from␣recent␣audited␣mix),␣
future␣materials␣contemplated,␣number␣of␣households/stops␣per␣kilometre␣for␣
collection;␣areas␣to␣be␣collected/route␣maps.␣␣A␣processing␣contract␣may␣include:␣
tonnes␣per␣hour,␣product␣mix,␣quality␣measures␣(e.g.,␣bailed␣material␣composition␣
thresholds),␣uptime␣as␣a␣percentage␣of␣operating␣hours,␣and␣acceptable␣residue␣rate,␣
among␣other␣factors.␣␣
Staff␣should␣also␣prepare␣a␣cost␣estimate␣of␣services␣requested␣to␣inform␣the␣
procurement␣process␣-␣benchmark␣to␣other␣recent␣municipal␣procurement␣processes␣
for␣similar␣services,␣whenever␣possible.␣␣
Step 2: Determine contractor pool and your market position
Good␣results␣are␣more␣likely␣to␣come␣from␣a␣minimum␣of␣3␣bidders.␣␣In␣rural␣areas,␣
bargaining␣power␣may␣be␣improved␣by␣bundling␣services␣or␣partnering␣with␣other␣
communities␣to␣increase␣attractiveness␣of␣potential␣business.␣␣On␣the␣other␣hand,␣if␣
the␣service␣area␣is␣too␣large,␣as␣may␣be␣the␣case␣in␣urban␣areas,␣this␣can␣also␣limit␣
contractors.␣In␣this␣event,␣it␣may␣be␣desirable␣to␣de-bundle␣services␣or␣break-up␣the␣
contract␣to␣allow␣more,␣smaller␣bidders␣the␣opportunity␣to␣bid␣on␣selection␣or␣entire␣
system.␣
The␣level␣of␣financial␣investment␣expected␣may␣determine␣the␣market␣of␣suppliers.␣␣A␣
high␣capital␣investment␣typically␣requires␣a␣longer␣contract␣and␣implies␣more␣risk.␣
Fewer␣contractors␣may␣be␣capable␣of␣bidding.␣
With␣respect␣to␣recycling␣collection␣and␣processing,␣the␣leading␣practice␣is␣to␣
structure␣the␣procurement␣process␣to␣allow␣for␣separate␣contracting␣for␣collection␣
and␣processing␣when␣feasible.␣␣This␣stimulates␣competition␣by␣encouraging␣
collection␣contractors,␣who␣may␣not␣be␣able␣to␣bid␣on␣a␣MRF,␣to␣provide␣good␣service␣
at␣competitive␣prices␣on␣the␣collection␣process.␣With␣this␣approach,␣it␣is␣most␣
desirable␣to␣handle␣the␣procurement␣process␣for␣processing␣in␣advance␣of␣collection,␣
or␣to␣specify␣a␣MRF␣location,␣so␣that␣collection␣service␣providers␣will␣know␣where␣the␣
MRF␣will␣be␣located␣and␣can␣structure␣their␣proposals/bids␣accordingly.␣␣Quality␣
control␣concerns␣when␣two␣contractors␣are␣involved␣can␣be␣managed␣contractually␣
with␣appropriate␣monitoring,␣penalties␣and␣incentives.␣
52 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Municipalities␣need␣to␣develop␣contract␣payment␣terms␣that␣align␣with␣incentives␣and␣
desired␣performance␣levels.␣␣It␣should␣be␣clear␣and␣unambiguous␣how␣adherence␣to␣
contact␣terms␣and␣achievement␣of␣performance␣thresholds␣will␣be␣tied␣to␣payments␣
for␣services.␣␣
Additionally,␣it␣is␣desirable␣to␣obtain␣separate␣prices␣for␣collection␣and␣processing␣
even␣if␣under␣one␣contract,␣and␣to␣request␣pricing␣for␣the␣handling␣of␣any␣materials␣
that␣might␣be␣added␣at␣some␣point␣during␣the␣term␣of␣the␣contract.␣
Finally,␣a␣self-assessment␣process␣is␣needed␣to␣determine␣whether␣your␣municipal␣
organization␣is␣fair␣and␣equitable␣when␣dealing␣with␣contractors.␣␣Investing␣in␣and␣
protecting␣your␣reputation␣for␣open,␣transparent␣and␣fair␣procurement␣practices␣will␣
positively␣influence␣the␣pool␣of␣available␣bidders␣on␣future␣contracts.␣␣
Step 3: Prepare a detailed, unambiguous RFP or Tender
Programs␣staff␣should␣select␣the␣appropriate␣procurement␣mechanism.␣A␣tender␣
works␣best␣when:␣
Services␣can␣be␣definitively␣specified␣
All␣bidders␣are␣qualified␣
Price␣is␣sole␣deciding␣factor␣
A␣Request␣for␣Proposals␣(RFP)␣-␣Works␣best␣when:␣
Local␣government␣is␣receptive␣to␣different␣approaches␣to␣delivering␣service.␣␣This␣
may␣often␣yield␣additional␣value␣opportunity␣
Price␣is␣not␣sole␣determining␣factor␣in␣contractor␣selection␣
␣
Step 4: Employ a fair and transparent contractor selection process
A␣healthy␣competitive␣market␣is␣critical␣to␣availability␣of␣service␣choice␣and␣better␣
value␣in␣procurement.␣␣Local␣service␣markets␣become␣diminished␣if␣fair␣and␣
transparent␣processes␣are␣not␣used.␣␣Service␣choice,␣therefore,␣becomes␣more␣
limited␣in␣the␣future.␣␣Municipalities␣can␣influence␣and␣encourage␣competition␣and␣
more␣robust␣supplier␣markets␣by␣employing␣the␣following␣activities:␣␣
Use␣supplier␣mailing␣lists␣and␣widespread␣advertising␣to␣solicit␣interest␣in␣your␣
service␣needs␣
Co-operate␣with␣nearby␣municipalities␣to␣create␣joint␣opportunities␣that␣could␣
increase␣the␣number␣of␣suppliers␣
Learn␣about␣capabilities/interests␣of␣potential␣contractors␣in␣advance␣by␣meeting␣
with␣them␣
Consider␣pre-qualifying␣bidders␣
Hold␣pre-proposal/bid␣meeting␣␣
Provide␣adequate␣opportunities␣for␣questions/answers␣during␣proposal/bid␣
development␣
Example: Components of a good
RFP and Contract
Clearly␣defined␣terms␣
Detailed␣description␣of␣service(s)␣
to␣be␣provided␣
Adequate␣background␣information␣
and␣data␣
Expectations␣regarding␣
qualifications␣and␣experience␣␣
Detailed␣performance␣
specifications␣that␣address␣the␣
following:␣
- Location␣of␣service␣
- Regulatory␣compliance␣
- Recyclables␣(initial␣&␣provisions␣
for␣future)␣
- Markets␣for␣processed␣materials␣
- Capacity/throughput␣
- Vehicle␣access,␣operating␣hours,␣
weighing␣
- Residue␣management␣and␣limits␣
- Start␣up␣schedule␣
- Handling␣of␣complaints␣
- Record␣keeping␣and␣reporting␣
- Equipment␣requirements␣
- Public␣education␣requirements␣
Payment␣terms␣
Incentives/penalties␣to␣support␣
increasing␣performance␣
Opportunities␣for␣amending␣scope␣
to␣address␣changing␣
circumstances␣
Avenues␣for␣resolving␣
disagreements␣-␣mandatory␣3rd␣
party␣mediation␣clause␣
Clear␣financial/cost␣proposal␣
instructions␣
Proposal␣submission␣instructions␣
Description␣of␣selection␣process␣
and␣evaluation␣criteria␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣53
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Determine␣detailed␣evaluation␣criteria␣and␣scoring␣system␣to␣be␣used␣
Clearly␣describe␣evaluation␣criteria␣in␣bid␣documents␣
Require␣and␣verify␣references␣
Potential␣contractor␣selection␣and␣evaluation␣criteria␣include:␣
Responsiveness␣to␣RFP␣or␣Tender␣
Qualifications␣&␣experience␣(organization,␣management),␣including␣
facility/operational␣capacity,␣financial␣stability,␣and␣references␣
Technical␣soundness␣of␣response␣
Cost␣
Innovation␣
Each␣criterion␣must␣be␣clearly␣defined␣and␣explained␣in␣the␣documentation.␣␣
Mandatory␣and␣preferred␣requirements␣should␣also␣be␣specified.␣
Evaluate␣proposals␣with␣a␣qualified␣team,␣which␣may␣include␣business␣unit␣&␣
technical␣personnel␣(or␣qualified␣and␣independent␣consultants,␣if␣necessary),␣
purchasing,␣and␣legal␣representatives.␣␣First,␣evaluate␣compliance␣with␣mandatory␣
requirements␣on␣a␣pass/fail␣basis.␣␣Then,␣evaluate␣compliant␣technical␣responses␣on␣a␣
point␣scale␣or␣on␣a␣pass/fail␣basis.␣␣Finally,␣open␣the␣price␣envelope␣to␣evaluate␣price␣
and␣value␣according␣to␣the␣pre-specified␣evaluation␣criteria.␣Document␣evaluations␣
and␣final␣rationale␣for␣selection.␣␣␣
Through␣a␣well-executed␣procurement␣process,␣the␣contract␣will␣be␣awarded␣to␣the␣
best␣overall␣scored␣proposal␣(according␣to␣the␣predetermined␣bid␣criteria␣and␣scoring␣
process).␣␣However,␣if␣actions␣or␣circumstances␣did␣not␣result␣in␣proper␣procurement␣
(such␣as␣improper␣sequence␣of␣response␣component␣evaluations,␣failure␣to␣come␣to␣
terms␣with␣the␣winning␣bidder,␣failed␣due␣diligence␣processes),␣the␣process␣may␣
need␣to␣be␣redone.␣
Communicate␣results␣to␣all␣bidders,␣including␣strengths␣and␣weaknesses␣of␣their␣
proposals.␣␣For␣the␣winners,␣this␣sets␣the␣stage␣for␣any␣final␣negotiations␣on␣services.␣␣
For␣the␣losers,␣it␣helps␣them␣to␣improve␣their␣bids␣for␣the␣next␣competition,␣which␣
benefits␣all␣parties.␣
Step 5: Negotiate a partnership-oriented contract
The␣final␣contract␣negotiation␣process␣with␣the␣winner␣(and␣if␣not␣successful,␣the␣
runner-up)␣should␣go␣smoothly␣if␣the␣procurement␣was␣well-managed.␣␣Well-prepared␣
RFPs␣include␣a␣comprehensive␣draft␣contract␣and␣require␣the␣supplier␣to␣comment␣on␣
the␣draft␣contract␣in␣their␣proposal.␣The␣focus␣should␣now␣turn␣to␣setting␣the␣stage␣
for␣building␣a␣successful␣business␣relationship,␣positioning␣both␣parties␣for␣success.␣␣
Specifically,␣the␣municipality␣should:␣␣␣
Build␣upon␣RFP␣terms␣and␣conditions␣
Finalize␣the␣structure␣of␣incentives␣for␣improving␣performance␣
54 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Allow␣flexibility␣for␣amending␣scope␣to␣address␣changing␣circumstances,␣including␣
technical␣or␣process␣innovation,␣means␣of␣addressing␣extraordinary␣
circumstances,␣such␣as␣changes␣in␣law,␣index-based␣monthly␣fuel␣adjustments,␣
index-based␣annual␣payment␣adjustment␣for␣inflation␣(e.g.,␣CPI␣or␣PPI␣with␣fuel␣
component␣removed),␣adjustments␣for␣growth,␣etc.␣
Provide␣avenues␣for␣resolving␣disagreements␣
Build␣in␣ongoing␣communication␣and␣feedback␣
Step 6: Maintain partnership approach in contract administration and
monitoring through entire contract term
Successful␣relationships␣require␣attention␣and␣effort␣in␣regular␣maintenance␣and␣
communication␣by␣trained/skilled␣contract␣management␣personnel.␣␣To␣maintain␣and␣
build␣on␣the␣partnership,␣municipal␣staff␣should:␣
Become␣knowledgeable␣about␣factors␣affecting␣recovered␣materials␣movement␣
and␣value␣␣␣
Monitor␣recycling␣market␣prices␣and␣trends␣
Monitor␣markets␣used␣and␣revenues␣received␣
Continuously␣monitor␣contractor␣compliance␣with␣performance␣specifications␣and␣
contract␣terms.␣Apply␣pre-agreed␣incentives␣and␣penalties␣for␣performance␣
Live␣up␣to␣your␣side␣of␣the␣relationship,␣including␣the␣flexibility␣arrangements,␣␣to␣
help␣your␣contractor␣be␣successful␣in␣providing␣your␣service␣
Communicate␣regularly␣on␣pre-agreed␣schedule␣and␣frequency␣
Address␣problems␣as␣soon␣as␣they␣arise␣␣
Have␣a␣back␣up␣plan␣if␣the␣relationship␣deteriorates␣or␣services␣are␣jeopardized␣
␣
Common pitfalls to avoid
By␣avoiding␣pitfalls,␣municipalities␣increase␣the␣likelihood␣of␣selecting␣a␣qualified␣
supplier␣at␣a␣low␣price␣and␣building␣a␣lasting␣relationship␣with␣them.␣␣The␣following␣
list␣includes␣some␣of␣the␣most␣common␣pitfalls␣in␣recycling␣related␣procurement:␣
Not␣using␣a␣competitive␣process␣␣
Over-␣or␣under-specification␣
Prescribing␣the␣"How␣of␣operations"␣versus␣focusing␣on␣the␣business,␣legal␣&␣
performance␣requirements␣␣
Micromanaging␣the␣contractors␣operations␣beyond␣ensuring␣business,␣legal␣and␣
performance␣requirements␣are␣being␣met␣
Not␣managing␣the␣contractor␣due␣to␣infrequent␣communication␣and␣performance␣
discussions␣
Not␣providing␣for␣operational␣flexibility␣or␣for␣innovation␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣55
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Poorly␣matching␣equipment␣life-cycle␣and␣maintenance␣provision␣to␣contract␣
length␣
Poor␣procurement␣planning,␣including␣insufficient␣lead␣time␣for␣procurements␣and␣
insufficient␣knowledge␣of␣the␣marketplace␣
Poorly␣defined␣service␣requirements␣and␣performance␣standards␣
Prohibitive␣bonds␣and␣letters␣of␣credit,␣which␣unnecessarily␣reduce␣competition␣
and␣add␣directly␣to␣cost␣
No␣service␣exit␣strategy␣or␣contract␣language␣
Lack␣of␣transparency␣and␣fair␣competition␣
Allowing␣a␣poor␣procurement␣to␣proceed␣
␣
Sources and Links
Recycling Contracting Tips and Tools␣training␣materials␣developed␣for␣State␣of␣
Pennsylvania,␣R.W.␣Beck,␣February␣2006␣
Best Practices Review - Contracting and Procurement in the Public Sector,␣
Minnesota␣Deputy␣State␣Auditor,␣November␣2005␣␣
Model␣collection␣contracts␣available␣under␣"Tools␣for␣Recycling␣Coordinators."␣
http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/reduce/assistan1.htm␣
Blue Box Residential Recycling Best Practices - A Private Sector Perspective,␣A␣Joint␣
Project␣of␣Stewardship␣Ontario␣and␣the␣Waste␣Management␣Association,␣Guilford␣
and␣Associates,␣February␣2007␣
Stewardship␣Ontario␣Model␣Tender␣Tool␣
56 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Appropriately Planned, Designed, and Funded
Promotion and Education Program
␣
Overview
To␣be␣effective,␣a␣municipal␣Blue␣Box␣program␣needs␣to␣be␣supported␣by␣a␣
Promotion␣and␣Education␣(P&E)␣component␣that␣is␣appropriately␣designed␣and␣
funded,␣and␣incorporates␣specific␣audiences,␣defined␣messages␣&␣media,␣planned␣
frequency␣of␣communication,␣and␣monitoring␣of␣results.␣A␣well-designed␣and␣
implemented␣P&E␣program␣can␣have␣effects␣on␣virtually␣all␣other␣elements␣of␣the␣
Blue␣Box␣system,␣including␣planning,␣collection,␣processing,␣marketing,␣and␣policy␣
development.␣
␣
Key Benefits and Outcomes
The␣impacts␣of␣effective␣P&E␣propagate␣throughout␣the␣recycling␣program.␣␣Most␣
significant␣benefits␣include␣
Potentially␣higher␣revenues␣for␣marketed␣materials␣due␣to␣the␣lower␣degree␣of␣
contamination␣
Higher␣waste␣diversion␣and␣recyclables␣recovery␣rates␣overall␣
Establishment␣of␣new␣recycling␣behaviours␣and␣reinforcement␣of␣emerging␣or␣
existing␣positive␣patterns␣among␣residents␣
Increased␣community␣involvement␣in␣the␣program␣
Set␣out␣of␣only␣those␣materials␣that␣are␣accepted␣by␣the␣program␣
Proper␣set␣out␣of␣recyclables␣at␣the␣curb,␣leading␣to␣increased␣collection␣
efficiencies␣and␣decreased␣operator␣safety␣issues␣
Lower␣residue␣rates␣at␣processing␣facilities,␣resulting␣in␣higher␣recovery␣and␣lower␣
costs␣
␣
Description and Implementation of Best Practice
Planning␣and␣implementing␣targeted␣P&E␣programs␣that␣support␣recycling␣and␣waste␣
diversion␣are␣vital␣to␣municipal␣Blue␣Box␣programs.␣␣Experts␣in␣the␣field␣agree␣that␣
P&E␣is␣one␣of␣the␣cornerstones␣of␣an␣effective␣program.␣␣Most␣recently,␣an␣OWMA␣
report␣stated␣that␣a␣"unanimous␣conclusion␣(of␣a␣group␣of␣private␣sector␣companies)␣
is␣that␣effective␣promotion␣and␣education␣programs␣are␣significant␣contributors␣to␣the␣
success␣of␣the␣blue␣box␣program."␣␣Another␣recent␣E&E␣Fund␣study,␣aimed␣at␣
enhancing␣Blue␣Box␣recovery␣in␣the␣Golden␣Horseshoe␣area,␣determined␣that␣
effective␣communication␣and␣education␣is␣required␣to␣"increase␣cost-effectively␣the␣
number␣of␣recyclables␣recovered...."␣␣Furthermore,␣a␣study␣titled␣"Best␣Practice␣P&E␣
Review"␣defines␣and␣articulates␣a␣number␣attributes␣that␣lead␣to␣a␣successful␣P&E␣
program.␣␣Some␣content␣from␣the␣above␣studies␣is␣used␣throughout␣this␣document.␣␣
Fundamental␣Best␣
Practice␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣57
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
The␣key␣to␣effective␣P&E␣lies␣in␣the␣concept␣of␣"appropriateness"␣-␣considering␣what␣
level␣of␣planning,␣research,␣deployment,␣and␣measurement␣is␣appropriate␣for␣
different␣communities␣across␣the␣province.␣␣Each␣community's␣ability␣to␣design␣and␣
deploy␣P&E␣is␣affected␣by␣community␣size,␣geography,␣resources␣(financial,␣skills-
based␣and␣time)␣and␣many␣other␣factors.␣␣
The␣description␣that␣follows␣attempts␣to␣provide␣useful␣direction␣to␣communities,␣as␣
they␣consider␣what␣may␣determine␣the␣appropriate␣P&E␣for␣their␣programs,␣taking␣
into␣account␣four␣key␣factors␣that␣include:␣␣␣
Design␣
Funding␣␣
Deployment␣
Monitoring␣and␣Evaluation␣
Design
P&E␣programs␣that␣contribute␣to␣best␣practices␣in␣recycling␣are␣based␣on␣a␣current␣
(and␣regularly␣updated)␣communications␣plan,␣with␣identified␣goals␣and␣measurable␣
objectives.␣␣
Ideally,␣recycling␣P&E␣programs␣and␣targeted␣campaigns␣will␣be␣rooted␣in␣a␣
communications␣plan,␣based␣on␣targeted␣community␣research,␣or␣if␣resources␣are␣
unavailable,␣on␣reliable␣existing␣research␣that␣highlights␣common␣factors␣that␣are␣
broadly␣applicable.␣
Communications␣plans␣include␣a␣statement␣of␣goals␣and␣objectives,␣target␣audiences,␣
key␣messages,␣tactics␣(including␣planned␣media␣and␣distribution),␣timing,␣and␣plans␣
for␣monitoring␣and␣evaluation.␣While␣the␣majority␣of␣Ontario␣recycling␣programs␣do␣
not␣have␣in␣place␣detailed␣or␣current␣communications,␣in␣the␣course␣of␣this␣study,␣
project␣team␣members␣were␣told␣by␣various␣communities␣that␣they␣intend␣to␣develop␣
these␣plans␣in␣the␣near␣future.␣
The␣Best␣Practice␣P&E␣Review␣report,␣previously␣mentioned,␣indicates␣that␣most␣of␣
Ontario␣communities␣conduct␣some␣form␣of␣research␣to␣identify␣their␣audiences,␣
themes,␣targeted␣messages,␣images␣and␣branding␣before␣rolling␣out␣new␣
communications␣efforts.␣For␣communities␣that␣lack␣the␣resources␣to␣carry␣out␣
targeted␣research,␣several␣research␣documents␣are␣currently␣available␣that␣may␣
provide␣insights␣from␣which␣they␣may␣extrapolate.␣␣See␣Sources␣and␣Links␣section␣
for␣more␣information␣on␣these␣and␣other␣resources.␣␣␣
Funding
As␣a␣rule␣of␣thumb,␣communities␣will␣determine␣the␣level␣of␣financial␣resources␣they␣
have␣available,␣whether␣they␣are␣adequate␣to␣cover␣full␣program␣costs,␣and,␣if␣
necessary,␣identify␣other␣sources␣of␣funding␣or␣modify␣tactics␣to␣achieve␣P&E␣
program␣goals.␣The␣best␣plan␣cannot␣be␣implemented␣if␣adequate␣financing␣is␣not␣in␣
place.␣Furthermore,␣having␣a␣sizable␣P&E␣budget␣will␣not␣be␣helpful␣without␣knowing␣
how␣to␣effectively␣utilize␣these␣funds␣to␣achieve␣specified␣P&E␣program␣objectives.␣
58 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
A␣recent␣study␣of␣eight␣programs␣that␣are␣considered␣to␣be␣among␣the␣P&E␣leaders,␣
as␣well␣as␣of␣other␣well-performing␣communities,␣revealed␣that␣their␣P&E␣costs,␣as␣
reported␣in␣the␣2005␣WDO␣Datacall,␣range␣from␣approximately␣$0.83␣to␣$1.18␣per␣
household,␣with␣recovery␣rate␣at␣or␣exceeding␣60%.␣␣Statistical␣analysis␣showed␣a␣
positive,␣albeit␣weak,␣correlation␣between␣increased␣P&E␣spending␣and␣increased␣
recovery␣in␣Ontario␣recycling␣programs.␣␣
Supporting␣this␣conclusion␣is␣that␣the␣US␣Curbside␣Value␣Partnership␣used␣$1/per␣
household␣as␣a␣general␣spending␣guide␣for␣existing␣recycling␣programs,␣but␣
recommends␣spending␣levels␣of␣up␣to␣$3␣or␣$4␣per␣household␣when␣implementing␣
new␣programs␣or␣major␣program␣changes.␣Also␣in␣the␣U.S.,␣research␣by␣Skumatz␣
Economic␣Research␣Associates␣(SERA)␣in␣2002␣found␣that␣urban␣communities␣
generally␣spend␣about␣$1.00␣per␣household␣per␣year␣on␣P&E,␣suburban␣communities␣
spend␣about␣$1.30␣per␣household␣per␣year,␣and␣rural␣communities␣spend␣about␣$0.90␣
per␣household␣per␣year␣(in␣U.S.␣dollars).␣All␣programs␣with␣diversion␣rates␣greater␣
than␣30␣percent␣spent␣more␣than␣$1.00␣per␣household␣per␣year.␣The␣same␣study␣also␣
found␣that␣increasing␣the␣P&E␣expenditure␣by␣$1.00␣per␣household␣per␣year␣could␣
yield␣an␣increase␣of␣1␣percent␣in␣the␣recycling␣rate␣for␣communities␣with␣already␣high␣
P&E␣expenditures,␣while␣it␣could␣yield␣up␣to␣3␣percent␣additional␣diversion␣in␣
communities␣with␣relatively␣low␣current␣P&E␣expenditures␣(Skumatz␣&␣Green,␣
"Evaluation␣the␣Impacts␣of␣Recycling/Diversion␣Education␣Programs␣-␣Effective␣
Methods␣and␣Optimizing␣Expenditures,"␣for␣Iowa␣DNR,␣2002).␣
In␣applying␣the␣above␣conclusions,␣one␣needs␣to␣take␣into␣consideration␣that␣P&E␣
funding␣may␣and␣should␣vary␣significantly␣from␣one␣year␣to␣the␣next,␣based␣on␣the␣
introduction␣of␣new␣services,␣new␣materials,␣additional␣programming␣and␣several␣
other␣factors.␣␣
More␣details␣on␣the␣cost␣analysis␣are␣provided␣in␣the␣Key␣Observations␣section␣of␣
this␣report.␣␣Promotion␣and␣education␣funding␣considerations,␣as␣they␣relate␣to␣the␣
Net␣System␣Cost␣under␣Best␣Practices,␣are␣outlined␣in␣Volume␣II␣of␣this␣report.␣
Deployment
P&E␣initiatives␣that␣contribute␣the␣success␣of␣a␣recycling␣program␣employ␣a␣mix␣of␣
media␣(e.g.,␣calendars,␣brochures,␣radio␣spots␣and␣others)␣over␣a␣sustained␣period␣of␣
time.␣These␣vary␣according␣to␣the␣audience,␣available␣budget,␣and␣resources.␣␣␣
Mix of Media
The␣use␣of␣media␣reported␣by␣P&E␣leaders␣may␣be␣grouped␣in␣five␣broad␣categories:␣
Print␣(paid␣ads,␣brochures,␣calendars,␣newsletters)␣
Broadcast␣(TV,␣radio␣ads,␣Public␣Service␣Announcements)␣
Electronic␣(websites,␣emails)␣
Outreach␣(special␣events,␣in-school␣education,␣community␣education␣centres,␣door␣
to␣door␣campaigns,␣landfill/depot␣contact,␣etc.)␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣59
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Icons␣&␣incentives␣(Blue␣Boxes␣or␣other␣collection␣containers,␣magnets␣and␣other␣
'gifts',␣community␣mascots␣etc).␣
The␣strongest␣and␣most␣effective␣P&E␣campaigns␣strategically␣combine␣media␣and␣
tactics.␣The␣Blue␣Box␣Program␣P&E␣Review␣report␣suggests␣that␣wherever␣possible,␣
communities␣should␣try␣to␣implement␣a␣multi-tiered␣approach,␣with␣appropriate␣
tactics␣selected␣from␣each␣of␣three␣tiers:␣
Tier␣1␣␣-␣Radio␣components␣or,␣if␣possible,␣TV␣(vs.␣print␣ads)␣␣
Tier␣2␣-␣␣householder␣drop␣of␣calendars␣or␣user-friendly␣tools␣showcasing␣website␣
offerings;␣complemented␣by␣␣␣
Tier␣3␣-␣public␣relations␣or␣word-of-mouth␣strategies␣to␣animate␣communities␣-␣
highly␣visible␣events␣and␣activities,␣community␣and␣corporate␣partnerships,␣role␣
model␣identification,␣personal␣testimonials␣␣
Communities␣that␣use␣this␣approach␣benefit␣from␣the␣mass␣media␣impact␣that␣helps␣
build␣awareness␣and␣shift␣␣attitudes,␣combined␣with␣outreach␣that␣helps␣engage␣
residents␣and␣contributes␣to␣skill-building.␣␣Where␣limited␣budgets␣and␣media␣outlets␣
constrain␣P&E␣program␣choices,␣the␣Best␣Practice␣P&E␣Review␣suggests␣focusing␣on␣
a␣limited␣range␣of␣Tier␣2␣activities,␣deployed␣with␣greater␣frequency␣to␣achieve␣
greater␣impact.␣
Sustained & sustainable deployment: Campaigns␣that␣include␣a␣program␣for␣
ongoing␣and␣sustained␣contact␣with␣targeted␣audiences␣generally␣have␣greater␣
impact␣than␣a␣one-time␣"blitz."␣Year-round␣exposure␣is␣the␣target.␣
Communities␣that␣look␣for␣and␣implement␣innovative␣and␣cost␣effective␣strategies␣to␣
deploy␣their␣messaging␣expand␣the␣reach␣of␣their␣messaging␣and␣get␣a␣better␣'bang␣
for␣their␣buck.'␣There␣are␣many␣ways␣to␣maximize␣deployment␣or␣delivery␣
mechanisms␣including:␣
Partnering␣with␣other␣communities␣with␣similar␣messaging␣to␣design/deliver␣
tactics␣
Sharing␣with␣community␣partners␣to␣deliver␣messaging␣(e.g.,␣sending␣print␣
materials␣with␣utility␣bills,␣inserting␣messaging␣into␣politicians'␣newsletters,␣
working␣with␣community␣groups)␣
Enlisting␣a␣known␣community␣spokesperson␣to␣'carry␣the␣message'␣
Combining␣public␣relations␣(earned␣media␣coverage)␣with␣other␣'cost-based'␣tactics␣
(calendars,␣newsletters␣etc.)␣
Working␣with␣appropriate␣community␣partners␣to␣design␣and␣or␣deliver␣P&E␣
messaging␣
Messaging:␣␣Recycling␣P&E␣campaigns␣that␣target␣those␣who␣are␣receptive␣to␣
recycling␣and␣skew␣toward␣the␣female␣head␣of␣the␣household␣show␣greater␣success.␣
Most␣community␣residents␣are␣aware␣of␣recycling␣and␣what␣to␣recycle,␣particularly␣
with␣materials␣that␣have␣been␣recycled␣for␣several␣years␣now.␣They␣continue␣to␣need␣
60 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
information␣to␣support␣the␣addition␣of␣new␣materials␣to␣recycling␣collection␣programs.␣
They␣also␣need␣to␣be␣motivated␣to␣take␣action.␣␣
Recent␣focus␣group␣findings␣in␣several␣Greater␣Toronto␣Area␣municipalities␣indicate␣
that␣despite␣efforts␣to␣provide␣information␣about␣recycling,␣many␣multi-family␣
residents␣remain␣unaware.␣Efforts␣to␣reach␣out␣to␣multi-family␣residents␣require␣
continued␣persistence␣and␣creativity,␣with␣rewards␣(e.g.,␣with␣indications␣that␣their␣
efforts␣pay␣off,␣and␣by␣providing␣clean,␣safe␣recycling␣sites␣for␣their␣use)␣and␣
attention␣to␣ethnic/cultural␣issues␣that␣are␣often␣pervasive␣in␣multi-family␣buildings.␣␣
In␣many␣communities,␣the␣need␣for␣traditional␣informational␣messaging␣is␣becoming␣
secondary␣to␣inspirational␣approaches.␣Most␣residents␣are␣aware␣of␣at␣least␣the␣'first␣
generation'␣materials␣that␣may␣be␣recycled.␣␣␣
The␣most␣compelling␣messages␣also␣speak␣to␣the␣emotions␣(again,␣rather␣than␣
simply␣providing␣information).␣
Linguistic␣issues␣are␣a␣vital␣component:␣to␣be␣successful␣and␣engaging,␣P&E␣must␣be␣
produced␣in␣the␣languages␣spoken␣in␣the␣community.␣␣
The␣foundation␣for␣the␣messaging␣lies␣in␣targeted␣community␣research␣or,␣where␣
resources␣are␣unavailable,␣consideration␣of␣the␣wealth␣of␣information␣that␣exists␣in␣
available␣reference␣documents.␣␣␣
Allocation of financial resources: For␣most,␣if␣not␣all␣Ontario␣communities,␣P&E␣for␣
recycling␣programs␣is␣constrained␣by␣limited␣financial␣(and␣staff)␣resources.␣The␣
majority␣of␣respondents␣in␣the␣P&E␣Review␣survey␣reported␣that␣they␣thought␣they␣
would␣need␣to␣double␣their␣budgets␣to␣be␣able␣to␣accomplish␣the␣full␣range␣of␣tasks␣
to␣ensure␣"successful␣P&E."␣␣
Despite␣that,␣communities␣across␣the␣province␣are␣developing␣and␣sustaining␣P&E␣
programs␣that␣are␣contributing␣to␣program␣effectiveness␣with,␣in␣some␣cases,␣very␣
limited␣resources.␣␣To␣achieve␣Best␣Practices,␣communities␣should␣consider␣planning␣
their␣P&E␣strategies␣to␣include␣some␣of␣the␣low␣cost/high␣impact␣components␣(and␣
others)␣identified␣above.␣␣␣
Opportunity to increase efficiency: For␣some␣elements␣of␣their␣programs,␣
communities␣are␣already␣sharing␣resources␣either␣with␣other␣communities␣or␣with␣
other␣programs␣within␣their␣communities␣or␣existing␣P&E␣vehicles.␣␣
Other␣shared␣resources␣for␣P&E␣that␣exist␣or␣are␣in␣development␣include:␣
the␣WDO␣Ad␣bank␣
a␣new␣web-based␣resource␣about␣all␣Ontario␣recycling␣programs␣
(www.blueboxmore.ca)␣
P&E␣module␣coming␣to␣"Recyclers'␣Knowledge␣Network"␣(expected␣in␣May␣2007)␣
Project␣reports␣from␣all␣E&E␣Fund␣Communication␣and␣Education␣studies␣
Communities␣that␣seek␣out␣new␣opportunities␣to␣share␣resources␣(information,␣
graphics,␣activities␣and␣others)␣will␣increase␣the␣cost-effective␣impact␣of␣their␣P&E␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣61
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
programs␣and␣in␣some␣cases,␣be␣able␣to␣employ␣tactics␣that␣would␣otherwise␣be␣
cost-prohibitive.␣
Monitoring and Evaluation
P&E␣programs␣that␣contribute␣to␣best␣practices␣contain␣a␣monitoring␣and␣evaluation␣
component␣that␣is␣budgeted␣and␣mapped␣out␣in␣the␣planning␣phase.␣␣
For␣many␣communities,␣the␣ability␣to␣implement␣formal␣qualitative␣and␣quantitative␣
research␣will␣be␣constrained␣by␣budgetary␣limitations.␣␣
In␣a␣more␣informal␣way,␣evaluation␣may␣also␣be␣monitored␣by␣changes␣in␣
amounts/quality␣of␣materials␣marketed␣over␣a␣year.␣Because␣there␣are␣so␣many␣
factors␣that␣influence␣program␣performance,␣this␣is␣a␣less␣precise␣means␣of␣
evaluating␣a␣P&E␣campaign␣or␣program,␣but␣it␣does␣provide␣an␣indicator.␣In␣the␣Blue␣
Box␣Program␣P&E␣Program␣Survey,␣London,␣Durham␣and␣Toronto␣indicated␣that␣they␣
look␣to␣'spikes'␣in␣recovery␣or␣overall␣annual␣tonnages␣in␣their␣consideration␣of␣P&E␣
effectiveness.␣␣
Communities␣that␣use␣these␣measures␣as␣indicators␣of␣P&E␣effectiveness␣may␣link␣
their␣findings␣with␣existing␣(and␣growing)␣research␣about␣the␣impact␣of␣specific␣tools␣
and␣campaigns␣in␣Ontario␣and␣beyond.␣
Source and Links
Reports
AMRC,␣County␣of␣Oxford␣et␣al;␣"Research Report: Identifying Best Practices in
Municipal Blue Box Promotion and Education",␣2005␣␣
City␣of␣Hamilton:␣"Blue Box Recycling Public Opinion Survey (March 2006)"␣
City␣of␣Barrie␣&␣CSR:␣"Master Recycler Program Report", 2000␣&␣"Phase II Report",␣
2001␣␣
Coffman:␣"Public Communication Campaign Evaluation",␣2002␣␣
Informa␣Research␣for␣McConnell␣Weaver␣Communication␣Management:␣
"Communication & Benchmark Survey, Enhanced Blue Box Recovery Program,
Focus Group Report";␣2006␣
McConnell␣Weaver␣Communication␣Management:␣Enhanced␣Blue␣Box␣Recovery␣
"Benchmark Survey & Focus Groups";␣2006␣
McConnell␣Weaver␣Communication␣Management:␣"Enhanced Blue Box Recovery
Strategic Communication Plan",␣2006
"Blue Box Residential Recycling Best practices - A Private Sector Perspective",␣A␣
Joint␣Project␣of␣Stewardship␣Ontario␣and␣the␣Waste␣Management␣Association,␣
Guilford␣and␣Associates,␣February␣2007
Praxis␣PR:␣"Best Practice P&E Review Final Report",␣2007␣␣
62 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Skumatz:␣"Policy and Program Options that Increase Recycling",␣2004␣
Skumatz␣&␣Green,␣"Evaluation the Impacts of Recycling/Diversion Education
Programs - Effective Methods and Optimizing Expenditures,"␣for␣Iowa␣DNR,␣2002␣
Presentations
AMRC:␣"2005 Promotion & Education Awards", 2006AMRC␣Policy␣&␣Programs␣
Committee:␣"2006 Municipal P&E Awards",␣February␣2007␣
"Industry Experts Speak about Advertising: Research Perspectives":␣A␣presentation␣
at␣AMRC's␣Spring␣Workshop␣by␣Informa␣Research,␣Praxis␣PR␣and␣McConnell␣Weaver␣
Communications␣Research;␣February,␣2007␣
Resources
Stewardship␣Ontario's␣Efficiency␣and␣Effectiveness␣Fund␣Communication␣&␣
Education␣projects␣
␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣63
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Established and Enforced Policies that Induce Waste
Diversion
␣
Overview
Municipalities␣need␣to␣utilize␣a␣combination␣of␣policy␣mechanisms␣and␣incentives␣to␣
stimulate␣recycling␣and␣discourage␣excessive␣generation␣of␣garbage.␣␣Most␣of␣these␣
policies␣are␣aimed␣toward␣causing␣a␣permanent␣shift␣in␣residents'␣behaviour␣through␣
the␣use␣of␣economic␣and␣non-monetary␣levers.␣␣Economic␣incentives␣work␣by␣
assigning␣a␣tangible␣value␣to␣the␣recyclable␣portion␣of␣the␣refuse␣stream.␣␣Non-
monetary␣incentives,␣on␣the␣other␣hand,␣force␣residents␣to␣limit␣undesired␣behaviours␣
and␣stimulate␣desired␣ones,␣using␣punitive␣and␣rewarding␣policy␣tools,␣respectively.␣␣
Each␣type␣of␣incentive␣is␣described␣in␣further␣detail␣in␣this␣section,␣with␣pragmatic␣
application␣guidance.␣␣␣
␣
Key Benefits and Outcomes
By␣using␣a␣mix␣of␣economic␣and␣non-monetary␣incentives,␣municipalities␣can␣change␣
residents'␣behaviours␣and␣generate␣program␣revenues.␣␣Specific␣effectiveness␣
benefits␣include:␣␣
Higher␣participation␣rates␣
Increase␣in␣materials␣diverted␣to␣recycling␣
Reduction␣in␣recyclable␣materials␣loss␣
Improved␣quality␣of␣materials␣
Realized␣synergies␣between␣policies␣and␣Promotion␣and␣Education␣
␣
Efficiency␣benefits␣include:␣
Decrease␣in␣garbage␣collection␣costs␣
Increase␣in␣program␣revenues␣
High␣return␣on␣investment␣
Low␣capital␣requirements␣
␣
Description of Best Practice
Economic incentives
Economic␣incentives␣are␣as␣diverse␣and␣varied␣as␣the␣municipalities␣and␣waste␣
authorities␣that␣employ␣them.␣The␣basic␣objective␣of␣incentives,␣as␣relates␣to␣
recycling␣programs,␣is␣to␣place␣a␣cost␣on␣disposing␣of␣waste␣at␣the␣curbside,␣which␣
will␣cause␣system␣users␣to␣divert␣appropriate␣material␣to␣diversion␣programs.␣The␣
intended␣result␣is␣a␣decrease␣in␣waste␣disposed␣and␣an␣increase␣in␣recycling␣volumes.␣␣
Fundamental␣Best␣
Practice
64 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
There␣are␣a␣number␣of␣approaches␣employed,␣the␣names␣for␣which␣are␣often␣used␣
interchangeably:␣Pay-as-you-throw␣(PAYT),␣unit␣pricing,␣and␣variable␣rate␣structures␣
are␣often␣cited.␣Generically,␣these␣are␣often␣referred␣to␣as␣"user␣pay"␣systems.␣
Incentive␣programs␣can␣employ␣variable␣fee␣structures,␣and␣simple␣but␣effective␣
forms␣use␣bags␣or␣stickers.␣Other␣approaches␣require␣subscription␣by␣container␣
volume,␣or␣may␣be␣weight-based.␣Bag␣tags␣and␣sticker␣programs␣are␣consistent␣with␣
approaches␣used␣in␣many␣Ontario␣communities,␣in␣which␣system␣users␣pay␣for␣bags␣
or␣tags␣that␣qualify␣for␣curb␣side␣garbage␣collection.␣In␣some␣cases,␣partial␣systems␣
are␣used␣in␣conjunction␣with␣bag␣limits␣(see␣discussion␣on␣non-monetary␣policies),␣
allowing␣users␣a␣maximum␣number␣of␣bags␣at␣the␣curb␣(often␣2␣or␣3),␣after␣which␣
user␣paid␣bags␣or␣tags␣are␣required␣to␣qualify␣for␣garbage␣collection.␣␣␣
In␣general,␣the␣"user␣pay"␣concept␣has␣the␣potential␣to␣recover␣part␣or␣all␣of␣waste␣
management␣costs␣from␣system␣users.␣␣Utility-based␣or␣self-financing␣systems␣
recover␣all␣of␣their␣costs,␣while␣the␣user␣pay␣systems␣recover␣part␣or␣all␣costs.␣
Potential␣increases␣in␣net␣recycling␣costs␣may␣result␣in␣lower␣unit␣costs,␣while␣other␣
aspects␣of␣the␣waste␣management␣system␣may␣benefit␣from␣reduced␣garbage␣
collection␣costs,␣reduced␣disposal␣costs␣and␣increased␣landfill␣life␣expectancy.␣Well-
conceived␣incentive␣programs␣may␣also␣improve␣material␣quality,␣resulting␣in␣
increased␣program␣revenues␣and␣reduced␣sorting␣costs.␣␣However,␣some␣programs␣
may␣experience␣an␣increase␣in␣total␣per-household␣program␣costs␣depending␣on␣how␣
the␣program␣is␣administered,␣and␣as␣a␣result␣of␣changes␣in␣customer␣waste␣
generation␣behaviour␣as␣a␣result␣of␣the␣economic␣incentive.␣␣
Non-monetary Incentives
Bag limits␣are␣a␣common␣practice␣of␣limiting␣how␣much␣waste,␣and␣specifically␣the␣
number␣of␣garbage␣bags␣full␣of␣waste,␣will␣be␣accepted␣for␣collection.␣They␣are␣often␣
employed␣with␣"user␣pay"␣systems,␣which␣will␣assign␣a␣cost␣per␣bag␣for␣collection␣
for␣bags␣over␣the␣limit.␣Bag␣limits␣are␣a␣relatively␣simple␣means␣of␣encouraging␣
residents␣to␣become␣more␣conscious␣of␣the␣amount␣and␣type␣of␣waste␣they␣generate␣
to␣initiate␣a␣change␣in␣attitude␣and␣behaviour␣about␣their␣waste␣generation␣habits.␣␣
Typical␣bag␣limit␣designs␣include:␣
Strict␣bag␣limit␣is␣imposed␣with␣no␣other␣options␣provided␣for␣placing␣additional␣
waste␣at␣the␣curb.␣␣Once␣the␣bag␣limit␣set␣out␣is␣reached,␣any␣additional␣units␣of␣
garbage␣are␣left␣at␣the␣curb␣by␣the␣collection␣crew␣␣
Partial␣Bag␣Limit␣allows␣residents␣to␣purchase␣special␣tags␣or␣bags␣for␣excess␣
garbage␣(also␣referred␣as␣a␣partial␣user␣pay␣system).␣␣Because␣residents␣are␣
given␣an␣alternative␣approach␣to␣deal␣with␣excess␣garbage,␣it␣is␣not␣as␣critical␣to␣
provide␣convenient␣waste␣diversion␣alternatives.␣However,␣residents␣will␣expect␣
some␣level␣of␣waste␣diversion␣services␣to␣enable␣them␣to␣divert␣their␣waste␣and␣
reduce␣the␣financial␣burden␣of␣paying␣for␣excess␣garbage.␣␣This␣approach␣is␣
much␣more␣common␣among␣communities␣imposing␣bag␣limits␣of␣three␣bags␣or␣
less␣␣␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣65
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Hybrid␣System␣combines␣features␣of␣the␣strict␣bag␣limit␣and␣with␣features␣of␣the␣
partial␣bag␣limit.␣␣Typically,␣in␣a␣hybrid␣system,␣a␣community␣will␣impose␣a␣strict␣
bag␣limit␣but␣will␣distribute␣a␣set␣of␣"free"␣tags␣for␣use␣by␣residents␣to␣augment␣
the␣bag␣limit␣
Bag␣limit␣programs␣send␣a␣clear␣message␣to␣residents␣that␣it␣is␣no␣longer␣acceptable␣
to␣produce␣unlimited␣amounts␣of␣garbage.␣␣However,␣they␣are␣usually␣coupled␣with␣
significant␣convenient␣opportunities␣to␣divert␣waste.␣
Communities␣that␣impose␣bag␣limits␣of␣less␣than␣three␣per␣week,␣in␣general,␣
experience␣a␣noticeable␣reduction␣in␣the␣amount␣of␣waste␣sent␣for␣disposal␣and␣an␣
increase␣in␣recycling␣rates.␣␣There␣tends␣to␣be␣an␣inverse␣relationship␣between␣the␣
number␣of␣bags␣permitted␣at␣the␣curb␣and␣the␣diversion␣and␣recycling␣rates␣achieved.␣␣
The␣lower␣the␣bag␣limit␣the␣higher␣the␣diversion␣rate␣of␣waste␣from␣landfill␣and␣the␣
recycling␣rate,␣as␣long␣as␣residents␣have␣access␣to␣convenient␣and␣comprehensive␣
waste␣diversion␣opportunities.␣␣Curb␣side␣recycling␣is␣generally␣considered␣essential␣
if␣a␣bag␣limit␣of␣three␣or␣less␣is␣to␣be␣contemplated.␣Introduction␣of␣additional␣
diversion␣opportunities,␣such␣as␣curb␣side␣collection␣of␣kitchen␣organics,␣further␣
enhances␣bag␣limit␣impacts.␣␣
Bag␣limits␣can␣generally␣be␣administered␣without␣capital␣expense␣to␣the␣waste␣
authority,␣and␣thus␣are␣generally␣regarded␣as␣a␣low-cost␣initiative.␣␣
Provision of blue boxes␣entails␣the␣provision␣to␣households␣of␣free␣blue␣boxes␣in␣
order␣to␣ensure␣ample␣household␣recycling␣capacity.␣This␣is␣usually␣done␣when␣
programs␣are␣initiated␣and␣when␣materials␣are␣added␣and/or␣the␣program␣is␣re-
promoted.␣␣Additional␣blue␣boxes␣require␣an␣initial␣capital␣outlay,␣however,␣the␣added␣
capacity␣may␣not␣only␣increase␣capture␣and␣potentially␣lower␣unit␣operating␣costs,␣but␣
the␣minimization␣of␣home-made␣curb␣side␣containers␣may␣yield␣longer-term␣
ergonomic␣benefits␣to␣collection␣crews.␣
Disposal bans can␣be␣implemented␣by␣the␣disposal␣authority,␣which␣determines␣
what␣materials␣it␣will␣accept␣for␣disposal.␣This␣forces␣the␣collection␣authority␣to␣
redirect␣banned␣materials␣from␣the␣waste␣stream␣to␣appropriate␣receivers.␣This␣policy␣
is␣often␣applied␣to␣broader␣material␣types␣and␣industrial␣wastes,␣and␣not␣specifically␣a␣
blue␣box␣strategy.␣
Curb side material bans␣entails␣banning␣of␣material␣from␣garbage␣collection,␣forcing␣
the␣household␣to␣dispose␣of␣the␣material␣through␣the␣proper␣program␣channels,␣such␣
as␣recycling,␣source␣separated␣organics,␣household␣special␣waste␣depot,␣or␣any␣other␣
appropriate␣collection␣or␣depot␣system.␣This␣is␣enforced␣at␣the␣curb,␣and␣disposal␣
service␣can␣be␣withdrawn␣if␣users␣refuse␣to␣divert␣banned␣materials␣to␣the␣proper␣
streams.␣␣
Mandatory recycling␣is␣institution␣of␣a␣by-law␣that␣directs␣households␣to␣use␣the␣
recycling␣program␣for␣recyclable␣material.␣This␣can␣be␣enforced␣at␣the␣curb,␣and␣
disposal␣service␣can␣be␣withdrawn␣when␣users␣continually␣place␣recyclables␣in␣the␣
garbage.␣␣This␣approach␣is␣also␣commonly␣used␣to␣direct␣managers␣and␣property␣
owners␣of␣multi-family␣residences␣to␣promote␣recycling,␣and␣is␣enforced␣by␣making␣
66 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
public␣garbage␣collection␣programs␣available␣on␣condition␣that␣the␣complex␣provides␣
a␣recycling␣program.␣␣
Reduction in garbage collection frequency␣is␣a␣strategy␣made␣possible␣when␣
diversion␣programs␣are␣able␣to␣divert␣large␣amounts␣of␣material,␣such␣as␣recycling␣
and␣source␣separated␣organics␣programs.␣With␣significant␣diversion,␣a␣minor␣portion␣
of␣material␣left␣for␣the␣garbage␣stream␣makes␣weekly␣collection␣obsolete,␣and␣the␣
conversion␣to␣less␣frequent␣garbage␣collection,␣in␣turn,␣makes␣diversion␣programs␣
more␣attractive␣even␣to␣program␣hold-outs.␣Reduction␣in␣garbage␣collection␣
frequency␣has␣the␣added␣benefit␣of␣reducing␣garbage␣collection␣costs.␣
Drop-off depots for␣overflow␣materials make␣recycling␣available␣at␣locations␣and␣
facilities␣where␣public␣traffic␣is␣present.␣␣Recycling␣receptacles␣are␣an␣opportunity␣to␣
collect␣material␣without␣curb␣side␣collection␣costs,␣adding␣material␣to␣the␣revenue␣
stream␣without␣the␣same␣level␣of␣cost␣for␣collection.␣
Careful␣program␣planning␣is␣essential␣to␣the␣success␣of␣economic␣and␣non-monetary␣
policies.␣A␣number␣of␣critical␣considerations␣are␣cited␣within␣the␣body␣of␣literature,␣
studies␣and␣experience␣associated␣with␣these␣practices.␣
␣␣
Implementation of Best Practice
Economic Incentives
Implementation␣of␣economic␣incentives␣requires␣thorough␣analysis␣and␣planning.␣
User␣pay␣incentives␣work␣best:␣
In␣conjunction␣with␣clear,␣well-considered␣goals␣␣
When␣there␣is␣a␣strong␣sense␣of␣what␣barriers␣to␣recycling␣are␣being␣targeted␣
through␣the␣incentives␣
Where␣there␣is␣adequate␣infrastructure␣to␣obtain␣the␣desired␣results,␣including␣
strong␣program␣elements,␣such␣as␣accessible␣recycling␣programs,␣a␣
commitment␣to␣educational/promotional␣support,␣active␣enforcement␣(it␣should␣
be␣noted␣that␣in␣some␣literature,␣fines␣are␣considered␣to␣be␣a␣form␣of␣economic␣
incentive),␣and␣provision␣of␣adequate␣recycling␣capacity␣
Where␣there␣is␣careful␣determination␣as␣to␣what␣type␣of␣program␣is␣suitable␣for␣the␣
community␣(bag␣tag,␣variable␣pricing,␣weight␣or␣volume␣based)␣␣
As␣part␣of␣a␣waste␣management␣strategy␣␣␣
Through␣proper␣planning,␣minor␣concerns␣can␣be␣anticipated␣and␣mitigated.␣With␣
respect␣to␣litter␣and␣illegal␣dumping,␣experience␣shows␣that␣implementation␣issues␣
may␣arise.␣Diminished␣quality␣of␣recyclables,␣for␣example,␣may␣result␣from␣placement␣
of␣over-the-limit␣garbage␣in␣recycling␣bins␣by␣residents␣in␣order␣to␣avoid␣garbage␣cost.␣␣
Roadside␣garbage␣dumping␣may␣take␣place␣in␣isolated␣cases.␣However,␣these␣issues␣
can␣be␣addressed␣by␣stepping␣up␣enforcement␣in␣the␣early␣post-implementation␣
stages␣and␣developing␣targeted␣educational␣campaigns.␣␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣67
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Administration␣and␣capital␣requirements␣will␣depend␣on␣the␣type␣of␣program␣selected.␣
Weight-based␣systems␣require␣a␣capital␣outlay␣with␣increased␣operational␣
expenditures,␣and,␣therefore,␣may␣be␣more␣expensive␣to␣operate.␣␣Bag-tag␣systems␣
are␣considered␣to␣be␣less␣expensive␣to␣operate,␣with␣some␣programs␣looking␣to␣retail␣
outlets␣to␣manage␣distribution␣of␣bags,␣tags␣or␣stickers.␣
Some␣programs␣offer␣variable␣rate␣plans␣based␣on␣either␣weight␣or␣volume,␣allowing␣
subscribers␣to␣select␣containers␣or␣bins␣that␣match␣their␣waste␣production␣needs␣and␣
encourage␣a␣"downsizing"␣of␣household␣waste␣generation.␣This␣provides␣additional␣
incentive␣to␣reduce␣waste␣and␣increase␣recycling␣by␣placing␣a␣value␣on␣the␣behaviour␣
through␣additional␣savings.␣Consideration␣of␣such␣approaches␣are␣systemic␣in␣nature,␣
accompanied␣by␣assessment␣of␣weight␣or␣volume-based␣subscription␣plans,␣
automated␣collection␣systems␣for␣carts␣or␣bins,␣and␣impacts␣on␣system␣cost.␣␣␣
Non-monetary Incentives
As␣previously␣noted,␣benefits␣attributed␣to␣any␣of␣these␣strategies␣are␣dependent␣on␣
the␣amount␣of␣associated␣public␣education,␣promotion,␣and␣enforcement␣support.␣
In␣the␣case␣of␣those␣strategies␣that␣"direct"␣waste␣to␣the␣recycling␣stream,␣care␣
must␣be␣taken␣to␣avoid␣negative␣impacts␣to␣the␣quality␣of␣the␣collected␣material.␣
When␣instituting␣bans,␣bag␣limits,␣or␣garbage␣collection␣frequency␣reduction,␣
recycling␣collectors␣need␣to␣be␣diligent␣with␣respect␣to␣quality␣control.␣It␣is␣possible␣
that␣non-recyclables␣will␣be␣placed␣in␣the␣blue␣box␣as␣a␣reaction␣to␣reduced␣garbage␣
service␣or␣capacity.␣
Reduction␣in␣garbage␣collection␣frequency␣is␣one␣of␣the␣final␣implementation␣steps␣in␣
a␣successful␣integrated␣waste␣management␣diversion␣program,␣and␣is␣a␣companion␣
strategy␣to␣the␣effective␣diversion␣of␣household␣organics␣and␣blue␣box␣recycling.␣The␣
need␣for␣weekly␣garbage␣collection␣is␣effectively␣eliminated.␣This␣particular␣strategy␣
requires␣a␣revision␣of␣collection␣logistics␣that␣may␣result␣in␣co-collection␣scenarios␣for␣
waste,␣recycling␣and␣organics,␣in␣a␣manner␣that␣can␣lead␣to␣efficient␣use␣of␣collection␣
vehicles.␣
The␣implementation␣of␣a␣bag␣limit␣program␣(featuring␣three␣bags␣or␣less)␣requires␣a␣
planned␣phase-in␣to␣address␣communication␣with␣residents␣(citizens␣need␣to␣know␣
why␣the␣municipality␣is␣doing␣this)␣and␣the␣infrastructure␣required␣to␣support␣it.␣The␣
following␣is␣suggested␣as␣effective␣bag␣limit␣levels␣for␣various␣Blue␣Box␣recycling␣
programs:␣
Recycling
System
Collection
Frequency
Garbage
Suggested
Bag Limit
Add
Kitchen
Organics
Suggested
Bag Limit
Multi␣sort␣
weekly␣
weekly␣
3␣
weekly␣
2␣
␣
bi-weekly␣
weekly␣
4␣
weekly␣
3␣
Two␣stream␣
weekly␣
weekly␣
3␣
weekly␣
2␣
␣
bi-weekly␣
weekly␣
4␣
weekly␣
2␣
␣
alternating␣
weeks␣
weekly␣
3␣
weekly␣
2␣
68 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Single␣
stream␣
weekly␣
weekly␣
3␣
weekly␣
2␣
␣
bi-weekly␣
weekly␣
4␣
weekly␣
2␣
␣
In␣most␣communities,␣where␣a␣recycling␣curbside␣program␣is␣in␣place,␣the␣average␣
householder␣sets␣out␣three␣bags␣or␣less␣of␣garbage␣per␣week␣and␣only␣has␣excess␣
garbage␣a␣few␣times␣a␣year,␣typically␣after␣the␣holiday␣season␣and␣spring␣clean␣up.␣
These␣special␣times␣can␣be␣effectively␣accommodated␣with␣amnesty␣days.␣␣␣␣
␣
Sources and Links
AMRC "User Pay Implementation Guide" E&E Fund Project 126
(2005)" http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/eefund/projects/innovative.htm#126␣
AMRC␣"Analysis␣of␣User␣Pay␣System␣Costs" E&E Fund Project 191 (2006)
http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/eefund/projects/innovative.htm#191␣
User␣Pay␣learning␣modules␣on␣the␣Knowledge␣Network␣-␣accessible␣via␣
www.vubiz.com/stewardship␣
Implementation␣of␣a␣Waste␣Management␣Utility␣in␣Ontario␣Municipalities␣(PN␣160)␣-␣
Six␣Draft␣Discussion␣Papers␣are␣available␣on␣the␣Knowledge␣Network␣
AMRC␣Best␣Practice␣Consultation␣Sessions:␣"User Pay and combined user pay
systems (bag tags)" www.amrc.ca␣␣
"The Waste Diversion Impacts of Bag Limits and PAYT Systems in North America"␣
April␣2001,␣ENVIROS␣RIS␣for␣the␣City␣of␣Toronto␣␣www.ris.ltd.com␣
US␣EPA␣PAYT:␣http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/payt/index.htm.␣
"Nationwide Diversion Rate Study: Quantitative Effects of Program Choices on
Recycling and Green Waste Diversion, Beyond Case Studies."␣Skumatz␣&␣
Associates␣(SERA),␣Seattle,␣USA,␣1996.␣␣
US␣EPA,␣MSW␣Management␣journal␣article␣"The Rise and...the rise of Pay-As-You-
Throw"␣citing␣more␣than␣6,000␣communities␣in␣US.␣
"Measuring Source Reduction: Pay as you Throw/Variable Rates as an Example."␣
Skumatz␣Economic␣Research␣Associates␣(SERA),␣Seattle,␣WA␣USA,␣2000.␣␣
UK␣Defra␣(Dept␣for␣Environment,␣Food␣and␣Rural␣Affairs)␣"Evaluation of the
Household Waste Incentives Pilot Scheme" ␣www.defra.gov.uk␣
␣
␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣69
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣␣
Unlike␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣that␣apply␣to␣all␣Blue␣Box␣programs,␣Conditional␣
Best␣Practices␣apply␣only␣to␣those␣programs␣that␣exhibit␣a␣certain␣set␣of␣
characteristics.␣␣A␣Decision␣Tree␣method,␣discussed␣in␣a␣subsequent␣section␣of␣this␣
report,␣has␣been␣used␣to␣define␣major␣program␣characteristics.␣␣Program␣Profiles␣that␣
were␣produced␣by␣the␣Decision␣Tree␣reference␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣and␣
identify␣applicable␣Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣and␣the␣circumstances␣under␣which␣
they␣apply.␣␣Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣were␣integrated␣into␣Program␣Profiles␣due␣to␣
the␣fact␣that␣they␣are␣not␣meaningful␣without␣the␣context␣of␣the␣community␣
characteristics␣in␣which␣they␣apply.␣␣This␣is␣consistent␣with␣the␣holistic␣approach␣to␣
program␣design,␣management,␣and␣operations␣that␣was␣used␣to␣originally␣identify␣
and␣formulate␣Best␣Practices.␣␣There␣are␣two␣types␣of␣Conditional␣Best␣Practices:␣␣1)␣
those␣that␣apply␣to␣every␣community␣in␣a␣specified␣program␣profile␣group␣as␣defined␣
by␣the␣Decision␣Tree;␣2)␣those␣that␣apply␣to␣programs␣within␣a␣specific␣profile␣but␣
only␣under␣specific␣circumstances␣or␣conditions,␣as␣discussed␣in␣the␣Profile␣
description.␣␣
Best␣Practice␣Spotlights␣
In␣addition␣to␣delineating␣Fundamental␣and␣Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣for␣Blue␣Box␣
programs,␣the␣Project␣Team␣prepared␣more-detailed␣Best␣Practices␣guidance␣
pertaining␣to␣specific␣program␣areas.␣These␣"spotlighted"␣areas␣include:␣
Curbside␣Collection␣of␣Materials␣
Processing␣of␣Materials␣␣
Marketing␣of␣Materials␣
Multi-Family␣Recycling␣␣
Depot␣Collection␣of␣Materials␣
Recycling␣of␣Challenging␣Plastic␣Materials␣
Described␣below␣are␣these␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlights.␣
70 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Best Practices in Curbside Collection
␣
Overview
In␣a␣typical␣Blue␣Box␣recycling␣program,␣the␣curbside␣collection␣function␣is␣the␣most␣
expensive␣program␣component.␣␣It␣is,␣therefore,␣essential␣to␣understand␣and␣properly␣
manage␣cost␣drivers␣and␣operational␣intricacies␣associated␣with␣collecting␣recyclables␣
at␣the␣curb.␣This␣section␣provides␣guidance␣for␣municipal␣program␣operators␣on␣the␣
availability␣of␣choices␣and␣resulting␣cost␣and␣recovery␣implications␣of␣adopting␣or␣
changing␣curbside␣collection␣methods␣and␣parameters.␣␣
␣
Key Benefits and Outcomes
By␣effectively␣structuring␣and␣optimizing␣their␣collection␣functions,␣Blue␣Box␣
programs␣can␣obtain␣the␣following␣effectiveness␣benefits:␣
Increased␣recovery␣of␣materials␣and␣diversion␣from␣landfill␣
Improved␣separation␣of␣materials␣in␣vehicles␣and␣MRFs␣
Increased␣participation␣in␣recycling␣
Enhanced␣aesthetic␣appeal␣of␣containers␣at␣the␣curb␣
Improved␣operator␣safety␣and␣ergonomics␣
Improved␣customer␣satisfaction␣levels␣
Programs␣can␣become␣more␣efficient␣due␣to␣the␣following␣factors:␣
Lower␣collection␣and␣processing␣costs␣
Increased␣revenues␣from␣sale␣of␣recyclables␣captured␣
Improved␣utilization␣of␣capital␣(trucks␣and␣processing␣equipment)␣
␣
Description and Implementation of Best Practice
Relationship to Processing
The␣appropriateness␣of␣any␣specific␣curbside␣collection␣practice␣is␣directly␣related␣to␣
the␣processing␣capabilities␣of␣the␣MRF␣that␣will␣be␣receiving␣the␣collected␣material.␣␣
Some␣collection␣methods␣listed␣may␣not␣be␣appropriate␣for␣all␣municipalities␣for␣this␣
reason,␣as␣well␣as␣others.␣All␣collection␣methods␣should␣be␣reviewed␣with␣
consideration␣of␣processing␣capabilities␣and␣further␣feasibility␣analysis␣may␣be␣
required.␣
Set Out Containers
It␣is␣good␣practice␣for␣municipal␣programs␣to␣complete␣set␣out␣studies,␣waste␣audits,␣
and␣capacity␣studies␣to␣evaluate␣the␣current␣program's␣recovery␣effectiveness,␣
remaining␣recovery␣potential,␣and␣set␣out␣container␣capacity␣needs.␣␣If␣sufficient␣
Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣71
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
container␣capacity␣is␣not␣provided␣to␣match␣the␣set␣out␣volume␣and␣frequency␣of␣
collection,␣then␣there␣is␣the␣potential␣that␣additional␣recyclables␣might␣be␣placed␣into␣
the␣garbage.␣Often,␣additional␣collection␣can␣help␣solve␣the␣bin␣capacity␣issue.␣␣␣
As␣a␣program␣continues␣to␣grow,␣additional␣or␣larger␣containers␣may␣become␣
increasingly␣advantageous.␣␣Some␣programs␣allow␣residents␣to␣add␣blue␣boxes␣or␣
allow␣residents␣to␣include␣the␣additional␣materials␣in␣clear␣plastic␣or␣clear␣blue␣bags.␣
Single␣stream␣collection␣programs␣using␣carts␣do␣not␣usually␣have␣container␣capacity␣
problems,␣provided␣that␣residents␣follow␣instructions␣on␣how␣to␣prepare␣material␣
(e.g.,␣flattening␣cardboard␣so␣that␣it␣will␣fit␣into␣the␣cart,␣etc.).␣␣The␣size␣and␣number␣
of␣recycling␣bins␣or␣carts␣should␣be␣selected␣to␣match␣the␣collection␣frequency␣and␣
the␣projected␣volume␣of␣recyclables.␣␣Container␣options␣typically␣include:␣
Recycling box:␣may␣be␣suitable␣for␣most␣small␣programs␣collecting␣only␣the␣
"mandatory"␣recyclables␣weekly␣(18-68␣litre)␣
Multiple boxes: as␣programs␣grow␣in␣the␣number␣of␣designated␣recyclables␣
collected␣and␣in␣the␣recovery␣of␣those␣materials,␣they␣usually␣move␣to␣providing␣
multiple␣boxes␣to␣residents,␣often␣one␣for␣fibres␣and␣one␣for␣loose␣containers␣
Roll-out cart:␣used␣by␣programs␣with␣a␣wide␣range␣of␣materials␣with␣reduced␣
collection␣frequency␣(bi-weekly␣or␣monthly)␣to␣enable␣the␣use␣of␣semi-␣and/or␣
fully-␣automated␣collection␣vehicles␣(120␣-␣360␣litre).␣␣␣
Translucent bags:␣provide␣flexible␣capacity,␣similar␣to␣carts,␣but␣increase␣sorting␣
problems␣at␣the␣MRF.␣Allow␣identification␣of␣gross␣contamination,␣but␣not␣the␣
opportunity␣to␣provide␣curbside␣contamination␣sort␣
Degree of Sorting
Programs␣generating␣less␣than␣10,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣can␣benefit␣from␣curbside␣sort␣
collections␣when␣no␣two-stream␣or␣single-stream␣MRF␣is␣located␣within␣a␣reasonable␣
driving␣distance.␣␣Smaller␣programs␣typically␣do␣not␣recover␣sufficient␣tonnage␣to␣
justify␣establishing␣their␣own␣MRF:␣however,␣such␣programs␣may␣find␣it␣cost␣
effective␣to␣implement␣a␣low-tech␣bulking␣facility␣where␣densification␣of␣curbside␣
sorted␣materials␣takes␣place.␣␣Often␣materials␣recovered␣through␣curbside␣sort␣
systems␣have␣very␣low␣contamination,␣thus␣resulting␣in␣a␣very␣high␣quality␣product.␣
Only␣a␣few␣Ontario␣communities␣utilize␣this␣approach,␣however.␣It␣must␣be␣stressed␣
that␣this␣is␣an␣option␣used␣by,␣and␣suitable␣for,␣only␣the␣smallest␣communities␣that␣
provide␣blue␣box␣recycling␣where␣there␣is␣no␣MRF␣available␣for␣more␣efficient␣sorting.␣
In␣the␣absence␣of␣a␣MRF␣or␣a␣system␣of␣regional␣cooperation,␣a␣low␣tech␣non-sorting␣
facility␣may␣be␣the␣most␣appropriate␣method␣of␣densifying␣materials␣for␣markets.␣
As␣programs␣grow␣in␣size␣and␣tonnage,␣there␣is␣more␣pressure␣to␣consider␣additional␣
commingling␣of␣recyclables.␣␣Typically,␣programs␣previously␣providing␣a␣multi-sort␣
curbside␣scheme␣evolve␣into␣providing␣a␣dual␣sort␣collection␣system,␣i.e.,␣separation␣
of␣fibre␣and␣containers␣in␣two␣vehicle␣compartments.␣Another␣variation␣of␣the␣dual␣
sort␣system␣is␣separation␣of␣glass␣into␣a␣third␣compartment.␣
Sorting␣glass␣at␣the␣curb␣can␣add␣incremental␣costs␣to␣collection,␣and␣these␣costs␣are␣
borne␣by␣the␣entity␣that␣funds␣the␣collection␣program.␣Costs␣arise␣both␣in␣the␣extra␣
72 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
time␣for␣sorting␣and␣in␣the␣extra␣compartment␣required␣on␣the␣truck.␣The␣sorted␣glass␣
is␣usually␣kept␣out␣of␣the␣processing␣stream␣at␣the␣MRF␣-␣deposited␣in␣an␣outside␣
bunker,␣for␣example,␣before␣the␣truck␣dumps␣the␣remaining␣commingled␣materials␣on␣
the␣tipping␣floor␣inside.␣Three␣fairly␣significant␣benefits␣then␣accrue␣to␣the␣processing␣
entity␣-␣the␣reduction␣in␣sorting␣equipment␣needed␣for␣glass␣(and␣associated␣reduced␣
maintenance␣of␣other␣equipment␣that␣may␣be␣affected␣by␣broken␣glass),␣the␣possible␣
increased␣market␣value␣of␣the␣glass␣itself,␣since␣it␣has␣not␣been␣commingled␣with␣
other␣materials,␣and␣the␣possible␣increased␣market␣value␣of␣all␣other␣materials␣that␣
have␣not␣been␣in␣contact␣with␣glass␣and␣thus␣are␣not␣subject␣to␣potential␣downgrades␣
due␣to␣glass␣contamination.␣␣
If␣the␣same␣entity␣operates␣and␣funds␣both␣the␣collection␣and␣processing␣systems,␣
these␣costs␣and␣savings␣may␣balance␣positively,␣leading␣to␣reduced␣overall␣costs␣for␣
the␣program.␣However,␣if␣the␣collection␣entity␣and␣processing␣entity␣are␣different,␣
these␣costs␣and␣potential␣savings␣must␣be␣balanced␣in␣the␣tender␣and␣contracting␣
process␣to␣ensure␣that␣they␣are␣shared␣in␣a␣manner␣that␣does␣not␣benefit␣one␣entity␣
at␣the␣expense␣of␣the␣other.␣However,␣few␣communities␣in␣Ontario␣continue␣to␣rely␣
on␣this␣approach.␣␣As␣the␣new␣LCBO␣return␣system␣becomes␣fully␣integrated␣into␣the␣
public's␣behaviour,␣the␣amount␣of␣glass␣in␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣may␣decline,␣making␣
the␣curb␣sort␣option␣even␣less␣desirable.␣
Two-stream␣collection␣(fibres␣and␣containers)␣is␣generally␣the␣preferred␣collection␣
method␣for␣programs␣that␣process␣between␣about␣10K␣to␣40k␣tonnes␣of␣material␣per␣
year,␣again,␣depending␣on␣the␣processing␣capabilities␣at␣the␣MRF.␣␣This␣tonnage␣
throughput␣can␣support␣two-stream␣processing;␣but␣if␣a␣single-stream␣MRF␣is␣located␣
within␣an␣hour's␣driving␣distance,␣single␣stream␣collection␣should␣be␣considered␣as␣a␣
potential␣collection␣option.␣␣Two-stream␣collections␣capitalize␣on␣the␣initial␣labour␣
provided␣from␣the␣residents␣at␣the␣curb.␣␣Often,␣programs␣with␣high␣participation␣can␣
benefit␣from␣this␣type␣of␣collection␣as␣materials␣are␣collected␣fairly␣easily␣by␣
collection␣staff.␣In␣addition,␣if␣boxes␣are␣used␣to␣set␣out␣recyclables␣(as␣opposed␣to␣
bags␣or␣carts),␣collection␣staff␣have␣an␣opportunity␣to␣perform␣a␣degree␣of␣
contamination␣screening␣at␣the␣curb␣to␣improve␣the␣quality␣of␣the␣product␣delivered␣
to␣the␣MRF.␣
As␣program␣tonnages␣approach␣and␣exceed␣40,000␣tonnes␣per␣year,␣single␣stream␣
collection␣and␣processing␣may␣become␣more␣feasible.␣␣Single␣stream␣recycling␣offers␣
the␣potential␣for␣increased␣collection␣savings␣and␣increased␣recovery␣of␣recyclables,␣
but␣also␣results␣in␣increased␣processing␣costs␣and,␣depending␣on␣the␣container␣type␣
used,␣increased␣contamination.␣In␣simple␣terms,␣the␣larger␣the␣program␣tonnage,␣the␣
greater␣the␣potential␣for␣collection␣cost␣savings␣and,␣hence,␣the␣greater␣the␣potential␣
to␣offset␣the␣additional␣cost␣of␣single␣stream␣processing.␣In␣addition,␣the␣use␣of␣fully␣
or␣semi-automated␣collection␣vehicles␣to␣tip␣carts␣into␣a␣vehicle␣results␣in␣fewer␣
injury-related␣strains,␣thereby␣increasing␣worker␣safety␣and␣lowering␣operating␣costs␣
associated␣with␣injuries.␣
It␣should␣be␣noted␣that␣if␣a␣two␣box␣set␣out␣is␣maintained␣in␣a␣single␣stream␣program,␣
most␣of␣the␣potential␣savings␣in␣urban␣areas␣will␣be␣lost,␣since␣there␣will␣be␣little␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣73
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
reduction␣in␣stop␣times.␣␣A␣more-detailed␣discussion␣of␣single␣stream␣recycling␣is␣
provided␣in␣the␣"Processing"␣section.
Opportunities␣for␣increasing␣recyclables␣collection␣efficiencies␣and␣reducing␣costs␣
grow␣with␣increased␣commingling.␣␣Collecting␣materials␣single␣stream␣allows␣for␣
controlled␣compaction,␣which␣makes␣collection␣more␣efficient␣because␣trucks␣can␣
stay␣on␣route␣longer␣before␣filling.␣␣Compaction␣can␣also␣be␣used␣in␣two␣stream␣
collection;␣however,␣the␣per-household␣cost␣for␣collection␣in␣single␣stream␣systems␣
is␣typically␣less␣than␣comparable␣two␣stream␣systems␣because␣materials␣can␣be␣
loaded␣into␣a␣single␣stream␣truck␣in␣less␣time.␣For␣either␣two-stream␣or␣single␣stream␣
collection,␣the␣compaction␣needs␣to␣be␣controlled␣so␣that␣the␣pressure␣is␣sufficient␣to␣
achieve␣a␣reasonable␣amount␣of␣volume␣reduction,␣without␣over-compacting␣the␣
materials.␣␣Over-compaction␣results␣in␣glass␣breakage␣and␣flattening␣of␣round␣
containers,␣which␣can␣cause␣the␣automated␣systems␣in␣a␣single␣stream␣MRF␣to␣be␣
less␣effective␣in␣separating␣flat␣paper␣products␣from␣round␣containers.␣␣
Collection Frequency
Municipalities␣need␣to␣assess␣their␣program␣performance␣to␣identify␣the␣type␣of␣
collection␣that␣is␣best␣suited␣to␣their␣own␣circumstances.␣Selection␣of␣collection␣
frequency␣needs␣to␣be␣made␣with␣consideration␣to␣the␣variety␣and␣volume␣of␣
recyclables␣recovered,␣the␣type,␣number,␣and␣volume␣of␣household␣containers␣
supplied␣to␣the␣resident,␣the␣type␣of␣collection␣equipment␣available␣for␣use,␣and␣how␣
recyclables␣collection␣is␣integrated␣with␣other␣solid␣waste␣collection␣services␣(e.g.,␣
household␣organics,␣garbage,␣etc.).␣␣Team's␣analysis␣indicates␣that␣programs␣that␣
collect␣recyclables␣at␣least␣as␣frequently␣as␣garbage␣exhibit␣higher␣recovery␣rates.␣␣
This␣practice␣sends␣an␣important␣message␣to␣residents␣that␣recycling␣is␣equally␣as␣
important␣and␣as␣convenient␣as␣setting␣out␣garbage,␣thereby␣boosting␣the␣tonnage␣of␣
materials␣diverted.␣␣␣
The␣most␣effective␣programs␣in␣the␣province␣with␣respect␣to␣tonnage␣diversion␣
provide␣weekly␣collection␣of␣recyclables␣and␣household␣organics,␣with␣bi-weekly␣
collection␣of␣garbage␣(and␣an␣effective␣refuse␣bag␣limit).␣However,␣bi-weekly␣
collection␣of␣recyclables␣on␣its␣own␣can␣be␣more␣cost-effective␣than␣weekly␣
collection,␣provided␣there␣is␣no␣appreciable␣loss␣of␣tonnage,␣and␣provided␣that␣
householders␣are␣given␣sufficient␣container␣capacity␣to␣meet␣or␣exceed␣their␣two-
week␣material␣storage␣requirements.␣␣Another␣option,␣used␣primarily␣by␣programs␣
that␣do␣not␣have␣specialized␣collection␣vehicles␣or␣are␣co-collecting␣recyclables␣with␣
other␣waste␣materials␣(with␣recyclables␣taken␣to␣a␣two-stream␣MRF),␣is␣the␣collection␣
of␣fibres␣and␣containers␣on␣alternating␣weeks.␣␣While␣not␣a␣best␣practice,␣in␣certain␣
situations,␣where␣efficiency␣must␣be␣weighed␣against␣diversion␣benefits,␣such␣
programs␣may␣be␣justifiable.␣
Collection␣frequency␣for␣recyclables␣should␣be␣reassessed␣when␣planning␣for␣
collection␣of␣kitchen␣organics.␣Co-collection␣opportunities␣should␣be␣evaluated␣and␣
utilized,␣when␣feasible.␣This␣entails␣using␣the␣same␣vehicle␣for␣two␣or␣more␣different␣
waste␣streams␣or␣fitting␣a␣vehicle␣with␣appropriate␣equipment␣(in␣low-density,␣rural␣
areas),␣so␣that␣a␣single␣pass␣can␣be␣made␣to␣collect␣multiple␣types␣of␣materials.␣␣Co-
74 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
collection␣is␣typically␣only␣appropriate␣when␣materials␣can␣be␣unloaded␣at␣the␣same␣
or␣adjacent␣facilities.␣
Co-collection␣allows␣for␣a␣reduction␣in␣total␣system␣cost␣by␣not␣needing␣to␣have␣two␣
trucks␣drive␣down␣the␣same␣road␣on␣the␣same␣day.␣␣The␣essence␣of␣the␣cost␣savings␣
lies␣in␣reducing␣non-productive␣time,␣such␣as␣time␣spent␣driving␣from␣stop␣to␣stop.␣␣In␣
order␣to␣successfully␣implement␣this␣practice,␣the␣two␣materials␣that␣are␣co-collected␣
need␣to␣be␣delivered␣to␣one␣location,␣such␣as␣a␣transfer␣station␣or␣to␣two␣nearby␣
facilities.␣␣This␣practice␣works␣well␣with␣single␣stream␣recycling␣but␣it␣can␣be␣adapted␣
with␣two␣stream␣programs␣with␣an␣alternating␣week␣collection␣schedule,␣where␣
waste␣and␣fibres␣may␣be␣collected␣one␣week,␣and␣waste␣and␣containers␣are␣collected␣
the␣next␣week.␣Collecting␣on␣an␣alternating␣week␣basis␣does␣not␣mean␣that␣the␣MRF␣
only␣processes␣paper␣products␣one␣week␣and␣containers␣the␣other␣week;␣rather␣it␣
means␣that␣half␣the␣routes␣collect␣one␣material␣and␣the␣other␣half␣of␣routes␣collect␣
the␣other␣material␣on␣any␣given␣day.␣␣This␣allows␣the␣MRF␣to␣be␣optimally␣sized.␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣
Regardless␣of␣the␣number␣of␣streams␣collected␣and␣the␣type␣of␣vehicles␣used,␣other␣
collection␣practices␣may␣be␣a␣Best␣Practice␣under␣certain␣conditions.␣␣An␣example␣is␣
extended␣collection␣days,␣where␣the␣normal␣working␣day␣for␣collection␣crews␣is␣
lengthened,␣allowing␣operators␣to␣get␣in␣their␣weekly␣hours␣in␣four␣days␣per␣week␣
instead␣of␣five.␣␣The␣advantage␣of␣longer␣collection␣days␣is␣that␣fewer␣routes␣need␣to␣
be␣operated␣to␣collect␣from␣the␣program␣because␣trucks␣stay␣on␣route␣longer␣and␣
collect␣from␣more␣homes␣before␣ending␣the␣day.␣␣There␣is␣a␣certain␣amount␣of␣non-
productive␣time␣with␣each␣route␣(i.e.,␣daily␣preventative␣maintenance,␣fuelling,␣fluid␣
checks,␣breaks,␣etc.).␣␣Fewer␣routes␣mean␣less␣non-productive␣time␣and␣cost␣savings.␣␣
Drawbacks␣to␣extended␣collection␣days␣include␣declining␣productivity␣near␣the␣end␣of␣
the␣day␣and␣increasing␣potential␣for␣injury␣or␣accidents.␣␣Considering␣extended␣
collection␣days␣is␣conditional␣on␣trucks␣having␣payload␣capacity␣for␣the␣additional␣
homes␣to␣be␣collected␣(usually␣because␣of␣compaction).␣␣If␣trucks␣are␣usually␣full␣at␣
the␣end␣of␣the␣normal␣work␣day,␣it␣will␣not␣likely␣be␣cost␣effective␣to␣go␣back␣out␣on␣
route.␣␣Extended␣collection␣days␣should␣normally␣seek␣to␣employ␣the␣equipment␣on␣
the␣same␣number␣of␣working␣days␣per␣week␣(five␣or␣six)␣compared␣to␣regular␣
collection␣days␣through␣effective␣use␣of␣labour␣and␣equipment␣allocation.␣
Regardless␣of␣the␣collection␣frequency,␣but␣particularly␣in␣programs␣with␣waste␣bag␣
limits␣or␣lower␣frequency␣of␣collection,␣it␣is␣beneficial␣to␣provide␣convenient␣and␣
consistent␣options␣for␣capturing␣overflow␣materials.␣␣Some␣communities␣have␣depots␣
for␣this␣purpose,␣while␣others␣provide␣clear␣plastic␣bags␣for␣the␣collection␣of␣overflow␣
materials.␣
Routing
Regardless␣of␣the␣type␣of␣collection␣procedure␣used,␣it␣is␣a␣Best␣Practice␣that␣
collection␣methods␣are␣designed␣to␣ensure␣that␣the␣routes␣are␣shortest␣in␣distance␣
and␣reach␣all␣the␣residential␣locations.␣␣Route␣design␣should␣also␣maximize␣collection␣
vehicle␣time␣spent␣on␣route␣and␣minimize␣collection␣vehicle␣time␣spent␣off␣route.␣
One␣means␣of␣doing␣this␣is␣to␣use␣large-capacity␣collection␣vehicles.␣␣␣Set␣out␣
instructions␣can␣also␣be␣prepared␣to␣increase␣collection␣efficiency.␣␣For␣example,␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣75
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
when␣street␣layouts␣permit␣and␣safety␣is␣not␣an␣issue␣(and␣particularly␣in␣low-density␣
areas),␣households␣can␣be␣directed␣to␣set␣out␣material␣on␣one␣side␣of␣the␣street␣only.␣
Another␣option␣is␣to␣encourage␣"twinning"␣of␣recycling␣containers␣at␣the␣curbside␣
(residents␣place␣their␣bins␣beside␣their␣neighbour's␣bins)␣to␣maximize␣set␣outs␣per␣
stop.␣␣This␣can␣be␣particularly␣beneficial␣when␣street␣side␣parking␣can␣interfere␣in␣
servicing␣set␣outs,␣or␣when␣houses␣are␣on␣large␣lots.␣This␣technique␣is␣more␣
commonly␣used␣for␣solid␣waste␣collection␣programs␣using␣roll-out␣carts,␣but␣the␣
same␣technique␣works␣for␣recyclables␣collection␣as␣well.␣␣
For␣larger␣programs␣in␣particular,␣and␣for␣private␣collection␣service␣providers,␣the␣use␣
of␣route␣optimization␣tools␣and␣methods␣to␣balance␣routes␣and␣payloads,␣can␣be␣very␣
effective␣in␣reducing␣time␣per␣stop,␣time␣between␣stops,␣off-route␣time,␣and␣miles␣
driven.␣␣Optimized␣routes␣provide␣efficient␣service␣to␣residents,␣reducing␣collection␣
time,␣which␣can␣translate␣into␣lower␣collection␣costs.␣␣Some␣municipal␣staff␣have␣
produced␣in-house␣route␣optimization␣methods␣and␣there␣are␣a␣number␣of␣route␣
optimization␣software␣applications␣available␣for␣municipal␣staff␣to␣purchase.␣␣Whether␣
a␣purchased␣program␣or␣an␣in␣house␣methodology␣is␣used,␣optimizing␣routes␣on␣a␣
regular␣basis␣will␣result␣in␣some␣beneficial␣change.␣
Transfer
Transfer␣is␣an␣option␣that␣should␣be␣considered␣for␣programs␣with␣tonnages␣of␣
recyclables␣considered␣too␣small␣to␣support␣their␣own␣MRF,␣or␣for␣larger␣programs␣
without␣their␣own␣MRF␣with␣direct␣haul␣time␣to␣a␣MRF␣of␣greater␣than␣about␣one␣
hour.␣How␣recyclables␣will␣be␣transferred␣will␣depend␣on␣the␣destination␣MRF.␣The␣
degree␣of␣commingling,␣receiving␣hours,␣and␣possibly␣the␣type␣of␣transfer␣vehicle␣
that␣can␣be␣used␣are␣typically␣items␣that␣the␣MRF␣will␣dictate.␣␣Transfer␣of␣single␣
stream␣recyclables␣using␣light␣compaction␣will␣likely␣be␣simpler␣and␣more␣economical␣
than␣transfer␣of␣two␣stream␣recyclables.␣
The␣design␣of␣a␣transfer␣station␣can␣vary␣from␣a␣very␣simple␣split-elevation,␣direct␣
unload␣operation␣into␣an␣open␣top␣transfer␣trailer␣(for␣small␣tonnages)␣to␣more␣
sophisticated␣enclosed␣structures␣with␣several␣loading␣bays.␣A␣recent␣WDO␣report␣
provides␣more␣detailed␣information␣about␣transfer␣systems.␣The␣cost␣of␣providing␣a␣
transfer␣option␣must␣be␣weighed␣against␣that␣of␣direct␣haul.␣To␣assist␣in␣this,␣an␣Excel␣
model␣has␣been␣developed␣to␣assess␣different␣transfer␣options␣on␣a␣site␣specific␣
basis␣(check␣with␣WDO␣on␣how␣to␣access␣model).␣␣
␣
Sources and Links
E&E␣Fund␣Project␣Number␣207.␣␣York Collection and Processing Optimization Study,␣
2006␣
http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/eefund/projects/benchmark.htm#207␣
Efficient␣Recycling␣Collection␣Routing␣in␣Pictou␣County,␣2001␣
http://www.cogs.ns.ca/planning/projects/plt20014/images/research.pdf␣
76 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
US␣Environmental␣Protection␣Agency.␣Getting More for Less: Improving Collection
Efficiency,␣1999␣
www.epa.gov/garbage/coll-eff/r99038.pdf␣
Single Stream Best Practices Manual and Implementation Guide,␣Susan␣Kinsella,␣
Conservatree,␣2007␣
http://conservatree.com/learn/SolidWaste/bestpractices.shtml␣
"Assessment of Ontario Transfer Capabilities of Residential Blue Box Materials and
Opportunities for Cost Savings";␣Jacques␣Whitford␣for␣WDO;␣December,␣2006␣
Waste␣Diversion␣Ontario␣
www.wdo.ca␣
␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣77
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Best Practices in Processing of Recyclable Materials
␣
Overview
Processing␣of␣Blue␣Box␣recyclables␣at␣a␣MRF␣is␣an␣intermediate␣step␣between␣the␣
collection␣of␣the␣recyclables␣and␣the␣marketing␣of␣those␣materials␣to␣selected␣
material␣markets.␣The␣role␣of␣a␣MRF␣is␣to␣receive,␣sort␣and␣prepare␣the␣recyclables␣to␣
meet␣material␣specifications␣dictated␣by␣the␣selected␣markets.␣Discussed␣herein␣are␣
selected␣design␣and␣operational␣Best␣Practices␣and␣associated␣considerations.␣␣
Please␣refer␣to␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣on␣Operation␣Optimization,␣as␣well␣as␣
the␣description␣of␣Curbside␣Recycling␣Best␣Practices␣for␣additional␣relevant␣
information.␣␣␣
␣
Key Benefits and Outcomes
By␣improving␣and␣optimizing␣processing␣functions,␣municipalities␣can␣obtain␣the␣
following␣effectiveness␣benefits:␣
Increased␣recovery␣of␣materials␣and␣diversion␣from␣landfill␣
Improved␣separation␣of␣materials␣
Lower␣residue␣levels␣␣
Consistent␣material␣quality␣
Improved␣relationships␣with␣end-markets␣
Programs␣can␣become␣more␣efficient␣due␣to␣the␣following␣factors:␣
Reduced␣need␣for␣staff,␣reduced␣downtime,␣reduced␣maintenance␣␣
Increased␣revenues␣from␣sale␣of␣recyclables␣captured␣
Improved␣employee␣safety␣and␣ergonomics␣
Improved␣utilization␣of␣capital␣
␣
Description and Implementation of Best Practice
The␣design␣of␣a␣MRF␣is␣dependent␣on␣the␣materials␣delivered,␣the␣composition␣of␣
those␣materials,␣the␣degree␣of␣commingling,␣the␣annual␣tonnages␣delivered,␣and␣the␣
proposed␣grades␣and␣specifications␣of␣materials␣to␣be␣produced␣and␣marketed.␣␣␣
As␣previously␣mentioned,␣smaller␣communities␣that␣employ␣curbside␣material␣sorting␣
may␣rely␣on␣low-tech␣bulking␣facilities␣to␣densify␣materials␣for␣shipping.␣These␣
facilities␣generally␣have␣no␣sorting␣capability,␣or␣feature␣a␣rudimentary␣sorting␣system␣
(i.e.␣sorting␣directly␣from␣the␣pile␣of␣material␣deposited␣on␣the␣floor␣by␣the␣truck)␣that␣
is␣not␣recommended␣for␣safety␣and␣health␣reasons.␣␣Medium-sized␣programs␣
featuring␣dual-stream␣collection␣may␣use␣processing␣facilities␣that␣rely␣heavily␣on␣
manual␣sorting␣because␣the␣material␣flow-through␣does␣not␣justify␣the␣capital␣
expense␣on␣automated␣sorting␣equipment.␣The␣operation␣of␣efficient␣manual␣(labour-
Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight
78 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
based)␣sorting␣systems␣has␣been␣refined␣over␣many␣years,␣and␣such␣systems␣are␣
available␣on␣the␣market␣by␣MRF␣technology␣companies.␣Although␣labour␣costs␣can␣be␣
high,␣these␣systems␣have␣a␣place␣in␣MRF␣design␣and␣will␣continue␣to␣be␣used.␣␣For␣
many␣programs,␣they␣can␣be␣a␣cost-effective␣way␣of␣sorting␣materials␣if␣managed␣
properly.␣Larger␣programs␣with␣higher␣tonnages␣and␣an␣expanded␣degree␣of␣
commingling␣of␣recyclables␣are␣able␣to␣support␣more␣sophisticated␣mechanical␣
sorting␣at␣the␣MRF.␣␣It␣is␣a␣best␣practice␣to␣consider␣opportunities␣for␣regional␣
cooperation␣with␣respect␣to␣collection␣and␣processing,␣to␣enhance␣economies␣of␣
scale␣and␣program␣efficiency.␣␣Similarly,␣consideration␣should␣also␣be␣given␣to␣
handling␣recyclables␣captured␣through␣institutional,␣commercial␣and␣industrial␣(ICI)␣
recycling␣programs␣as␣a␣means␣to␣increase␣throughput␣and␣improve␣processing␣
facility␣economies␣of␣scale.␣
The␣schematic␣below␣illustrates␣how␣collection␣and␣processing␣systems␣change␣with␣
increased␣tonnage␣recovered.␣
Collection
Annual Tonnes
MRF
Multi-sort curbside and depot
programs well suited
Less than 10,000
Dedicated MRF may not be
economically feasible
Dual stream curbside collection
(with possible separation of glass)
10,000 to 40,000
Dual stream MRFs most suitable
Investigate feasibility of single
stream curbside collection
More than 40,000
Investigate feasibility of single
stream processing and market
impacts
Investigate feasibility of plastics
optical sort
␣
Regardless␣of␣the␣type␣of␣MRF,␣there␣are␣a␣number␣of␣conditional␣Best␣Practices␣that␣
should␣be␣considered␣by␣any␣program␣looking␣to␣improve␣processing␣effectiveness,␣
efficiency␣and␣costs.␣These␣include:␣
Provide␣at␣least␣2␣day's␣storage␣capacity␣for␣incoming␣recyclables.␣This␣permits␣a␣
second␣shift␣operation␣and␣provides␣a␣storage␣buffer␣during␣unscheduled␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣79
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
equipment␣down␣time.␣Consider␣planning␣for␣a␣second␣shift,␣to␣maximize␣the␣
use␣of␣processing␣equipment␣and␣to␣allow␣for␣processing␣of␣additional␣materials␣
Build␣in␣as␣much␣flexibility␣as␣possible␣into␣the␣design␣and␣operational␣approach;␣
this␣allows␣responding␣to␣changing␣needs␣and␣circumstances␣(e.g.,␣changes␣in␣
material␣mix,␣additional␣materials,␣improved␣technology,␣optical␣sorting,␣changes␣
in␣market␣specifications,␣seasonal␣surges␣in␣tonnage,␣etc.)␣
Balance␣the␣use␣of␣mechanization␣and␣labour.␣Evaluate␣the␣benefits␣and␣cost␣of␣
labour␣and␣capital␣in␣each␣processing␣step␣to␣identify␣the␣optimum␣balance␣
Use␣appropriate␣technology␣-␣the␣right␣tool␣for␣the␣job.␣These␣may␣include␣use␣of␣
balers␣sized␣and␣designed␣to␣match␣the␣nature␣of␣material␣to␣be␣processed,␣
ergonomically␣designed␣sorting␣lines,␣appropriately-sized␣and␣designed␣loaders␣
to␣handle␣incoming␣materials,␣etc␣
Provide␣adequate␣pre-sort␣capability.␣This␣practice␣provides␣the␣ability␣to␣remove␣
oversize␣and␣problem␣materials␣such␣as␣large␣cardboard,␣wire,␣plastic␣film,␣etc.␣
before␣reaching␣mechanical␣sorting␣equipment,␣where␣they␣may␣interfere␣or␣
cause␣damage␣or␣interfere␣with␣subsequent␣processing.␣Removal␣of␣these␣
materials␣improves␣the␣efficiency␣of␣subsequent␣sorting␣operations.␣␣Pre-sort␣
capacity␣also␣offers␣an␣opportunity␣for␣sorting␣future␣add-on␣materials,␣such␣as␣
bagged␣film␣plastic,␣textiles␣or␣oversized␣plastic␣bottles.␣␣Length␣of␣pre-sort␣
conveyor␣required␣is␣dependent␣on␣the␣quantity␣and␣type␣of␣contamination␣
present␣and␣the␣width␣of␣storage␣bunkers␣or␣cages␣required␣below␣the␣sorting␣
conveyor␣
Use␣fluffers␣(at␣the␣baler␣in-feed)␣or␣perforators␣with␣single␣ram␣balers,␣as␣some␣
plastic␣bottles␣are␣difficult␣to␣bale␣(especially␣bottles␣with␣the␣lids␣still␣on).␣While␣
single␣ram␣balers␣are␣suitable␣for␣smaller␣MRFs,␣they␣typically␣do␣not␣have␣the␣
ability␣of␣larger␣2-ram␣balers␣to␣produce␣dense␣plastic␣bales.␣The␣use␣of␣fluffers␣
or␣perforators␣results␣in␣improved␣bale␣density␣of␣up␣to␣20%.␣
Investigate␣the␣feasibility␣of␣optical␣sorting␣of␣plastics␣if␣MRF␣throughput␣tonnage␣
is␣>40,000␣tonnes,␣or␣alternatively,␣if␣3␣or␣more␣sorters␣are␣required␣for␣sorting␣
plastic␣containers.␣PET␣bottles␣are␣the␣most␣economical␣target␣for␣automatic␣
sorting,␣as␣the␣number␣of␣bottles␣per␣kilogram␣is␣significantly␣higher␣than␣for␣
HDPE␣and␣the␣absolute␣number␣of␣PET␣bottles␣is␣higher␣in␣Canada␣as␣well.␣It␣
should␣also␣be␣noted␣that␣automated␣systems␣are␣primarily␣designed␣for␣sorting␣
plastic␣bottles␣only␣and␣the␣addition␣of␣tubs/lids,␣clamshells,␣and␣polystyrene␣
may␣limit␣the␣applicability␣of␣this␣technology␣in␣Canada,␣compared␣to␣other␣
regions,␣such␣as␣the␣United␣States␣where␣collection␣and␣processing␣of␣these␣
other␣plastic␣containers␣and␣components␣is␣not␣widespread.␣The␣shape␣of␣tubs␣
and␣lids␣is␣not␣well␣suited␣to␣the␣capabilities␣of␣the␣automated␣sorting␣equipment.␣␣
However,␣if␣the␣program␣handles␣a␣large␣volume␣of␣plastics,␣it␣might␣be␣desirable␣
to␣leave␣space␣for␣optical␣sorting␣in␣a␣new␣MRF␣design,␣in␣the␣event␣that␣this␣will␣
be␣added␣later.␣Retrofitting␣a␣MRF␣with␣an␣automated␣plastic␣sorting␣system␣
requires␣a␣source␣of␣compressed␣air␣for␣the␣ejection␣mechanism,␣which␣most␣
MRFs␣will␣not␣install␣as␣a␣matter␣of␣course.␣␣
80 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Make␣an␣appropriate␣level␣of␣capital␣investment␣to␣maximize␣benefits␣over␣the␣
long␣term␣at␣a␣reasonable␣payback␣level␣(a␣detailed␣feasibility␣analysis␣is␣required).␣
Pursue␣the␣"low␣hanging␣fruit"␣first␣-␣meaning␣those␣options␣that␣provide␣the␣
greatest␣return␣on␣investment␣with␣respect␣to␣meeting␣specified␣operational␣
performance␣and␣efficiency␣targets␣
Build␣into␣contracts␣a␣clear␣understanding␣of␣preventive␣maintenance␣and␣
equipment␣replacement␣requirements␣to␣maximize␣equipment␣life␣and␣ensure␣
good␣equipment␣performance␣
In␣addition␣to␣the␣above,␣the␣following␣is␣a␣list␣of␣"toolbox"␣items␣that␣might␣be␣
considered␣in␣MRF␣design␣and␣operation.␣Many␣of␣these␣were␣observed␣during␣MRF␣
site␣visits␣in␣this␣project:␣
Municipal␣ownership␣of␣MRFs␣-␣increasingly␣more␣municipalities␣are␣electing␣to␣
own␣their␣own␣MRF␣and␣contract␣the␣operation.␣This␣gives␣them␣more␣control␣of␣
their␣processing␣operations␣(e.g.,␣ability␣to␣test␣and␣add␣materials,␣ability␣to␣
retrofit␣as␣necessary␣to␣accommodate␣new␣technologies␣and␣processing␣
systems,␣etc.).␣While␣private␣sector-owned␣MRFs␣ease␣the␣capital␣financing␣
requirements␣of␣municipalities,␣they␣may␣offer␣less␣flexibility␣to␣the␣municipality␣
(e.g.,␣in␣what␣materials␣they␣can␣process,␣operating␣hours,␣number␣of␣streams␣
processed,␣willingness␣to␣invest␣in␣additional␣equipment␣or␣equipment␣
maintenance␣to␣further␣reduce␣operating␣costs,␣etc.).␣␣Contracts␣for␣operation␣of␣
publicly-owned␣MRFs␣by␣private␣contractors␣should␣not␣exceed␣ten␣years␣in␣
length.␣␣
Provide␣frequent␣training␣of␣sorters␣to␣identify␣recyclables,␣improve␣sorting␣
efficiency,␣reduce␣turnover␣
Use␣variable␣speed␣conveyors␣wherever␣possible␣to␣adjust␣for␣material␣changes␣
and␣staff␣sorting␣variability␣
Incorporate␣ergonomic␣considerations␣in␣design␣with␣adherence␣to␣the␣ANSI␣
Z245.41-2004␣Facilities␣for␣the␣Processing␣of␣Commingled␣Recyclable␣Materials␣
-␣Safety␣Requirements␣
Incorporate␣methods␣to␣encourage␣a␣uniform␣flow␣of␣material␣through␣the␣process␣
(even␣flow␣at␣reduced␣burden␣depth)␣(e.g.,␣levelling␣drums,␣variable␣speed␣
conveyors,␣provide␣2␣to␣3-foot␣drop␣at␣fibre␣conveyor␣transitions,␣etc.)␣
To␣the␣extent␣possible,␣remove␣large␣and␣bulky␣material␣(such␣as␣OCC␣and␣items␣
that␣can␣be␣mechanically␣sorted)␣first␣on␣sort␣lines␣to␣get␣these␣materials␣out␣of␣
the␣sorters'␣way␣
Use␣negative␣sorting␣in␣the␣appropriate␣circumstances␣to␣sort␣commodities␣to␣
minimize␣handling,␣especially␣when␣markets␣for␣such␣a␣commodity␣are␣more␣
forgiving.␣␣This␣practice␣is␣mostly␣applicable␣when␣the␣material␣is␣predominant␣
on␣the␣conveyor,␣and␣positively␣sorting␣the␣residue␣as␣opposed␣to␣the␣material␣is␣
a␣better␣use␣of␣the␣sorters'␣skills.␣For␣example,␣if␣a␣community␣has␣a␣market␣for␣
newspaper␣with␣a␣significant␣allowance␣for␣other␣fibre␣materials␣(i.e.␣#6␣ONP),␣
this␣material␣may␣be␣a␣large␣percentage␣of␣the␣fibre␣stream␣on␣the␣conveyor␣and␣
thus␣best␣left␣to␣negative␣sort␣at␣the␣end.␣In␣the␣absence␣of␣such␣circumstances,␣␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣81
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
residue␣should␣be␣removed␣by␣negative␣sort␣to␣minimize␣labour␣requirements␣
and␣maximize␣material␣quality␣
Use␣technology␣(screens,␣air␣classifier,␣magnets,␣etc.)␣early␣in␣the␣process␣to␣
reduce␣the␣volume␣to␣be␣sorted␣and␣leave␣an␣opportunity␣for␣supplementary␣
recovery␣(i.e.,␣quality␣control)␣after␣the␣technology␣has␣been␣applied␣to␣maximize␣
the␣recovery␣of␣valuable␣commodities␣
To␣the␣extent␣possible,␣use␣gravity␣and␣free␣fall␣to␣move␣materials␣from␣processing␣
to␣storage␣and␣further␣processing␣to␣simplify␣the␣operation,␣reduce␣maintenance,␣
reduce␣floor␣space,␣requirements,␣and␣reduce␣operating␣costs.␣One␣example␣of␣
this␣is␣to␣use␣vertical␣storage␣hoppers␣that␣release␣sorted␣materials␣when␣they␣
are␣scheduled␣to␣be␣fed␣into␣the␣baler␣
Optimize␣traffic␣flow␣control␣to␣reduce␣unloading␣time␣and␣congestion;␣and␣
minimize␣double␣handling␣where␣possible␣for␣example␣by␣using␣conveyors␣to␣
move␣materials␣as␣opposed␣to␣repeated␣loading␣and␣unloading␣
Provide␣workers␣with␣environmentally␣comfortable␣and␣safe␣working␣conditions␣in␣
accordance␣to␣ANSI␣Z245.41-2004␣Standard␣(heat/cool,␣ventilation,␣lighting,␣
safety␣and␣protective␣equipment,␣etc.)␣␣Ensure␣knowledge␣of␣health␣and␣safety␣
requirements,␣including␣Pre-Start␣Health␣and␣Safety␣Review,␣the␣provision␣of␣
safety␣training␣in␣accordance␣to␣ANSI␣Z245.41-2004,␣minimization␣of␣noise␣and␣
air␣contamination,␣and␣the␣safe␣use␣of␣equipment,␣personal␣protection␣
equipment␣(PPE).␣
Provide␣a␣quality␣control␣station␣at␣the␣baler␣pre-feed,␣in␣place␣of␣several␣quality␣
control␣stations␣for␣individual␣materials␣␣
Consider␣compacting,␣or␣possibly␣baling␣residue,␣to␣minimize␣shipping␣costs␣to␣
landfill␣
Monitor␣residue␣rates␣and␣work␣to␣improve␣both␣incoming␣and␣outgoing␣product␣
quality␣
Conduct␣periodic␣efficiency/optimization␣studies␣and␣provide␣structured␣
opportunities␣for␣employee␣input␣to␣provide␣for␣continuous␣improvement␣
Single Stream Recycling
While␣the␣discussion␣above␣relates␣to␣all␣MRFs,␣there␣exists␣particular␣interest␣in␣the␣
development␣of␣single␣stream␣recycling.␣The␣term␣"Single␣Stream␣Recycling"␣refers␣
to␣a␣process␣in␣which␣Blue␣Box␣recyclables,␣container␣and␣fibre␣materials,␣are␣
collected␣from␣residences␣and/or␣businesses␣in␣a␣single,␣fully␣commingled␣form␣and␣
subsequently␣separated␣and␣processed␣into␣marketable␣secondary␣materials␣at␣a␣
materials␣recovery␣facility.␣The␣following␣discussion␣reviews␣a␣number␣of␣key␣issues␣
related␣to␣single␣stream␣recycling,␣with␣particular␣emphasis␣on␣single␣stream␣MRFs.␣
The␣reader␣is␣also␣directed␣to␣the␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight␣on␣Curbside␣Collection␣
discussion␣for␣more␣detail␣on␣related␣single␣stream␣collection␣issues.␣
As␣the␣definition␣implies,␣there␣are␣two␣parts␣of␣a␣single␣stream␣recycling␣system␣that␣
are␣generally␣implemented␣in␣tandem:␣
82 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Single stream Collection␣of␣Recyclables␣-␣To␣facilitate␣efficient␣collection␣
residents␣are␣told␣that␣there␣is␣no␣need␣to␣segregate␣recyclables␣into␣separate␣
streams␣(e.g.,␣fibre,␣containers).␣The␣recyclables␣can␣then␣be␣collected␣using␣
standard␣single␣compartment␣collection␣vehicles,␣in␣some␣instances,␣with␣semi-
automated␣or␣automated␣loading␣capabilities.␣The␣use␣of␣larger␣capacity␣
containers␣(carts,␣bags)␣encourages␣consideration␣of␣a␣reduction␣in␣collection␣
frequency␣(from␣weekly␣to␣every␣other␣week)␣with␣resulting␣cost␣savings.␣The␣
use␣of␣a␣large␣container␣allows␣for␣the␣collection␣of␣additional␣recyclable␣
materials␣(such␣as␣a␣full␣range␣of␣fibres␣and␣rigid␣plastic␣containers),␣as␣well␣as␣
the␣reduction␣in␣collection␣frequency␣due␣to␣the␣additional␣storage␣capacity␣
provided␣by␣the␣container.␣␣It␣also␣provides␣convenience␣and␣ease␣of␣use␣to␣the␣
resident␣and/or␣business.␣In␣some␣programs,␣residents␣use␣plastic␣bags,␣rather␣
than␣rigid␣containers,␣to␣set␣out␣the␣commingled␣recyclables␣
Single stream Processing of Recyclables -␣The␣implementation␣of␣a␣single␣
stream␣recycling␣system␣also␣requires␣the␣availability␣of␣a␣materials␣recovery␣
facility␣(MRF)␣that␣is␣able␣to␣accept␣and␣process␣recyclables␣that␣are␣collected␣in␣
a␣single␣stream␣form.␣
There␣has␣been␣a␣tremendous␣growth␣in␣the␣implementation␣of␣the␣single␣stream␣
recycling␣approach␣in␣the␣last␣decade.␣In␣1995,␣there␣were␣five␣single␣stream␣MRFs␣
in␣the␣United␣States.␣␣In␣2000,␣there␣were␣64␣single␣stream␣MRFs.␣␣These␣facilities␣
represented␣more␣than␣20%␣of␣the␣MRF␣processing␣capacity␣in␣the␣U.S.␣in␣the␣year␣
2000.␣According␣to␣Governmental␣Advisory␣Associates,␣a␣Westport,␣Conn.,␣
consulting␣firm␣that␣maintains␣a␣database␣on␣MRFs,␣there␣are␣presently␣about␣100␣
municipal␣and␣regional␣single␣stream␣programs␣located␣in␣22␣states␣serving␣about␣27␣
million␣residents.␣␣␣
While␣single␣stream␣recycling␣may␣not␣be␣appropriate␣for␣every␣community,␣there␣is␣a␣
definite␣trend␣regarding␣the␣implementation␣of␣this␣approach␣for␣residential␣recycling␣
systems.␣It␣is␣noteworthy␣that␣a␣number␣of␣the␣most␣aggressive␣and␣dedicated␣U.S.␣
recycling␣communities␣have␣converted␣to␣single␣stream␣recyclables␣collection␣
programs.␣␣Among␣the␣converts␣are:␣
Seattle,␣Washington␣␣
Portland,␣Oregon␣␣
San␣Jose,␣California␣␣
Los␣Angeles,␣California␣
Denver,␣Colorado␣
Plano,␣Texas.␣
The␣Canadian␣experience␣is␣similar,␣especially␣in␣Ontario.␣In␣2004,␣approximately␣
20%␣of␣Blue␣Box␣tonnage␣was␣processed␣through␣single␣stream␣MRFs.␣In␣2006,␣this␣
had␣increased␣to␣approximately␣40%.␣Programs␣such␣as␣the␣City␣of␣Toronto,␣York␣
Region,␣Peel␣Region,␣and␣Sudbury␣have␣introduced␣single␣stream␣recycling␣over␣the␣
past␣two␣years.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣83
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
The␣following␣factors␣have␣contributed␣to␣the␣rapid␣growth␣of␣single␣stream␣systems␣
in␣the␣last␣ten␣years:␣
Desire to Increase Number and Quantity of Recyclables -␣The␣adoption␣of␣
higher␣recycling␣goals␣has␣caused␣communities␣to␣target␣more␣materials␣for␣
collection,␣exacerbating␣the␣problems␣associated␣with␣curb-sort␣collection␣
systems␣(e.g.,␣limited␣number␣and␣size␣of␣compartments,␣limited␣bin␣capacity,␣
etc.)␣
Householder Desire for Convenience and Ease of Use - The␣increase␣in␣the␣
number␣of␣materials␣targeted␣for␣recycling␣increased␣the␣difficulty␣of␣the␣
resident's␣participation␣in␣source-separated␣recyclables␣collection␣systems,␣
leading␣first␣to␣the␣development␣of␣the␣dual-stream␣concept␣and␣later␣to␣the␣
single␣stream␣approach.␣␣Single␣stream␣recycling␣has␣shown␣to␣be␣successful␣in␣
increasing␣both␣participation␣and␣capture␣rates␣even␣in␣communities␣that␣
previously␣had␣good␣two-stream␣recovery␣rates␣
Improvements in MRF Processing Technologies -␣The␣heavy␣reliance␣of␣early␣
MRFs␣on␣manual␣labour␣led␣to␣the␣development␣and/or␣refinement␣of␣materials␣
handling␣technologies␣to␣the␣point␣where␣screening␣systems␣can␣now␣reliably␣
and␣effectively␣sort␣out␣containers␣and␣fibrous␣materials.␣␣In␣the␣last␣ten␣years␣or␣
so,␣improvements␣have␣been␣made␣in␣MRF␣processing␣equipment␣-␣specifically,␣
disc␣screens␣and␣optical␣sorting␣equipment␣(for␣larger␣facilities)␣-␣␣that␣have␣
enabled␣MRFs␣to␣cost␣effectively␣process␣single␣stream␣recyclables␣
Improvements in Automated Collection Technologies -␣In␣the␣last␣20␣years,␣
there␣has␣been␣significant␣growth␣in␣the␣utilization␣of␣automated␣refuse␣
collection␣vehicles␣for␣both␣refuse␣and␣recyclables␣collection,␣particularly␣in␣the␣
U.S.␣␣This␣trend␣has␣not␣occurred␣in␣Ontario,␣although␣it␣may␣become␣more␣
prevalent␣in␣future␣years␣where␣weather␣permits.␣␣The␣growth␣of␣this␣market␣has␣
resulted␣in␣design␣improvements␣that␣have␣increased␣the␣reliability␣and␣reduced␣
the␣maintenance␣costs␣of␣automated␣collection␣equipment,␣as␣well␣as␣lowered␣
equipment␣prices␣
Pressure to Reduce Overall System Costs and Minimize Cost Increases
Resulting from Addition of New Materials -␣In␣many␣parts␣of␣Canada␣and␣␣
the␣U.S.,␣different␣governments␣are␣responsible␣for␣the␣collection␣and␣
processing␣elements␣of␣curbside␣recycling␣systems␣(i.e.,␣cities␣and␣towns␣
assumed␣or␣were␣given␣responsibility␣for␣recyclables␣collection,␣while␣counties␣
or␣states␣implemented␣MRFs).␣For␣this␣reason,␣there␣was␣little␣opportunity␣or␣
incentive␣to␣look␣at␣system-wide␣efficiencies.␣␣It␣took␣large␣municipal␣and␣private␣
sector␣organizations␣with␣major␣responsibilities␣for␣both␣recyclables␣collection␣
and␣processing␣service,␣such␣as␣the␣Peel␣Region,␣the␣City␣of␣Toronto,␣City␣of␣
Phoenix,␣Waste␣Management,␣Inc.,␣etc.,␣to␣recognize␣the␣potential␣system␣
efficiencies␣associated␣with␣the␣single␣stream␣approach.␣These␣efficiencies␣are␣
primarily␣associated␣with␣the␣curbside␣collection␣of␣recyclables␣in␣a␣single␣stream␣
form.␣Very␣often,␣single␣stream␣recycling␣has␣been␣implemented␣to␣
accommodate␣other␣waste␣management␣practices␣(e.g.,␣co-collection,␣addition␣
of␣household␣organics␣collection,␣etc.)␣
84 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Consolidation in the Waste and Recycling Industries -␣With␣fewer␣companies␣
handling␣greater␣quantities␣of␣materials␣from␣larger␣geographic␣areas,␣larger,␣
more␣automated␣regional␣MRFs␣have␣become␣increasingly␣feasible.␣␣Capital␣
investment␣in␣processing␣systems␣has␣increased,␣and␣with␣it␣the␣use␣of␣single␣
stream␣systems␣
According␣to␣its␣promoters,␣single␣stream␣recycling␣is␣reported␣to␣have␣the␣following␣
benefits:␣
Easier␣and␣more␣convenient␣for␣residents␣
Increased␣recyclable␣capture␣rates␣due␣to␣the␣ability␣to␣collect␣more␣types␣and␣
volumes␣of␣materials␣
Reduction␣in␣scavenging␣(materials␣are␣usually␣set␣out␣in␣one␣larger␣container)␣
Less␣wind␣scatter␣and␣litter␣
Protection␣of␣paper␣from␣rain␣if␣carts␣or␣bags␣are␣used␣
Ability␣to␣use␣high␣capacity␣collection␣vehicles,␣including␣automated␣collection␣
vehicles␣in␣some␣areas␣
Improved␣collection␣efficiencies␣(reduced␣seconds␣per␣stop,␣more␣materials␣per␣
stop)␣
Reduced␣fatigue␣and␣risks␣to␣workers,␣especially␣when␣the␣system␣is␣fully␣or␣semi-
automated␣
Reported␣disadvantages␣include␣the␣following:␣
Less␣quality␣control␣at␣curb␣
Low␣recovery␣of␣glass␣by␣colour␣due␣to␣more␣glass␣breakage␣
Recovered␣materials␣contamination,␣especially␣paper␣with␣glass␣shards␣and␣plastic␣
film␣
Loss␣of␣collected␣materials␣due␣to␣cross␣over␣contamination␣(e.g.,␣plastic␣bottles␣
ending␣up␣in␣paper␣bales)␣
Potentially␣lower␣value␣of␣recovered␣materials␣
Contamination␣of␣fibre␣caused␣by␣food␣and␣liquids␣originating␣from␣the␣containers;␣
Increase␣in␣MRF␣residuals␣
Higher␣MRF␣capital␣and␣processing␣costs␣
Higher␣vehicle␣maintenance␣costs␣(for␣automated␣vehicles)␣
Increased␣marketing␣of␣minimally␣sorted␣paper␣as␣mixed␣paper␣-␣much␣of␣it␣
shipped␣overseas␣-␣rather␣than␣sorting␣paper␣into␣grades␣used␣by␣domestic␣mills,␣
thereby␣creating␣supply␣concerns.␣(Also␣results␣in␣low␣grading,␣as␣opposed␣to␣
highest␣and␣best␣use,␣and␣ultimate␣deterioration␣of␣material␣quality)␣
Single␣stream␣recycling␣is␣a␣complex␣issue␣that␣impacts␣virtually␣all␣of␣the␣major␣
components␣of␣a␣solid␣waste␣management␣system.␣␣Specifically,␣single␣stream␣
recycling␣program␣components␣are␣listed␣below.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣85
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Collection -␣Although␣collection␣efficiencies␣can␣be␣achieved␣with␣single␣stream␣
recycling,␣this␣is␣not␣a␣certainty.␣␣Municipalities␣considering␣single␣stream␣recycling␣
need␣to␣take␣a␣system-wide␣approach␣because␣collection␣savings␣will␣only␣be␣
achieved␣under␣certain␣circumstances.␣␣If␣fully␣automated␣waste␣collection␣is␣
franchised␣or␣contracted␣for␣the␣entire␣municipality,␣there␣is␣a␣strong␣incentive␣to␣
investigate␣single␣stream␣recycling␣because␣existing␣trucks␣can␣be␣used␣to␣collect␣
both␣waste␣and␣recyclables␣on␣separate␣routes.␣␣However,␣if␣most␣waste␣collection␣is␣
performed␣via␣rear-load␣manual␣trucks,␣single␣stream␣recycling␣will␣require␣an␣entirely␣
new␣collection␣fleet,␣and␣will␣impose␣a␣cart-based␣system␣on␣residents␣who␣may␣be␣
accustomed␣to␣setting␣out␣bags,␣bins,␣or␣bundles␣or␣recyclables.␣Similarly,␣if␣a␣
municipality␣decides␣to␣maintain␣a␣two␣box␣collection␣system,␣potential␣savings␣in␣
stop␣times␣at␣the␣curb␣will␣not␣be␣fully␣realized.␣␣
Single-stream␣collection␣systems␣typically␣use␣collection␣equipment␣with␣on␣board␣
compaction␣that␣is␣also␣used␣for␣waste␣collection␣for␣simplicity␣of␣operations␣and␣
maintenance.␣␣Although␣waste␣benefits␣from␣maximum␣compaction,␣single␣stream␣
recycling␣collection␣can␣only␣accept␣some␣compaction␣before␣its␣impact␣will␣seriously␣
affect␣the␣performance␣of␣the␣processing␣system.␣␣The␣processing␣system␣is␣based␣
on␣the␣separation␣of␣"flats␣and␣rounds"␣or␣two-dimensional␣objects␣from␣three-
dimensional␣objects.␣␣Excessive␣compaction␣during␣collection␣can␣compromise␣this␣
property␣differential.␣
Reduction␣of␣the␣collection␣frequency␣from␣weekly␣to␣every-other-week␣collection␣
can␣lead␣to␣significant␣cost␣savings␣in␣single␣stream␣systems.␣While␣this␣option␣has␣
been␣identified␣by␣as␣a␣promising␣strategy␣to␣ensure␣the␣long-term␣economic␣viability␣
of␣residential␣curbside␣recycling␣systems,␣there␣appears␣to␣be␣no␣documentation␣in␣
the␣literature␣of␣its␣combined␣economic␣impacts.␣
Public Education -␣For␣the␣past␣two␣decades,␣most␣residential␣customers␣who␣live␣
in␣areas␣with␣curbside␣recycling␣have␣been␣asked␣to␣carefully␣prepare␣and␣often␣
separate␣fibre␣from␣containers.␣␣Single␣stream␣recycling␣is␣a␣significant␣change␣in␣
behaviour␣for␣residents␣-␣they␣are␣now␣told␣that␣there␣is␣no␣need␣to␣segregate␣
recyclables␣into␣separate␣containers␣and␣a␣distinctive␣recycling␣truck␣is␣replaced␣by␣a␣
"garbage␣truck".␣␣This␣can␣create␣significant␣scepticism␣among␣them␣about␣whether␣
the␣materials␣are␣actually␣recycled.␣
Processing - There␣is␣no␣question␣that␣processing␣single␣stream␣material␣is␣more␣
costly,␣requires␣more␣capital␣investment,␣and␣requires␣a␣significant␣throughput␣to␣
assure␣financial␣success.␣␣Additionally,␣residuals␣are␣known␣to␣be␣significantly␣higher␣
for␣single␣stream␣MRFs.␣␣These␣high␣residue␣rates␣partially␣offset␣the␣higher␣capture␣
rates␣of␣the␣single␣stream␣program,␣so␣any␣evaluation␣of␣single␣stream␣should␣take␣
into␣account␣both␣impacts.␣
Some␣materials␣are␣not␣compatible␣with␣single␣stream␣systems␣because␣of␣their␣
physical␣properties.␣␣For␣instance,␣plastic␣film␣and␣telephone␣directories␣affect␣the␣
disc␣screen␣performance.␣␣Polystyrene␣pieces␣and␣shredded␣paper␣tend␣to␣flow␣
through␣the␣screens␣and␣contaminate␣mixed␣broken␣glass.␣␣Larger␣plastic␣containers␣
(over␣8␣litres)␣have␣the␣potential␣to␣be␣mechanically␣separated␣into␣the␣cardboard␣
86 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
stream,␣if␣the␣pre␣sort␣is␣inadequate␣and␣a␣post␣screen␣quality␣control␣on␣cardboard␣is␣
not␣implemented.␣
Marketing - Prior␣to␣converting␣to␣a␣single␣stream␣program,␣it␣will␣be␣extremely␣
important␣to␣understand␣the␣availability␣of␣markets␣for␣single␣stream␣material,␣and␣to␣
evaluate␣the␣potential␣to␣achieve␣target␣specifications␣for␣sorted␣materials.␣␣The␣
acceptability␣of␣materials␣collected␣through␣single␣stream␣systems␣depends␣on␣the␣
specific␣products␣to␣be␣made.␣The␣fact␣that␣some␣paper␣mills␣are␣able␣to␣accept␣
single␣stream␣materials␣does␣not␣mean␣that␣all␣will␣be␣able␣to␣do␣so.␣␣Many␣mills␣
requiring␣high␣quality␣recovered␣paper␣feedstock␣have␣growing␣concerns␣about␣the␣
ongoing␣availability␣of␣suitable␣supply.␣␣␣
Although␣single␣stream␣equipment␣manufacturers␣insist␣that␣their␣configurations␣can␣
produce␣#8␣ONP␣if␣needed,␣there␣has␣been␣mixed␣feedback␣from␣paper␣mills.␣Some␣
indicate␣that␣single␣stream␣material␣is␣highly␣contaminated␣and␣increases␣potential␣to␣
damage␣mill␣equipment,␣while␣others␣point␣to␣examples␣of␣single␣stream␣feedstock␣
that␣is␣far␣better␣quality␣than␣that␣of␣dual␣stream␣customers.␣␣Clearly,␣blanket␣
statements␣regarding␣the␣quality␣of␣fibre␣coming␣from␣single␣stream␣MRFs␣should␣be␣
avoided.␣The␣MRF␣operator␣plays␣a␣key␣role␣in␣product␣quality.␣There␣have␣been␣
exceptionally␣clean␣loads␣produced␣from␣single␣stream␣MRFs␣and␣very␣dirty␣loads␣
from␣dual␣stream␣MRFs.␣␣
While␣the␣issue␣of␣fibre␣contamination␣is␣a␣market␣concern␣for␣single␣stream␣systems,␣
other␣market␣concerns␣also␣exist.␣␣The␣issue␣of␣glass␣breakage␣in␣the␣collection␣and␣
processing␣steps␣and␣the␣resulting␣reduction␣in␣glass␣recovery␣is␣an␣issue␣faced␣in␣
both␣dual-stream,␣as␣well␣as␣single␣stream␣systems,␣but␣is␣a␣greater␣issue␣in␣certain␣
single␣stream␣systems␣-␣particularly␣in␣communities␣without␣access␣to␣glass␣
beneficiation␣facilities␣with␣optical␣sorting␣technology.␣␣
Cost - Despite␣the␣recent␣growth␣in␣single␣stream␣systems,␣it␣would␣be␣a␣mistake␣to␣
assume␣that␣the␣single␣stream␣recycling␣approach␣represents␣the␣most␣economical␣
alternative␣for␣all␣communities.␣In␣some␣cases,␣other␣approaches,␣such␣as␣the␣dual-
stream,␣two-bin␣recycling␣approach,␣may␣prove␣to␣be␣more␣economical.␣␣This␣
conclusion␣underscores␣the␣importance␣of␣using␣local␣economic␣and␣market␣data␣in␣
assessing␣the␣economic␣feasibility␣of␣single␣stream␣recycling␣for␣a␣local␣community.␣
␣
Sources and Links
Berenyi,␣Eileen␣B.;␣"Single stream Ahead;"␣Resource␣Recycling,␣August␣2002.␣␣pp␣
31-33.␣
Entec␣Consulting␣Ltd.;␣"Report on Ontario Blue Box Material Recovery Facilities";␣for␣
WDO;␣March␣2007␣
Tim␣Goodman␣&␣Associates;␣"Single-Stream and Dual Stream Recycling:
Comparative Impacts of Commingled Recyclables Processing";␣for␣Minnesota␣
pollution␣control␣Agency;␣January,␣2006␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣87
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Stewardship␣Ontario␣Knowledge␣Network␣
E&E␣Fund␣Project␣Number␣207.␣␣York␣Collection␣and␣Processing␣Optimization␣Study,␣
2006␣
http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/eefund/projects/benchmark.htm#207␣
Single␣Stream␣Best␣Practices␣Manual␣and␣Implementation␣Guide,␣Susan␣Kinsella,␣
Conservatree,␣2007␣
http://conservatree.com/learn/SolidWaste/bestpractices.shtml␣
␣
88 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Successful Marketing Strategy for Processed
Recyclables
␣
Overview
Marketing␣of␣processed␣recyclable␣materials␣is␣the␣last␣step␣in␣the␣value␣chain␣of␣
municipal␣Blue␣Box␣recycling.␣␣As␣a␣result,␣the␣effective␣execution␣of␣this␣process␣is␣
largely␣influenced␣not␣only␣by␣the␣end-market␣demands␣and␣relationships,␣but␣also␣by␣
virtually␣all␣other␣value␣chain␣elements␣that␣precede␣it.␣␣This␣section␣describes␣a␣
range␣of␣factors␣that␣lead␣to␣improved␣material␣quality␣and␣higher␣revenues␣and␣
provides␣guidance␣on␣how␣to␣structure␣a␣successful␣marketing␣strategy␣
␣
Key Benefits and Outcomes
A␣successful␣marketing␣strategy,␣when␣properly␣designed␣and␣executed,␣has␣the␣
ability␣to␣improve␣program␣effectiveness␣by:␣
Ensuring␣high␣quality␣service␣to␣specified␣requirements␣
Improving␣end-market␣relationships␣
Improving␣contractor␣relationships␣
Allowing␣for␣flexibility␣and␣innovation␣to␣address␣changing␣conditions␣
Positively␣affecting␣system-wide␣program␣strategies␣
Allowing␣processor␣to␣properly␣manage␣inventory␣
Aiding␣market␣development␣
Raising␣municipal␣profile␣
Engaging␣staff␣
Maintaining␣focus␣on␣continuous␣improvement␣
It␣can␣improve␣program␣efficiency␣by:␣
Positively␣affecting␣the␣net␣cost␣of␣the␣overall␣recycling␣program␣
Resulting␣in␣higher,␣more␣predictable␣revenue␣
Potentially␣optimizing␣funding␣
Potential␣mitigating␣municipal␣risk,␣if␣desired␣
Improving␣risk␣management␣by␣way␣of␣due␣diligence␣
Identifying␣potential␣revenue␣enhancements␣through␣modified␣processing␣␣
␣
Description of Marketing Practices
The␣marketing␣of␣recovered␣materials␣is␣one␣of␣the␣most␣critical␣factors␣in␣the␣
success␣of␣any␣municipal␣recycling␣program,␣as␣the␣revenue␣realized␣from␣the␣sale␣of␣
materials␣directly␣affects␣the␣net␣cost␣of␣the␣overall␣recycling␣program.␣Municipal␣
ctice
ht␣
Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣89
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
marketing␣strategies␣are␣widely␣diverse␣and␣varied␣(as␣a␣consequence,␣analysis␣of␣
WDO␣data␣did␣not␣conclusively␣identify␣a␣leading␣practice␣in␣this␣realm).␣The␣range␣of␣
strategies␣includes:␣
Marketing␣done␣by␣municipality␣who␣retains␣revenue␣
Marketing␣done␣by␣contractor␣who␣retains␣revenue␣
Marketing␣done␣by␣contractor␣who␣rebates␣most␣of␣the␣revenue␣to␣municipality␣
Marketing␣done␣by␣contractor␣who␣shares␣revenue␣with␣municipality␣(e.g.,␣50/50)␣
Marketing␣done␣by␣municipality␣who␣shares␣revenue␣with␣contractor␣
Municipality␣sells␣commodities␣to␣contractor␣based␣on␣a␣formula␣(contractor␣then␣
markets␣and␣attempts␣to␣receive␣a␣premium)␣
The␣use␣of␣service␣agreements␣or␣spot␣markets␣(or␣a␣combination)␣
The␣use␣of␣tenders␣or␣other␣bidding␣system␣of␣varying␣terms␣
Pricing␣based␣on␣established␣indexes␣such␣as␣the␣Official␣Board␣Markets␣(OBM),␣
Yellow␣Sheet␣Price␣
The␣exclusive␣use␣of␣brokers␣or␣end␣markets␣(or␣combination)␣
Collection␣contract␣that␣does␣not␣include␣control␣of␣material␣once␣collected␣
(collection␣contractor␣responsible␣for␣processing␣and␣marketing)␣
Cooperative␣marketing␣(marketing␣recyclables␣from␣different,␣usually␣smaller,␣
programs)␣
Other␣combinations␣of␣the␣above␣strategies␣
Many␣of␣the␣contractor-controlled␣marketing␣strategies␣listed␣above␣are␣designed␣to␣
mitigate␣municipal␣risk.␣A␣recent␣report,␣titled␣"Blue Box Residential Recycling Best
Practices - A Private Sector Perspective",␣jointly␣prepared␣by␣Stewardship␣Ontario␣
and␣the␣Ontario␣Waste␣Management␣Association␣(OWMA),␣suggests␣that␣market␣
risks␣should␣not␣be␣assigned␣to␣the␣contractor without␣fully␣considering␣the␣options␣
and␣potential␣implications.␣If␣contractors␣accept␣risks␣they␣cannot␣control,␣they␣will␣
make␣appropriate␣provisions␣in␣pricing,␣forcing␣municipalities␣to␣pay␣a␣premium.␣By␣
doing␣this,␣contractors␣protect␣the␣bottom␣line␣when␣market␣revenues␣decline,␣and␣
make␣excessive␣profits␣if␣revenues␣meet␣or␣exceed␣expectations.␣Because␣
contractor-controlled␣marketing␣strategies␣are␣often␣tied␣to␣varied␣contractual␣terms␣
and␣pricing␣(e.g.,␣processing␣or␣collection␣fees),␣it␣is␣considered␣best␣practice,␣in␣
cases␣where␣a␣potential␣decision␣may␣be␣to␣assign␣all␣revenues␣to␣the␣contractor,␣to␣
structure␣a␣tender␣that␣permits␣the␣municipality␣to␣assess␣what␣exactly␣is␣being␣
charged␣by␣the␣contractor␣to␣assume␣market␣risks.␣This␣can␣be␣done,␣for␣instance,␣by␣
requesting␣pricing␣options␣that␣include␣revenue␣sharing␣scenarios.␣
The␣OWMA␣report␣suggests␣that␣the␣private␣sector␣preferred␣practice␣is␣for␣the␣
contractor␣to␣retain␣responsibility␣for␣marketing␣the␣materials␣in␣exchange␣for␣a␣small␣
percentage␣of␣revenue␣(5-10%).␣␣These␣revenue␣sharing␣arrangements␣usually␣serve␣
to␣benefit␣both␣parties,␣as␣the␣objectives␣of␣revenue␣maximization␣and␣appropriate␣
risk␣management␣are␣aligned.␣␣It␣should␣be␣noted␣that␣in␣these␣contractor␣marketing␣
90 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
scenarios,␣municipalities␣need␣to␣employ␣knowledgeable␣staff␣to␣manage␣the␣
contract,␣as␣there␣is␣little␣incentive␣to␣the␣contactor␣to␣realize␣the␣best␣revenues.␣␣␣
Marketing␣by␣municipal␣staff,␣whose␣municipalities␣retain␣the␣revenue,␣can␣also␣be␣a␣
successful␣strategy.␣This␣strategy␣can␣be␣employed␣in␣municipally-operated␣Material␣
Recovery␣Facilities␣(MRFs),␣as␣well␣as␣those␣that␣are␣operated␣on␣behalf␣of␣
municipalities␣by␣contractors.␣
Successful␣marketing␣is␣inherently␣tied␣to␣all␣aspects␣of␣a␣recycling␣program.␣For␣
example,␣materials␣are␣often␣targeted␣for␣recycling␣by␣municipalities␣for␣a␣variety␣of␣
reasons␣not␣related␣to␣their␣marketability␣(e.g.,␣waste␣audit␣information,␣regulations,␣
political␣mandate).␣If␣materials␣included␣in␣the␣program␣do␣not␣have␣established␣
markets␣with␣consistent␣revenue,␣or␣cannot␣be␣used␣to␣displace␣another␣material␣
(e.g.,␣glass␣as␣an␣aggregate␣substitute),␣net␣revenue␣per␣tonne␣is␣negatively␣affected.␣
If␣Promotion␣and␣Education␣(P&E)␣is␣not␣effective␣and␣collection␣crews␣do␣not␣deliver␣
quality␣feedstock␣to␣the␣MRF,␣then␣there␣is␣pressure␣on␣the␣MRF␣to␣meet␣recyclable␣
material␣recovery␣and␣quality␣targets.␣Because␣of␣this,␣the␣marketer␣needs␣to␣
communicate␣with␣those␣responsible␣for␣Program␣Planning,␣P&E␣and␣Collections.␣␣
The␣marketer's␣relationship␣to␣other␣program␣elements␣is␣particularly␣relevant␣when␣
it␣comes␣to␣processing.␣In␣order␣to␣successfully␣market␣processed␣commodities␣at␣
the␣highest␣possible␣revenue,␣a␣marketer␣requires␣a␣consistent␣supply␣of␣quality␣
material␣(i.e.,␣meets␣market␣specifications␣and␣payload␣minimums).␣As␣markets␣for␣
recyclable␣commodities␣are␣generally␣well␣established,␣fluctuation␣in␣revenue␣is␣
primarily␣the␣result␣of␣individual␣product␣quality␣and␣current␣market␣conditions.␣Even␣
if␣staff␣responsible␣for␣marketing␣is␣not␣the␣same␣as␣for␣processing␣(or␣managing␣the␣
processing␣contract),␣it␣is␣important␣that␣the␣marketer␣has␣a␣keen␣understanding␣of␣
MRF␣operations,␣contracts,␣and␣opportunities␣(e.g.,␣alternative␣plastic␣sorts,␣
densification␣options,␣etc.)␣that␣determine␣the␣quality␣and␣composition␣of␣the␣material␣
that␣is␣being␣sold.␣Conducting␣routine␣audits␣helps␣to␣ensure␣that␣opportunities␣that␣
improve␣revenue␣through␣tonnage␣increase␣or␣mitigation␣of␣quality␣concerns␣are␣fully␣
acted␣upon.␣Equally,␣the␣marketer␣needs␣to␣understand␣and␣establish␣relationships␣
with␣markets␣(all␣end-users),␣and␣mutual␣understanding␣of␣the␣composition␣of␣the␣
marketed␣material␣is␣important␣to␣this␣relationship.␣The␣markets,␣to␣which␣recyclable␣
materials␣are␣sold␣for␣revenue,␣are␣critically␣important␣to␣understand,␣as␣they␣specify␣
types,␣quantities,␣and␣quality␣of␣materials␣that␣will␣be␣purchased.␣These␣requirements␣
fundamentally␣influence␣processing,␣collection␣and␣other␣aspects␣of␣a␣recycling␣
program's␣operation.␣␣
␣
Implementation of a Good Marketing Strategy
There␣are␣a␣number␣of␣leading␣practices,␣based␣on␣the␣marketing␣experience␣of␣
developed␣programs␣that␣can␣be␣employed␣by␣municipal␣program␣operators.␣These␣
include:␣
An␣understanding␣of␣basic␣market␣requirements␣
The␣performance␣of␣marketing-related␣audits␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣91
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
The␣provision␣of␣quality␣feedstock␣to␣end␣markets␣
A␣systematic␣approach␣to␣finding␣and␣selecting␣end␣market␣options␣
These␣practices␣and␣their␣benefits␣are␣described␣below␣in␣greater␣detail.␣
Planning and Operating According to General Principles that Promote Service,
Integrity and Sound Decision-making
Whereas␣a␣waste␣manager␣is␣a␣service␣provider,␣with␣a␣responsibility␣to␣collect␣waste␣
and␣keep␣citizens␣satisfied␣with␣service,␣a␣recycling␣manager␣must␣also␣provide␣
quality␣feedstock␣to␣an␣industrial␣process,␣ensuring␣clean,␣consistent␣volumes␣of␣
useable␣material.␣
Some␣industry␣experts␣indicate␣that␣there␣is␣currently␣a␣gap␣in␣quality,␣consistency,␣
and␣reliability␣between␣materials␣produced␣by␣the␣municipal␣recycling␣process␣and␣
the␣expectations␣of␣buyers␣of␣these␣materials.␣␣Higher␣degree␣of␣communications␣
and␣interactions␣between␣producers␣(recyclers)␣and␣buyers␣(end-markets)␣may␣be␣
needed␣to␣close␣this␣gap.␣␣Progress␣in␣this␣area␣may␣shift␣the␣relationship␣from␣a␣
punitive␣one␣that␣causes␣loss␣of␣revenues␣(reduction␣in␣prices␣paid,␣downgrades,␣
etc.)␣to␣a␣collaborative␣one␣that␣results␣in␣higher␣revenues␣from␣buyer␣expectations␣
being␣met␣(customized␣material␣compositions,␣special␣bailing␣methods,␣convenient␣
delivery␣schedule,␣etc.).␣␣␣
General␣principles␣to␣apply␣to␣recyclable␣materials␣markets:␣␣
Markets␣should␣be␣as␣secure␣as␣possible,␣either␣by␣having␣multiple␣outlets␣or␣by␣
establishing␣purchase␣agreements␣
Market␣requirements␣and␣location␣influence␣program␣collection␣and␣processing.␣
Material␣with␣low␣market␣value␣generally␣benefit␣with␣nearby␣outlets,␣whereas␣
products␣with␣high␣value␣may␣be␣economically␣transported␣in␣truckload␣or␣railcar␣
quantities␣to␣more␣distant␣markets␣
Markets␣may␣need␣varying␣quality,␣consistency␣and␣quantity.␣␣Materials␣need␣to␣be␣
processed␣to␣meet␣the␣specific␣market␣specifications␣of␣the␣buying␣entity.␣␣
Market␣fluctuations␣must␣be␣considered␣in␣program␣planning.␣This␣can␣be␣gauged␣
by␣reviewing␣historical␣pricing␣trends␣available␣through␣trade␣associations␣and␣
publications,␣monitoring␣of␣the␣trade␣press,␣personal␣communication␣with␣end␣
markets,␣brokers␣and␣municipal␣marketers,␣and␣by␣tracking␣key␣market␣indicators␣
(refer␣to␣the␣Sources␣and␣Links␣section␣below)␣
There␣must␣be␣one␣or␣more␣markets␣for␣materials␣made␣from␣recycled␣products␣
Traditional␣revenue␣generating␣markets␣require␣the␣following:␣
High␣and␣predictable␣quality␣feedstock␣(i.e.,␣uncontaminated␣recyclables)␣
Sufficient␣volumes␣to␣be␣cost␣effective␣
A␣consistent␣supply␣
These␣market␣requirements␣dictate␣the␣appropriate␣recovery␣technique,␣equipment␣
and␣recyclable␣material␣revenues.␣␣
92 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Program␣managers␣need␣to␣recognize␣that␣a␣variety␣of␣micro␣and␣macroeconomic␣
factors␣influence␣the␣revenues␣received␣from␣marketing␣processed␣recyclable␣
materials.␣␣Some␣of␣these␣include:
Business␣cycle␣-␣the␣periodic␣up␣and␣down␣movements␣in␣economic␣activity␣(i.e.,␣
expansion,␣contraction,␣recession␣etc.)␣
Energy␣prices␣
Transportation␣costs␣
Export␣and␣imports␣
Currency␣exchange␣
Size␣and␣proximity␣to␣market␣
Supply␣and␣demand␣of␣a␣particular␣material␣
Competition␣
Labour␣issues␣
A␣development/change␣in␣end␣use␣
Supply␣and␣demand␣of␣virgin␣materials␣
Innovations␣in␣raw␣material␣supply␣
Regulations,␣institutional,␣and␣government␣issues␣(domestic␣and␣international)␣
Quality/quantity␣and␣consistency␣of␣supply␣of␣material␣
Landfill␣costs␣(indirectly)␣
Conducting Marketing-Related Audits
Material␣audits␣are␣instrumental␣in␣identifying␣issues,␣deducing␣causes␣of␣problems,␣
and␣making␣program␣changes.␣␣␣They␣allow␣program␣managers␣to␣reinforce␣and␣
leverage␣positive␣elements␣of␣the␣program␣and␣reduce␣or␣eliminate␣problem␣areas.␣␣
Inbound␣audits␣serve␣to:␣
Identify␣quality␣of␣feedstock␣to␣the␣MRF␣
Identify␣changes␣in␣composition␣
Draw␣attention␣to␣new␣packaging␣
Aid␣in␣planning␣process␣changes␣
Assist␣in␣targeting␣P&E␣
Monitor␣collection␣crew␣diligence␣
Aid␣in␣effectively␣managing␣collections␣and␣processing␣contracts␣
Residue␣audits␣serve␣to:␣
Determine␣the␣amount␣of␣recyclable␣material␣that␣is␣lost␣to␣residue␣
Further␣analyze␣effectiveness␣of␣P&E␣
Further␣determine␣collection␣consistency␣as␣it␣relates␣to␣accepted␣material␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣93
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Identify␣potential␣sorting␣opportunities␣(e.g.,␣Tubs␣and␣Lids␣vs.␣3-7)␣
Identify␣potential␣mechanical␣(or␣manual)␣deficiencies␣in␣the␣system␣
Determine␣marketing␣options␣for␣residue␣(alternate␣processing)␣
Aids␣in␣effectively␣managing␣collection␣and␣processing␣contracts␣
Commodity␣audits␣(bale␣audit)␣serve␣to:␣
Determine␣if␣processing␣is␣meeting␣market␣specifications␣
Communicate␣data␣to␣end␣markets␣
Defend␣against␣downgrades␣
Determine␣if␣revenue␣is␣being␣lost␣(e.g.,␣aluminium␣in␣Fibre)␣
Identify␣sorting␣opportunities␣(e.g.,␣natural␣vs.␣pigmented␣HDPE)␣
Identify␣potential␣mechanical␣(or␣manual)␣deficiencies␣in␣the␣system␣
Train␣sorters␣
Aid␣in␣effectively␣managing␣processing␣contracts␣
Finding and Selecting Markets
Municipal␣marketers␣need␣to␣continuously␣evaluate␣end-market␣options␣for␣
transportation␣and␣material␣handling.␣␣Delivery␣options␣of␣processed␣materials␣to␣end␣
markets␣are␣as␣follows:␣
Haul␣recyclable␣material␣directly␣to␣material␣consumer␣(the␣mill)␣where␣it␣is␣
processed␣and␣used␣in␣an␣industrial␣process␣
Haul␣to␣an␣intermediary␣(a␣broker␣or␣dealer)␣who␣processes␣it␣to␣specification␣and␣
hauls␣it␣to␣the␣mill␣
Have␣an␣intermediary␣pick␣up␣recyclable␣material␣
Adopt␣a␣regional␣approach␣with␣smaller␣feeder␣programs␣decontaminating␣and␣
storing␣materials␣to␣feed␣into␣larger␣regional␣processing␣centres␣that␣process␣
materials␣and␣haul␣to␣market.␣More␣information␣on␣cooperative␣marketing␣
experience␣is␣available␣from␣AMRC␣and␣Cooperative␣Marketing␣project␣report␣
(E&E␣Fund␣Project␣#86)␣
Factors␣to␣consider␣in␣choosing␣a␣recyclable␣materials␣market:␣
Distance to market:␣the␣greater␣the␣distance,␣the␣higher␣the␣haulage␣costs␣and␣
the␣greater␣the␣need␣to␣maximize␣payload␣
Required specifications for material preparation: in␣general,␣select␣the␣market␣
with␣the␣minimum␣specifications␣and␣the␣highest␣price.␣For␣a␣stable␣situation,␣it␣
is␣important␣to␣balance␣the␣two␣elements,␣and␣look␣at␣patterns␣and␣history␣(such␣
as␣downgrades)␣
Tonnages:␣programs␣with␣larger␣tonnages␣can␣often␣sell␣directly␣to␣a␣market,␣
ensuring␣a␣higher␣price.␣Smaller␣programs␣may␣require␣a␣broker/merchant␣or␣
cooperative␣agreement␣to␣obtain␣favourable␣pricing␣
94 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Revenue/cost ratio:␣maximum␣revenue␣implies␣a␣higher␣processing␣cost,␣
therefore␣there␣is␣a␣need␣to␣select␣the␣optimum␣revenue/cost␣ratio.␣It␣is␣
important␣to␣find␣a␣balance␣between␣the␣two␣
Determining␣the␣best␣market␣for␣a␣material␣requires␣four␣steps:␣identifying,␣
contacting,␣selecting␣and␣negotiating␣and/or␣contracting␣with␣buyers.␣To␣be␣executed␣
properly,␣this␣process␣usually␣requires␣dedicated␣time␣and␣resources.␣Even␣small␣
programs␣should␣dedicate␣resources␣to␣this␣task,␣even␣if␣it␣is␣temporary/periodic␣for␣
the␣purpose␣of␣setting␣up␣and␣monitoring␣a␣longer-term␣strategy.␣It␣should␣be␣noted␣
that␣it␣may␣be␣advisable␣to␣use␣more␣than␣one␣buyer,␣if␣possible,␣and␣to␣sell␣material␣
using␣a␣combination␣of␣agreements␣and␣spot␣markets.␣
Step 1 - Identify potential buyers:␣Contact␣information␣can␣often␣be␣found␣from␣
talking␣to␣other␣recycling␣program␣operators,␣or␣by␣contacting␣national␣and␣
provincial␣recycling␣and/or␣industry␣organizations.␣Numerous␣trade␣publications␣
and␣websites␣also␣exist.␣Marketers␣also␣often␣receive␣unsolicited␣calls␣from␣
potential␣buyers.␣
Step 2 - Contact potential buyers:␣This␣step␣involves␣requesting␣information␣
regarding␣the␣market.␣Some␣questions␣might␣include:␣
-
Price␣paid␣for␣material␣
-
Material␣specifications␣(degree␣of␣contamination␣acceptable,␣densification␣
required)␣
-
Transportation␣options␣and␣costs␣
-
Minimum/maximum␣loads␣
-
References␣
-
Payment␣terms␣
Step 3 - Select a buyer:␣This␣step␣may␣involve␣interviewing␣potential␣buyers␣and␣
assessing␣them␣based␣on␣a␣set␣of␣criteria.␣
Step 4 - Contract with a buyer:␣A␣written␣agreement␣protects␣a␣relationship␣with␣
a␣buyer␣as␣competition␣for␣markets␣escalates.␣Contracts␣can␣be␣useful␣when␣
markets␣take␣a␣downturn␣because␣buyers␣may␣only␣service␣customers␣with␣
written␣agreements.␣Written␣agreements␣may␣include␣letters␣of␣intent␣to␣
purchase␣material␣as␣well␣as␣formal␣contracts.␣Provisions␣in␣a␣written␣agreement␣
may␣include␣tonnage␣and␣volume␣requirements,␣material␣quality␣specifications,␣
and␣provisions␣for␣delivery␣or␣pickup,␣termination␣provisions,␣length␣of␣
commitment,␣and␣the␣pricing␣basis␣that␣may␣include␣a␣relevant␣index.␣
Knowledgeable␣marketers␣continually␣research␣pricing␣trends␣to␣ensure␣they␣receive␣
fair␣value␣for␣material.␣␣Marketers␣should␣monitor␣performance␣by␣analyzing␣relevant␣
industry␣publications␣(e.g.,␣CSR␣Price␣Sheet)␣and␣communicating␣with␣other␣
municipal␣marketers,␣markets,␣brokers␣and␣organizations␣(e.g.,␣Association␣of␣
Municipal␣Recycling␣Coordinators,␣Markets␣and␣Operations␣Committee).␣
␣
Sources and Links
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣95
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Ontario␣Waste␣Management␣Association:␣"Blue Box Residential Recycling Best
practices - A Private Sector Perspective," Guilford␣and␣Associates␣(February␣2007)␣
http://www.owma.org/home.asp␣
Federation␣of␣Canadian␣Municipalities:␣"Solid Waste as a resource - Guide for
Sustainable Communities"␣(March␣2004)␣
http://www.fcm.ca/␣
Minnesota␣Office␣of␣Environmental␣Assistance:␣"Single-Stream and Dual-Stream
Recycling - Comparative impacts of Commingled Recyclables Processing"␣(January␣
2006)␣
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oea/lc/commingled.cfm␣
Official␣Board␣Markets␣Yellow␣Sheet␣Pricing␣(OBM):␣
http://www.packaging-online.com/paperboardpackaging/␣
CSR␣Price␣Sheet:␣␣
http://csr.org/pricesheet/pricesheet.htm␣
Association␣of␣Municipal␣Recycling␣Coordinators␣(AMRC):␣
http://www.amrc.ca/␣
Stewardship␣Ontario␣E&E␣Fund␣Approved␣Projects:␣
" #86, Pre-Feasibility Study of Co-operative Marketing Programs for Blue Box
Materials in Ontario"␣(April␣2006)␣
"#164, Markets Help Desk Report" (January␣2007)␣
http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/eefund/projects.htm␣
96 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Best Practices in Multi-Family Recycling
␣
Overview
Statistics␣Canada␣2001␣Census␣reported␣that␣approximately␣26%␣of␣Ontario's␣
residents␣currently␣live␣in␣multi-family␣buildings␣and␣the␣number␣is␣continuing␣to␣grow.␣
Since␣the␣collection␣of␣recyclable␣materials␣from␣multi-family␣households␣has␣
historically␣been␣a␣challenging␣process,␣a␣new␣approach␣that␣incorporates␣Best␣
Practices␣is␣needed.␣␣This␣section␣is␣designed␣to␣provide␣guidance␣to␣municipalities␣
that␣seek␣to␣enhance␣participation␣levels,␣recovery␣levels,␣and␣material␣quality␣levels,␣
while␣yielding␣operational␣efficiencies␣in␣multi-family␣collection.␣
␣
Key Benefits and Outcomes
By␣employing␣Best␣Practices␣in␣multi-family␣recycling,␣municipalities␣can␣obtain␣the␣
following␣effectiveness␣benefits:␣
Increased␣diversion␣from␣landfill␣
Decreased␣contamination␣of␣materials␣
Increased␣capture␣rates␣
Increased␣participation␣in␣recycling␣
Programs␣can␣become␣more␣efficient␣due␣to␣the␣following␣factors:␣
Collection␣of␣front-load␣bins␣or␣side-load␣carts␣at␣a␣single␣collection␣point␣are␣more␣
cost-effective␣methods␣when␣compared␣to␣␣individual␣stops␣at␣each␣household␣
for␣the␣equivalent␣number␣of␣units␣
Front-load␣bins␣are␣more␣cost␣efficient␣than␣carts,␣carts␣more␣efficient␣than␣boxes␣
Increased␣revenues␣from␣sale␣of␣recyclables␣captured␣
Optimization␣of␣collection␣and␣processing␣systems␣due␣to␣increased␣tonnage␣
␣
Description and Implementation of Best Practice
Ontario␣Regulation␣103/94␣requires␣the␣owner␣of␣a␣building␣that␣contains␣six␣or␣more␣
dwelling␣units␣and␣is␣located␣within␣a␣municipality␣that␣has␣a␣population␣of␣at␣least␣
5,000␣to␣implement␣a␣source␣separation␣program␣for␣the␣waste␣generated␣at␣the␣
building.␣␣
Municipalities␣are␣required␣to␣collect␣recyclable␣materials␣from␣multi-family␣buildings␣
only␣if␣the␣properties␣are␣receiving␣garbage␣collection␣services␣from␣the␣municipality.␣
However,␣if␣garbage␣service␣is␣not␣provided␣by␣the␣municipality,␣all␣qualifying␣multi-
family␣buildings␣are␣still␣required␣to␣recycle␣aluminium␣food␣or␣beverage␣cans,␣glass␣
bottles␣and␣jars␣for␣food␣or␣beverages,␣newsprint,␣polyethylene␣terephthalate␣(PET)␣
bottles␣for␣food␣or␣beverages,␣steel␣food␣or␣beverage␣cans,␣and␣any␣other␣categories␣
of␣waste␣that␣are␣collected␣or␣accepted␣in␣the␣blue␣box␣program␣of␣the␣municipality␣
ctice
ht␣
Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣97
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
where␣the␣building␣is␣located.␣␣Despite␣this␣law␣being␣in␣place␣for␣over␣a␣decade,␣a␣
recent␣E&E-funded␣Focus␣Group␣(see␣Sources␣and␣Links␣section)␣study␣revealed␣that␣
most␣property␣managers␣were␣not␣aware␣of␣this␣Ontario␣government␣regulation.␣
Municipalities␣often␣regard␣multi-family␣buildings␣as␣being␣part␣of␣the␣commercial␣
sector.␣Therefore,␣financial␣and␣operation␣information␣may␣not␣be␣reported␣under␣the␣
WDO␣Datacall␣for␣the␣municipal␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣Municipalities␣who␣do␣not␣service␣
the␣commercial␣sector␣may␣be␣unaware␣of␣the␣potential␣to␣include␣the␣multi-family␣
sector␣in␣their␣residential␣Blue␣Box␣program␣as␣a␣possible␣cost-effective␣method␣of␣
capturing␣large␣amounts␣of␣recyclables.␣␣Assuming␣the␣challenges␣associated␣with␣
multi-family␣recycling␣are␣understood␣and␣addressed,␣the␣benefits␣of␣adding␣this␣
sector␣to␣the␣municipal␣Blue␣Box␣program␣include␣increased␣diversion␣of␣materials␣
from␣landfill,␣increased␣recycling␣tonnage,␣optimization␣of␣collection␣and␣processing␣
systems,␣and␣increased␣revenues␣from␣the␣sale␣of␣the␣additional␣recycling␣materials␣
captured.␣
It␣is␣recommended␣that␣municipalities␣identify␣all␣existing␣serviced␣and␣un-serviced␣
multi-family␣buildings␣within␣their␣boundaries.␣For␣those␣currently␣not␣serviced,␣
investigate␣the␣possibility␣of␣incorporating␣this␣sector␣with␣those␣residents␣served␣
through␣the␣municipal␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣Factors␣to␣consider␣include␣whether␣some␣
or␣all␣of␣the␣multi-family␣buildings␣could␣be␣absorbed␣into␣the␣existing␣curbside␣
program␣or␣if␣a␣defined␣multi-family␣program␣would␣be␣warranted.␣The␣rationale␣will␣
be␣affected␣by␣such␣things␣as␣the␣number,␣size,␣and␣location␣of␣the␣buildings,␣as␣well␣
as␣the␣impact␣on␣the␣overall␣system␣to␣collect,␣process,␣and␣market␣the␣expected␣
increased␣tonnage.␣␣For␣complexes␣that␣are␣currently␣being␣serviced␣under␣the␣
municipal␣Blue␣Box␣program,␣it␣is␣important␣that␣the␣performance␣be␣measured␣and␣
monitored.␣
Waste Composition Audits
It␣is␣recommended␣that␣periodic␣waste␣composition␣audits␣be␣conducted␣to␣assist␣
with␣program␣planning,␣to␣determine␣generation␣rates␣and␣capture␣rates,␣and␣to␣
obtain␣benchmark␣data␣used␣to␣compare␣performance␣over␣time.␣␣Stewardship␣
Ontario␣has␣developed␣multi␣family␣waste␣audit␣worksheets,␣tips␣and,␣guidelines␣for␣
waste␣sorting.␣␣
Generation and Capture Rates
Each␣multi-family␣household␣in␣a␣large␣urban␣area␣generates␣approximately␣264␣kg␣of␣
recyclables␣per␣year␣(approximately␣92␣kg␣less␣than␣single␣family␣households),␣but␣
less␣than␣32%␣of␣this␣is␣captured.␣␣In␣comparison,␣approximately␣60%␣of␣the␣
available␣recyclables␣generated␣by␣single-family␣households␣are␣captured.␣
A␣contributing␣factor␣to␣the␣lower␣generation␣rate␣for␣both␣garbage␣and␣recyclable␣
materials␣is␣that␣there␣are␣usually␣fewer␣occupants␣in␣each␣household.␣On␣average,␣
there␣are␣2␣people␣per␣apartment␣unit,␣as␣opposed␣to␣2.9␣in␣a␣single␣family␣home.␣
Factors␣that␣adversely␣affect␣recycling␣at␣multi-family␣buildings␣include:␣
98 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Recycling␣is␣almost␣always␣less␣convenient␣than␣garbage␣disposal␣
Insufficient␣recycling␣bin␣capacity␣
Residents'␣sense␣of␣disconnect␣from␣recycling␣program,␣leading␣to␣sense␣of␣direct␣
responsibility␣
Anonymity␣limits␣repercussions␣for␣not␣recycling␣properly␣or␣at␣all␣
Transience␣issues␣-␣apartments␣may␣be␣considered␣temporary␣accommodation␣
Multi-cultural␣and␣socio-economic␣factors␣may␣affect␣recycling␣behaviour␣
Multi-lingual␣issues␣may␣hinder␣understanding␣of␣the␣recycling␣program␣
Opinion␣that␣maintenance␣fees␣cover␣waste␣management␣services␣
Insufficient␣promotion␣and␣education␣of␣the␣program␣␣
Multi-family␣buildings␣exist␣in␣a␣variety␣of␣sizes,␣heights,␣and␣designs.␣Since␣the␣
majority␣of␣multi-family␣recycling␣programs␣have␣been␣added␣to␣existing␣apartment␣
developments␣that␣were␣not␣designed␣for␣recycling␣programs,␣there␣are␣often␣
challenges␣with␣insufficient␣space,␣location,␣or␣collection␣system␣for␣recycling␣bins.␣␣
In␣addition,␣multi-family␣buildings␣generally␣share␣common␣bins␣and␣have␣their␣
garbage␣and␣recycling␣collected␣at␣a␣central␣collection␣point.␣Unless␣closely␣
monitored,␣sharing␣common␣bins␣can␣contribute␣to␣the␣potential␣for␣misuse,␣causing␣
contamination␣and␣premature␣topping␣out.␣␣However,␣given␣the␣high␣concentration␣of␣
residents␣using␣common␣bins,␣there␣is␣a␣potential␣to␣cost-effectively␣capture␣large␣
amounts␣of␣recyclables.␣␣
Design Requirements for New Developments and Re-Developments
Although␣some␣existing␣buildings␣may␣have␣less␣than␣optimal␣layouts␣for␣recycling␣
programs,␣there␣is␣an␣opportunity␣to␣ensure␣that␣any␣new␣developments␣are␣
designed␣to␣meet␣the␣individual␣municipality's␣recycling␣system␣requirements␣prior␣to␣
approval.␣␣␣It␣is␣recommended␣that␣municipalities␣develop␣mandatory␣requirements␣
for␣new␣or␣re-developed␣multi-family␣buildings␣to␣be␣designed␣to␣allow␣for␣integrated␣
waste␣management␣practices.␣
The␣standards␣for␣these␣developments␣should␣work␣in␣harmony␣with␣each␣
municipality's␣Waste␣Management␣Master␣Plan,␣and␣suit␣the␣collection␣system␣and␣
processing␣operations␣accordingly.␣␣The␣design␣plans␣submitted␣by␣the␣developer␣
should␣be␣reviewed␣by␣competent␣staff␣with␣the␣Solid␣Waste␣knowledge␣to␣assess␣
the␣drawings␣to␣determine␣if␣the␣design␣requirements␣for␣garbage␣and␣recycling␣
collection␣have␣been␣met.␣␣␣
If␣developers␣propose␣a␣change␣in␣collection␣points,␣method␣of␣collection,␣change␣of␣
use,␣or␣an␣existing␣building␣being␣expanded␣by␣more␣than␣1/3␣its␣original␣size,␣the␣
plans␣should␣also␣be␣reviewed␣by␣Solid␣Waste␣staff.␣Each␣site␣and␣building␣should␣be␣
inspected␣prior␣to␣approval␣to␣ensure␣that␣the␣development␣has␣complied␣with␣all␣
requirements␣for␣solid␣waste␣and␣recycling␣programs.␣
In␣order␣for␣multi-family␣buildings␣to␣qualify␣for␣the␣municipal␣garbage␣and␣recyclables␣
collection␣services,␣it␣is␣recommended␣that␣municipalities␣only␣approve␣those␣new␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣99
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
developments␣or␣redevelopments␣that␣adhere␣to␣the␣appropriate␣design␣
requirements.␣␣Requirements␣may␣stipulate␣an␣appropriate␣type,␣quantity,␣and␣
location␣of␣the␣garbage␣and␣recycling␣bins␣to␣accommodate␣the␣volume␣of␣material␣
expected␣to␣be␣generated␣by␣the␣number␣of␣residential␣units␣at␣the␣complex,␣
assuming␣full␣participation␣in␣the␣municipal␣recycling␣program.␣
The␣application␣submitted␣to␣the␣municipality␣should␣include␣details␣regarding␣the␣
number␣of␣dwelling␣units␣in␣the␣development,␣the␣total␣ground␣floor␣area,␣the␣number␣
of␣stories,␣access␣routes,␣loading␣facilities,␣garbage␣rooms,␣recycling␣rooms,␣size␣and␣
quantity␣of␣garbage␣and␣recycling␣containers␣to␣be␣used,␣and,␣if␣designed␣for␣a␣chute␣
disposal␣system,␣the␣type␣and␣quantity␣of␣chutes␣for␣garbage␣and␣recycling.␣
The new or re-development should be designed to ensure that the recycling
system is as convenient a system for the residents to use as the garbage
system.␣For␣example,␣a␣chute␣system␣on␣each␣floor␣would␣have␣to␣receive␣both␣
garbage␣and␣recyclables,␣either␣as␣one␣chute␣with␣mechanical␣baffles␣for␣residents␣to␣
control␣the␣direction␣of␣the␣appropriate␣stream,␣or␣with␣individual␣chutes␣for␣garbage␣
and␣each␣steam␣of␣recyclables.␣If␣no␣chute␣is␣provided,␣then␣there␣should␣be␣a␣central␣
garbage␣and␣recycling␣facility␣on␣the␣ground␣floor.␣
Set a minimum recovery threshold for recycling. It␣is␣recommended␣that␣sites␣
fully␣participate␣in␣the␣municipal␣recycling␣program␣in␣order␣to␣be␣eligible␣to␣receive␣
municipal␣garbage␣collection.␣It␣will␣be␣necessary␣to␣determine␣what␣quantity␣of␣
recyclables␣should␣be␣used␣as␣a␣benchmark␣in␣order␣to␣be␣considered␣fully␣
participating␣in␣the␣recycling␣program.␣This␣will␣depend␣largely␣on␣the␣frequency␣of␣
collection,␣the␣amount␣of␣materials␣accepted␣in␣the␣program,␣and␣the␣collection␣
system␣in␣which␣to␣base␣the␣measurement.␣For␣example,␣the␣City␣of␣Toronto␣has␣
used␣the␣following␣benchmark:␣for␣every␣100␣units␣at␣a␣complex,␣a␣volume␣of␣6␣cubic␣
yards␣(or␣1212␣US␣gallons)␣of␣recyclables␣should␣be␣captured␣per␣week␣as␣a␣minimum.␣
The␣management␣and␣residents␣are␣informed␣of␣this␣minimum␣requirement.␣In␣many␣
cases,␣once␣appropriate␣promotion␣and␣education␣activities␣are␣executed,␣the␣capture␣
rate␣exceeds␣the␣minimum␣requirements.␣
Many␣programs␣require␣multi-family␣buildings␣to␣purchase␣the␣recycling␣bins␣at␣full␣or␣
subsidized␣cost.␣A␣recent␣focus␣group␣study␣revealed␣that␣although␣superintendents␣
identified␣the␣need␣and␣repeatedly␣requested␣that␣their␣property␣management␣supply␣
more␣recycling␣bins,␣this␣minimal␣investment␣request␣was␣refused.␣Unless␣the␣
building␣was␣going␣to␣incur␣additional␣garbage␣charges␣for␣excess␣quantities,␣they␣did␣
not␣see␣the␣financial␣benefit␣to␣their␣business.␣If␣there␣were␣maximum␣garbage␣limits␣
and␣minimum␣recycling␣limits,␣they␣would␣be␣more␣likely␣to␣comply␣with␣obtaining␣
the␣appropriate␣number␣of␣bins.␣
The␣feedback␣from␣the␣collector␣is␣crucial␣regarding␣compliance␣at␣the␣multi-family␣
buildings.␣␣Buildings␣that␣are␣not␣meeting␣their␣minimum␣should␣be␣notified␣regarding␣
their␣performance␣and␣offered␣guidance␣toward␣achieving␣a␣better␣capture␣rate␣in␣
order␣to␣be␣eligible␣to␣receive␣municipal␣garbage␣collection.␣
100 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
There␣should␣not␣be␣a␣maximum␣limit␣placed␣on␣recycling.␣In␣some␣programs,␣a␣limit␣
has␣been␣placed␣on␣the␣quantity␣of␣cardboard␣set␣out␣in␣the␣recycling␣carts.␣The␣
operational␣problems␣created␣by␣big␣quantities␣of␣cardboard␣can␣be␣resolved␣by␣
changing␣collection␣method,␣bin␣type,␣or␣increasing␣frequency␣rather␣than␣limiting␣the␣
quantity␣accepted␣as␣recycling.␣On␣the␣first␣of␣the␣month,␣buildings␣are␣likely␣to␣have␣
an␣increase␣in␣the␣amount␣of␣cardboard␣due␣to␣new␣residents␣unpacking.␣This␣should␣
be␣taken␣into␣consideration␣when␣assessing␣the␣collection␣system␣and␣bin␣types.␣
Setting␣a␣limit␣on␣recyclables␣will␣only␣resulting␣in␣the␣disposal␣of␣the␣material␣as␣
garbage.␣If␣the␣quantity␣of␣recyclables␣is␣unmanageable␣within␣the␣current␣system,␣it␣
may␣be␣necessary␣to␣reassess␣the␣bin␣size␣and␣type␣used␣at␣the␣site,␣and/or␣consider␣
increasing␣the␣collection␣frequency␣to␣meet␣the␣need.␣
Type of Collection Bin
The␣type␣of␣collection␣bins␣is␣dependent␣on␣current␣operational␣practices␣for␣each␣
municipal␣program,␣as␣well␣as␣the␣location␣and␣design␣of␣the␣multi-family␣building.␣␣
The␣method␣of␣garbage␣collection␣may␣determine␣the␣method␣of␣recycling␣collection.␣
For␣example,␣multi-family␣buildings␣receiving␣front-end␣bulk␣garbage␣would␣be␣an␣
appropriate␣candidate␣to␣consider␣bulk␣recycling,␣as␣the␣layout␣is␣already␣conducive␣to␣
this␣type␣of␣bins␣and␣collection␣vehicles.␣␣
Very␣small␣complexes␣that␣have␣less␣than␣6␣units,␣may␣distribute␣individual␣blue␣
boxes␣for␣their␣residents␣to␣set␣at␣the␣curb␣for␣collection␣with␣the␣single␣family␣
homes.␣However,␣depending␣on␣each␣program's␣recycling␣sort␣streams,␣and␣the␣
extent␣of␣recycling␣materials␣accepted␣by␣the␣program,␣combined␣with␣the␣collection␣
frequency␣offered␣through␣the␣municipal␣programs,␣each␣unit␣may␣require␣more␣than␣
one␣box␣to␣sufficiently␣contain␣the␣recyclables␣between␣collections.␣This␣can␣create␣
storage␣issues␣within␣the␣units,␣potential␣problems␣at␣the␣set␣out␣point,␣and␣an␣
inefficient␣collection␣method␣at␣the␣complex.␣␣
Multi-family␣buildings␣or␣infill␣townhouse␣complexes␣that␣have␣a␣common␣collection␣
point␣for␣up␣to␣30␣units␣should␣consider␣using␣90␣or␣95␣gallon␣(340-360␣litre)␣roll-out␣
carts␣that␣are␣compatible␣with␣the␣collection␣vehicles.␣Each␣recycling␣cart␣offers␣the␣
equivalent␣volume␣of␣6␣to␣8␣curbside␣recycling␣boxes.␣The␣residents␣will␣not␣have␣the␣
negative␣aspects␣associated␣with␣storing␣the␣material␣in␣their␣own␣units␣between␣
collections,␣and␣the␣cart␣can␣be␣mechanically␣lifted␣and␣emptied␣more␣efficiently.␣The␣
carts␣should␣be␣stored␣in␣a␣location␣that␣is␣convenient␣for␣the␣residents␣to␣use␣(inside␣
or␣sheltered␣from␣rain␣and␣snow),␣and,␣if␣different␣than␣the␣collection␣point,␣moved␣
out␣for␣the␣day␣of␣collection␣only.␣
For␣complexes␣between␣30␣and␣100␣units␣either␣carts␣or␣front-end␣bulk␣bins␣can␣be␣
effective,␣depending␣on␣the␣number␣of␣recycling␣streams␣in␣the␣program␣and␣the␣
design␣of␣the␣complex.␣Programs␣offering␣single␣stream␣recycling␣may␣see␣a␣benefit␣
by␣using␣front␣load␣recycling␣bins␣in␣this␣mid-size␣multi-family␣building␣category,␣as␣
several␣carts␣can␣be␣replaced␣by␣one␣bulk␣bin,␣thereby␣reducing␣the␣number␣of␣carts␣
and␣lifts␣required.␣For␣example,␣one␣4-cubic␣yard␣(3-cubic␣m)␣bin␣could␣replace␣9␣carts␣
containing␣the␣same␣materials.␣However,␣if␣the␣existing␣design␣is␣a␣sprawling␣infill␣
townhouse␣complex,␣it␣may␣be␣more␣appropriate␣to␣have␣several␣recycling␣stations␣to␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣101
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
enhance␣convenience,␣and␣have␣the␣carts␣brought␣to␣one␣or␣more␣central␣location␣
points␣on␣collection␣day.␣
For␣complexes␣with␣100␣units␣or␣greater,␣front-load␣bulk␣bins␣should␣be␣considered␣
the␣preferred␣choice␣to␣maximize␣both␣efficiency␣and␣effectiveness.␣If␣the␣bins␣are␣to␣
be␣accessed␣directly␣by␣residents,␣it␣is␣recommended␣that␣the␣bins␣be␣modified␣to␣
limit␣the␣opening␣to␣contain␣only␣the␣desired␣materials␣and␣thereby␣minimize␣
opportunity␣for␣contamination.␣␣The␣top␣lid␣should␣be␣kept␣padlocked␣between␣
collections,␣with␣only␣the␣building's␣maintenance␣staff␣responsible␣to␣open␣it␣daily␣to␣
remove␣any␣contaminating␣items.␣On␣collection␣day,␣the␣top␣lid␣should␣be␣unlocked,␣
contaminating␣items␣should␣have␣been␣removed,␣and␣the␣bin␣placed␣in␣position␣for␣
collection.␣
Determine Suitable Recycling Bin Capacity
Bin␣capacity␣should␣be␣considered␣in␣relation␣to␣the␣number␣of␣residential␣units␣
sharing␣the␣recycling␣containers,␣the␣number␣of␣sort␣streams␣required␣under␣the␣
municipal␣program,␣and␣the␣degree␣of␣automation␣by␣the␣collection␣system.␣
As␣a␣guideline,␣the␣City␣of␣Toronto␣has␣used␣the␣bin␣capacity␣formula␣of␣a␣minimum␣
of␣6␣cubic␣yards␣(4.6␣cu␣m)␣recycling␣capacity␣for␣every␣100␣units␣collected␣weekly.␣
This␣same␣volume␣converts␣to␣1211.84␣US␣gallons␣(4587␣litres).␣␣Multi-family␣
buildings␣using␣90␣or␣95␣US␣gallon␣recycling␣carts␣would,␣therefore,␣require␣a␣
minimum␣of␣13␣carts␣for␣every␣100␣units.␣
Capacity␣considerations␣for␣individual␣communities,␣however,␣will␣be␣highly␣affected␣
by␣the␣recycling␣program␣in␣place.␣For␣example,␣some␣semi-automated␣programs␣
require␣the␣cardboard␣to␣be␣flattened␣and␣tied␣in␣bundles␣of␣specified␣dimensions␣
beside␣the␣recycling␣carts.␣In␣this␣case,␣the␣collector␣could␣manually␣set␣the␣bundled␣
cardboard␣in␣the␣hopper␣as␣he/she␣must␣get␣out␣of␣the␣truck␣anyway␣to␣connect␣the␣
carts␣to␣be␣mechanically␣lifted.␣This␣method␣may␣reduce␣the␣number␣of␣carts␣
required.␣
Automated␣systems␣are␣designed␣for␣all␣recycling␣materials␣to␣be␣contained␣in␣the␣
carts,␣as␣the␣driver␣controls␣the␣lifting␣of␣the␣carts␣from␣inside␣of␣the␣vehicle.␣
Although␣this␣is␣a␣convenient␣method␣of␣collection,␣considerably␣more␣carts␣may␣be␣
required.␣This␣is␣particularly␣the␣case␣with␣excess␣cardboard␣generated␣by␣new␣
residents␣unpacking.␣
Frequency of Collection
Recyclables␣from␣multi-family␣buildings␣with␣6␣or␣more␣units,␣and␣that␣have␣a␣
common␣collection␣point,␣should␣be␣collected␣weekly.␣In␣cases␣of␣existing␣structures␣
that␣can␣demonstrate␣there␣is␣insufficient␣storage␣space␣to␣provide␣recycling␣bin␣
capacity␣for␣weekly␣collection,␣more␣frequent␣collection␣of␣recyclables␣may␣be␣
required␣to␣ensure␣maximum␣capture␣of␣recycling␣materials.␣
Storage and Collection Area
102 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Recycling␣bins␣should␣be␣stored␣inside,␣where␣possible,␣provided␣that␣all␣building␣and␣
fire␣codes␣are␣followed.␣This␣ensures␣better␣control␣over␣the␣proper␣use␣of␣the␣bins␣
and␣minimizes␣opportunity␣for␣public␣contamination.␣The␣recycling␣room␣should␣be␣
large␣enough␣to␣contain␣all␣the␣recycling␣bins␣to␣be␣used,␣be␣safe␣and␣clean␣for␣
residents␣to␣access,␣permit␣easy␣movement␣of␣the␣bins,␣and␣allow␣for␣additional␣
space␣for␣future␣program␣expansion.␣
In-unit Storage and/or Transfer Containers
A␣mini␣Blue␣Box,␣basket␣or␣a␣reusable␣Blue␣Bag␣may␣contribute␣to␣a␣higher␣recovery␣
rate,␣particularly␣when␣the␣box␣or␣bag␣has␣printed␣graphics␣to␣reinforce␣the␣items␣that␣
are␣accepted␣in␣the␣recycling␣program.␣However,␣research␣has␣shown␣inconclusive␣
results␣as␣to␣the␣long-term␣effects␣of␣these␣tools,␣partly␣due␣to␣the␣ongoing␣turnover␣
of␣new␣residents.␣
Depending␣on␣an␣individual's␣recycling␣habits,␣such␣tools␣can␣be␣seen␣as␣a␣
convenience␣or␣as␣a␣nuisance.␣Surveys␣have␣shown␣that␣often␣residents␣take␣their␣
recycling␣to␣the␣bins␣on␣their␣way␣out␣to␣work,␣shopping,␣etc.␣They␣do␣not␣want␣to␣
take␣the␣empty␣container␣with␣them␣nor␣have␣to␣come␣back␣to␣their␣unit␣with␣it.␣
However,␣even␣if␣the␣mini␣Blue␣Box␣or␣Blue␣Bag␣is␣used␣only␣as␣storage␣within␣the␣
unit,␣and␣not␣for␣transferring␣purposes,␣it␣can␣serve␣as␣an␣effective␣reminder␣that␣a␣
program␣exists␣for␣the␣complex,␣and␣that␣certain␣items␣should␣be␣separated␣from␣the␣
garbage.␣
Some␣programs␣recommend␣that␣residents␣transport␣the␣recyclables␣from␣their␣units␣
to␣the␣bins␣in␣plastic␣bags␣and␣deposit␣the␣material␣loose␣into␣the␣appropriate␣bin.␣
Although␣this␣can␣be␣promoted␣as␣the␣second␣"R"␣(Reuse),␣this␣method␣can␣pose␣a␣
contamination␣problem␣in␣the␣recycling␣bin␣if␣residents␣do␣not␣understand␣the␣
importance␣of␣depositing␣the␣material␣loose␣into␣the␣appropriate␣category.␣If␣plastic␣
bags␣are␣not␣included␣in␣the␣municipal␣recycling␣program,␣it␣is␣imperative␣that␣there␣
be␣a␣small␣clearly␣labelled␣waste␣receptacle␣beside␣the␣recycling␣bin␣instructing␣
residents␣to␣deposit␣their␣empty␣plastic␣bags␣there.␣␣␣
Promotion and Education
Owners, Property Managers, and Superintendents:␣␣According␣to␣a␣recent␣focus␣
group␣study,␣"superintendents␣in␣most␣of␣the␣study␣areas␣reported␣that␣they␣are␣
working␣mainly␣in␣isolation␣and␣without␣the␣help␣of␣the␣municipal␣waste␣management␣
experts".␣(E&E␣Fund␣Project␣#199,␣pg␣7)␣
Building␣staff␣need␣to␣be␣fully␣trained␣with␣regards␣to␣the␣responsibilities␣and␣
requirements␣of␣the␣recycling␣program.␣Several␣programs␣have␣developed␣a␣
"Handbook␣for␣Owners,␣Property␣Managers␣and␣Superintendents"␣to␣educate␣them␣
regarding␣the␣responsibilities␣and␣to␣trouble-shoot␣problems␣with␣suggestions␣of␣how␣
to␣resolve␣the␣issues.␣In␣addition,␣it␣also␣may␣be␣beneficial␣to␣offer␣a␣link␣to␣a␣website␣
that␣allows␣owners␣and␣property␣managers␣to␣download␣literature␣regarding␣the␣
program,␣as␣well␣as␣graphics␣or␣translated␣educational␣material␣for␣posting␣and␣
distribution␣to␣the␣residents.␣␣A␣list␣of␣resources,␣including␣contact␣names␣and␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣103
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
numbers,␣should␣be␣made␣available␣to␣the␣multi-family␣buildings␣to␣assist␣with␣
concerns␣that␣may␣arise.␣
Written␣literature,␣however,␣cannot␣eliminate␣the␣need␣for␣face-to-face␣contact␣with␣
the␣site␣staff.␣␣Site␣visits␣will␣be␣required␣to␣check␣on␣the␣bin␣contents,␣replace␣
missing␣or␣outdated␣educational␣materials␣and␣faded␣bin␣labels,␣and␣offer␣guidance␣
and␣support␣to␣the␣site␣staff.␣Depending␣on␣the␣specific␣building,␣there␣can␣be␣
considerable␣rotation␣of␣site␣superintendents␣and␣property␣managers.␣Staff␣changes␣
are␣usually␣not␣reported␣to␣the␣municipality␣and␣the␣new␣staff␣may␣not␣understand␣
the␣program␣requirements␣that␣were␣explained␣to␣the␣previous␣staff.␣
Residents:␣As␣reported␣in␣focus␣groups␣and␣interviews␣"Residents␣are␣operating␣on␣
the␣basis␣of␣habit,␣imitation␣and␣partial␣information".␣(E&E␣Fund␣Project␣#199,␣pg␣3)␣
Appropriate␣literature␣is␣required␣in␣order␣to␣convey␣program␣information␣to␣residents.␣
The␣most␣critical␣information␣that␣needs␣to␣be␣understood␣by␣residents␣is:␣
What␣items␣are␣to␣be␣included␣in␣the␣recycling␣bins␣
How␣the␣items␣are␣to␣be␣sorted␣or␣prepared␣(flatten␣cardboard,␣rinse␣out␣bottles)␣
Where␣the␣recycling␣bins␣are␣located␣to␣deposit␣the␣items␣(if␣required␣to␣take␣the␣
material␣to␣a␣designated␣location)␣
It␣is␣recommended␣that␣new␣residents␣be␣given␣a␣recycling␣package,␣shown␣the␣
recycling␣location,␣and␣have␣the␣recycling␣program␣explained␣as␣part␣of␣their␣lease␣or␣
agreement␣to␣live␣in␣the␣complex.␣␣Having␣a␣clause␣in␣the␣lease␣or␣agreement␣that␣
states␣that␣recycling␣is␣mandatory␣can␣help␣to␣stimulate␣residents'␣participation␣in␣
recycling.␣
It␣is␣important␣to␣know␣the␣demographics␣within␣the␣building␣to␣ensure␣the␣
promotion␣and␣education␣materials␣and␣methods␣are␣applied␣appropriately.␣␣
Multi-lingual,␣multi-cultural,␣and␣socio-economic␣factors␣can␣affect␣the␣success␣of␣the␣
recycling␣program␣if␣challenges␣are␣not␣acknowledged␣and␣addressed.␣␣If␣additional␣
languages␣are␣required,␣it␣is␣recommended␣that␣recycling␣literature␣be␣translated␣as␣
appropriate.␣These␣can␣be␣posted␣on␣a␣website␣for␣site␣staff␣to␣download␣and␣post␣or␣
distribute␣as␣necessary.␣␣
In␣addition␣to␣distributing␣literature␣to␣each␣unit,␣it␣is␣recommended␣that␣recycling␣
literature␣be␣posted␣in␣a␣common␣area(s)␣of␣the␣building␣in␣English,␣as␣well␣as␣in␣the␣
other␣appropriate␣languages␣identified␣for␣the␣building.␣For␣durability,␣the␣postings␣
can␣be␣contained␣in␣a␣protective␣case,␣or␣covered␣with␣plexi-glass␣or␣laminated.␣
Common␣areas␣that␣may␣be␣suitable␣for␣the␣posting␣board␣include␣the␣lobby,␣mailbox␣
room,␣laundry␣room,␣chute␣rooms,␣and␣recycling␣rooms.␣␣Having␣the␣recycling␣
literature␣posted␣ensures␣that␣new␣residents␣have␣an␣opportunity␣to␣see␣the␣
information,␣and␣offers␣repeated␣promotion␣and␣reinforcement␣of␣the␣program␣each␣
time␣residents␣(or␣visitors)␣are␣exposed␣to␣the␣information.␣The␣use␣of␣pictures␣and␣
other␣graphics␣to␣illustrate␣what␣can␣and␣cannot␣be␣recycled␣is␣recommended,␣
particularly␣when␣residents␣speak␣multiple␣languages.␣
104 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Collectors:␣It␣is␣important␣that␣the␣collectors,␣whether␣municipal␣forces␣or␣contracted,␣
are␣adequately␣trained␣and␣fully␣understand␣their␣role␣in␣the␣multi-family␣recycling␣
program.␣This␣includes␣understanding␣the␣acceptable␣recycling␣items,␣what␣
constitutes␣contamination,␣the␣minimum␣amount␣of␣recycling␣material␣required␣at␣
each␣site,␣and␣proper␣documentation.␣
It␣is␣recommended␣that␣collectors␣have␣a␣"problem␣sheet"␣for␣each␣collection␣day␣on␣
which␣to␣record␣any␣issues␣with␣the␣site␣that␣would␣require␣follow␣up␣prior␣to␣the␣
next␣collection␣day.␣These␣issues␣may␣include␣concerns␣such␣as␣contamination,␣bins␣
not␣in␣the␣proper␣position␣for␣collection,␣bins␣not␣out,␣not␣meeting␣the␣minimum␣
quantity␣to␣be␣considered␣fully␣participating,␣bin␣needing␣repair,␣etc.␣It␣should␣also␣
state␣whether␣the␣recycling␣bin␣was␣emptied␣by␣the␣collector␣or␣not.␣The␣completed␣
problem␣sheet␣should␣be␣submitted␣to␣Solid␣Waste␣staff␣for␣follow␣up␣at␣the␣end␣of␣
each␣collection␣day.␣
Feedback
Site␣staff␣and␣residents␣need␣to␣hear␣how␣they␣are␣doing␣to␣stay␣motivated.␣Periodic␣
communication␣with␣the␣site␣is␣recommended␣to␣update␣contact␣information,␣
replenish␣resource␣materials,␣and␣offer␣guidance␣and␣support.␣
Training
To␣move␣beyond␣the␣feeling␣of␣disconnect␣and␣lack␣of␣responsibility␣for␣the␣recycling␣
programs␣at␣multi-family␣buildings,␣it␣is␣imperative␣that␣key␣players␣that␣are␣directly␣
involved␣with␣the␣recycling␣program␣(Property␣Managers,␣Superintendents,␣residents,␣
and␣collectors)␣be␣adequately␣trained␣in␣all␣aspects␣of␣the␣program.␣
In␣the␣past,␣the␣City␣of␣Barrie␣offered␣an␣8-hour␣Master␣Recycler␣course␣targeted␣at␣
Property␣Managers,␣Superintendents␣and␣apartment␣residents␣who␣were␣committed␣
to␣act␣as␣recycling␣champions␣within␣their␣buildings.␣The␣Master␣Recycler␣course␣was␣
organized␣into␣four␣sessions:␣
Day␣One:␣Introduction␣to␣Recycling␣
Day␣Two:␣The␣MRF␣and␣Markets␣
Day␣Three:␣Communications␣
Day␣Four:␣Preparing␣to␣be␣Master␣Recyclers␣
The␣Master␣Recycler␣course␣participants␣were␣provided␣with␣information␣about␣the␣
municipal␣recycling␣program␣as␣a␣whole,␣and␣how␣to␣communicate␣with␣multi-family␣
residents␣to␣promote␣effective␣waste␣diversion␣through␣recycling.␣Upon␣successful␣
completion␣of␣the␣4␣classes␣and␣a␣test,␣the␣participants␣were␣issued␣a␣Master␣
Recycler␣Certificate.␣They␣became␣the␣on-site␣recycling␣contacts,␣educating␣new␣and␣
existing␣residents,␣while␣promoting␣the␣program␣within␣their␣buildings.␣Subsequently,␣
there␣were␣substantial␣improvements␣in␣the␣quality␣and␣quantity␣of␣the␣materials␣
captured,␣and␣long-term␣benefits␣stemming␣from␣the␣Master␣Recycler␣course␣have␣
been␣seen␣several␣years␣later.␣It␣is␣recommended␣that␣municipalities␣consider␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣105
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
offering␣similar␣comprehensive␣training␣for␣key␣participants␣in␣the␣multi-family␣
recycling␣program.␣
␣
Sources and Links
"Multi-Residential Recycling System Improvements, Residents, Superintendents &
Property Managers Focus Groups & Interviews",␣E&E␣Fund␣Project␣#199,␣January␣
2007␣
http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/eefund/projects/mfamily.htm#199␣
"City of Toronto Requirements for Garbage and Recycling Collection from New
Developments and Redevelopments",␣City␣of␣Toronto,␣last␣Revised␣November␣2006.␣
http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/pdf/requirements_all.pdf␣
"Ontario Annual Generation of Blue Box Materials by Demographic Type (Based on
Waste Composition Study Results)", Stewardship Ontario, 2006␣
"Best Practice Guidelines for Curbside Recycling at Multi-Occupancy Residential
Developments, Draft Guidelines",␣Sustainability␣Victoria,␣June␣2006.␣
"Enhanced Waste Diversion in Multi-Unit Residential Dwellings in the City of Toronto,
Ontario", Katherine Whitfield. August 2005.
"Best Practices in Multifamily (Apartment) Recycling", Eureka Recycling. June 2004.
"Excerpts from Presentation to Toronto Waste Expo Featuring Master Recycler".
Margot Beverley, To The Point Communications. December 2, 2004.
Stewardship␣Ontario␣multi␣family␣waste␣audit␣worksheets,␣tips,␣and␣guidelines␣for␣
waste␣sorting.␣
http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/eefund/projects/audits/waste_audit_own.htm␣
"Report on Master Recycler: Phase II",␣City␣of␣Barrie,␣in␣conjunction␣with␣
Corporations␣Supporting␣Recycling,␣April␣2001␣
"Multifamily Recycling: A National Study", United␣States␣Environmental␣Protection␣
Agency.␣November␣2001.␣
"Multi-Residential Multilingual Pilot Project", WDO␣OPT-R3-06,␣The␣Regional␣
Municipality␣of␣Peel␣in␣Partnership␣with␣WDO,␣October␣2001.␣
"Multi-Family Recycling Initiative",␣WDO␣Project␣OPT-R2-12,␣City␣of␣Greater␣Sudbury,␣
April␣2001.␣
"Waste Diversion Concept Testing: Qualitative & Quantitative Findings", Northstar␣
Research␣Partners␣Prepared␣for␣The␣City␣of␣Toronto,␣February␣2001␣
"Toronto Apartment Blue Bag Recycling Pilot",␣Enviros␣RIS␣McConnell␣Weaver,␣
March␣2001.␣
106 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
"City of Barrie Multi-Family Fibre Bag Project",␣City␣of␣Barrie,␣March␣2001.␣
"Report on Master Recycler: A Multi-family Recycling Initiative", City of Barrie, in
conjuction with Corporations Supporting Recycling, July 2000
"Assessment of Multi-Unit Recycling in Ontario",␣Recycling␣Council␣of␣Ontario,␣
August 2000.
"Focus on Residential Multi-Unit Housing: Structural Building Factors and Recycling
Success", NYC Residential Waste Characterization Study. Prepared for New York
City Department of Sanitation's Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and Recycling
by R.W. Beck, Inc., November, 2006.
"Private Households by Structural Type of Dwelling, by Province and Territory (2001
Census"),␣Statistics␣Canada,␣Census␣of␣Population.␣
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil55b.htm␣
"Enhanced␣Diversion␣From␣Apartments␣Pilot␣Project",␣Metro␣Works,␣October␣1997.␣
Environmental␣Protection␣Act.␣Ontario␣Regulation␣103/94␣
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Regs/English/940103_e.htm␣
"Sector␣Compliance␣Branch:␣Inspections␣Industrial,␣Commercial␣&␣Institutional␣-␣
Recycling␣in␣Multi-unit␣Residential␣Buildings",␣Government␣of␣Ontario␣Ministry␣of␣the␣
Environment␣
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/scb/work/recycling.htm#results␣
"Recycling Handbook for Owners, Property Managers and Superintendents",␣City␣of␣
Toronto.␣
http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/multi/pdf/recycling_handbook.pdf␣
"Toronto Recycles, Apartment Version",␣City␣of␣Toronto␣
http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/multi/pdf/461apartment.pdf␣
Markham␣website␣apartment␣recycling␣
http://www.markham.ca/Markham/Channels/wastemgmt/aptrecycle/recycle_tools.ht
m␣
␣
␣
ctice
ht␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣107
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Best Practices in the Use of Recycling Depots
␣
Overview
Recycling␣depots␣offer␣a␣cost-effective␣alternative␣to␣curbside␣collection␣in␣small␣
municipalities␣and␣serve␣as␣a␣supplemental␣channel␣for␣material␣overflow␣in␣larger␣
communities.␣␣While␣this␣collection␣method␣is␣simpler␣to␣manage␣and␣operate␣than␣
curbside␣collection,␣there␣are␣a␣number␣of␣challenges␣and␣barriers␣that␣prevent␣
programs␣from␣achieving␣optimal␣performance.␣␣This␣section␣provides␣guidance␣on␣
Best␣Practices␣that␣need␣to␣be␣employed␣across␣depot␣systems␣if␣performance␣
improvements␣are␣to␣be␣achieved.␣␣␣
␣
Key Benefits and Outcomes
By␣employing␣Best␣Practices␣in␣depot␣collection␣programs,␣municipalities␣can␣obtain␣
the␣following␣effectiveness␣benefits:␣
Improved␣diversion␣rates␣for␣communities␣that␣do␣not␣collect␣recyclables␣curbside,␣
or␣smaller␣rural␣programs␣with␣lower␣volumes␣
Increased␣tonnage␣of␣recyclables␣due␣to␣an␣available␣overflow␣channel␣for␣
residents␣that␣have␣limited␣storage␣capacity␣
Increased␣tonnage␣of␣recyclable␣materials␣not␣accepted␣at␣the␣curb,␣such␣as␣
expanded␣polystyrene␣packing␣materials␣and␣film␣
Programs␣can␣become␣more␣efficient␣due␣to␣the␣following␣factors:␣
Collection␣cost␣savings␣-␣communities␣that␣are␣large␣in␣area␣but␣sparsely␣populated␣
can␣achieve␣cost␣savings␣by␣utilizing␣depots␣as␣an␣alternative␣to␣curbside␣
collection␣
Transportation␣cost␣savings␣-␣deposited␣material␣can␣be␣transferred␣with␣large␣roll␣
off␣or␣other␣bulk␣carrier␣vehicles␣from␣fewer␣locations␣than␣if␣collected␣from␣
every␣household␣in␣a␣municipality␣
␣
Description and Implementation of Best Practice
Recycling␣Depots␣(depots)␣constitute␣an␣effective␣channel␣for␣municipalities␣to␣offer␣
residents␣a␣location␣to␣bring␣their␣recyclables␣and␣help␣capture␣recyclable␣materials␣
that␣would␣otherwise␣end␣up␣in␣the␣landfill.␣␣They␣are␣primarily␣used␣in␣small␣rural␣
municipalities,␣where␣no␣curbside␣collection␣program␣exists.␣␣
Depots␣are␣also␣used␣in␣communities␣with␣high␣participation␣rates␣as␣an␣alternate␣
option␣for␣residents.␣␣In␣these␣communities,␣the␣rationale␣for␣having␣a␣depot␣is␣to␣
provide␣capacity␣for␣overflow␣materials␣between␣or␣in␣addition␣to␣curbside␣collections.␣
Furthermore,␣depots␣are␣effective␣in␣municipalities␣with␣a␣high␣seasonal␣household␣
percentage␣and␣in␣areas␣with␣small␣private␣roads␣where␣collection␣is␣difficult␣and␣
costly.␣␣Depots␣in␣high␣participation␣municipalities␣can␣also␣provide␣for␣collection␣of␣
ctice
ht␣
ctice
ht␣
Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight␣
108 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
items␣not␣accepted␣at␣the␣curb,␣such␣as␣expanded␣polystyrene␣packing␣materials␣and␣
film.␣␣Some␣materials␣that␣are␣too␣light␣or␣bulky␣make␣curbside␣collection␣difficult,␣as␣
they␣are␣easily␣wind␣blown␣or␣take␣too␣much␣room␣in␣recycling␣containers.␣␣
Designated␣drop␣off␣bins␣in␣recycling␣depots␣give␣residents␣an␣option␣to␣recycle␣
these␣items.␣␣Large␣bulky␣or␣light␣materials␣separated␣at␣the␣recycling␣depot␣may␣
sometimes␣be␣sent␣directly␣to␣end␣markets␣without␣any␣processing,␣provided␣quality␣
control␣enforcement␣is␣available␣at␣the␣depot;␣however,␣transportation␣costs␣may␣be␣
prohibitive␣if␣un-baled␣shipping␣weights␣are␣low.␣␣
Depots␣are␣a␣common␣tool␣for␣rural␣communities␣that␣are␣large␣in␣area␣but␣sparsely␣
populated.␣They␣offer␣residents␣a␣place␣to␣bring␣recyclables␣where␣collection␣services␣
would␣be␣very␣expensive␣compared␣to␣the␣amount␣of␣materials␣collected␣and␣where␣
potential␣revenues␣generated␣from␣marketing␣recycling␣materials␣are␣low.␣␣␣
Depots␣are␣generally␣inexpensive␣to␣initiate,␣relative␣to␣curbside␣collection.␣␣The␣
primary␣costs␣are␣the␣containers␣and␣transfer␣costs.␣Often␣municipalities␣contract␣out␣
the␣rental␣of␣containers,␣complete␣with␣the␣delivery␣service␣to␣empty␣the␣containers␣
at␣a␣processing␣facility␣or␣end␣markets.␣␣The␣other␣major␣costs␣are␣the␣labour␣to␣
maintain␣the␣site,␣assist␣participating␣residents,␣and␣offer␣recycling␣program␣
information.␣␣To␣contain␣costs,␣often␣municipalities␣use␣an␣existing␣municipally-
owned␣location,␣such␣as␣a␣Transportation␣Works␣facility␣or␣a␣recycling␣depot␣set␣up␣at␣
the␣municipally-owned␣landfill.␣Municipalities␣sometimes␣choose␣to␣open␣a␣depot␣
without␣staff,␣however,␣this␣practice␣is␣not␣preferred␣as␣site␣maintenance␣and␣
contamination␣control␣are␣made␣more␣difficult.␣
Key␣attributes␣of␣effective␣and␣efficient␣depot␣systems␣are:␣
Situated␣in␣a␣safe␣and␣accessible␣location␣
Convenient␣to␣use,␣ensuring␣smooth␣traffic␣flow␣
Designed␣to␣limit␣the␣potential␣for␣contamination␣and␣illegal␣dumping␣by␣␣
-
employing␣trained␣and␣knowledgeable␣personnel␣␣
-
transferring/removing␣materials␣with␣adequate␣frequency␣
Attractive␣and␣well-maintained␣
Appropriate␣signage␣with␣clear␣instructions␣to␣residents␣
Adequate␣promotion␣and␣education␣to␣enhance␣awareness␣of␣residents␣
Robust␣record␣keeping␣processes␣
Optimized␣container␣design␣and␣transportation␣system␣
Situated in a safe and accessible location
Proper␣planning␣is␣crucial␣in␣selecting␣a␣depot␣location.␣␣Depots␣situated␣on␣
municipally-owned␣property␣constitute␣a␣good␣practice,␣as␣such␣arrangements␣
facilitate␣proper␣oversight,␣regular␣maintenance,␣and␣improved␣risk␣management␣with␣
respect␣to␣liabilities␣and␣hazardous␣materials.␣␣Accessibility␣to␣depots␣is␣high␣in␣
locations␣visited␣frequently␣and␣regularly␣by␣area␣residents.␣These␣may␣include␣
municipal␣community␣centres,␣sports␣arenas,␣or␣landfills.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣109
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Municipalities␣should␣determine␣the␣list␣of␣items␣that␣will␣be␣included␣in␣the␣recycling␣
program␣by␣referring␣to␣Ontario␣Regulation␣101␣and␣by␣market␣availability.␣␣Materials␣
beyond␣the␣regulated␣list␣should␣have␣sufficient␣and␣stable␣markets.␣Otherwise,␣
excess␣items␣often␣become␣residue,␣thereby␣lowering␣the␣efficiency␣of␣the␣program.␣
Convenient to use, ensuring smooth traffic flow
In␣those␣municipalities␣where␣no␣curbside␣garbage␣collection␣is␣provided␣(residents␣
bring␣household␣garbage␣to␣a␣municipal␣landfill),␣depots␣set␣up␣at␣landfills␣make␣it␣
more␣convenient␣for␣residents␣to␣participate␣in␣the␣recycling␣program.␣(Those␣
municipalities␣that␣do␣have␣a␣curbside␣garbage␣and␣recycling␣programs␣should␣also␣
consider␣providing␣drop-off␣depots␣at␣the␣landfill␣or␣other␣strategic␣locations␣in␣the␣
community␣to␣ensure␣sufficient␣capacity␣for␣overflow␣materials.)␣␣Depots␣located␣at␣
landfills␣also␣help␣promote␣recycling␣of␣materials␣that␣could␣have␣ended␣up␣in␣the␣
landfill.␣␣Most␣municipally-owned␣landfills␣are␣staffed;␣consequently,␣the␣addition␣of␣a␣
recycling␣depot␣may␣be␣manageable␣utilizing␣the␣existing␣landfill␣staff.␣␣The␣staff␣are␣
necessary␣to␣help␣encourage␣recycling␣and␣to␣reduce␣the␣potential␣for␣illegal␣dumping␣
and␣contamination.␣Depots␣are␣best␣located␣where␣staff␣are␣available␣to␣oversee␣the␣
site␣and␣report␣when␣bins␣are␣full.␣
Depots␣should␣be␣set␣up␣with␣an␣adequate␣number␣of␣containers,␣oriented␣in␣such␣a␣
way␣as␣to␣minimize␣the␣effort␣associated␣with␣transferring␣materials␣from␣the␣car␣to␣
the␣bin.␣␣This␣may␣be␣achieved␣by␣using␣a␣ramp␣or␣a␣higher␣platform␣for␣vehicular␣
traffic.␣The␣number␣and␣capacity␣of␣containers␣will␣depend␣on␣the␣amount␣of␣
materials␣collected␣at␣the␣depots␣and␣observed/desired␣resident␣participation␣rates␣
(an␣estimate␣can␣be␣obtained␣through␣waste␣audits,␣which␣should␣be␣done␣at␣various␣
times␣of␣the␣year␣to␣capture␣seasonal␣fluctuations).␣␣Depots␣should␣enable␣residents␣
to␣drop␣off␣recyclables␣quickly␣and␣enhance␣their␣willingness␣to␣repeat␣the␣process␣in␣
the␣future.␣
The␣site␣should␣be␣designed␣for␣safe␣operations␣by␣residents␣and␣employees.␣␣It␣
should␣be␣of␣adequate␣size,␣allowing␣for␣good␣traffic␣flow.␣␣Effective␣flow␣of␣vehicular␣
traffic␣is␣important,␣as␣convenience␣is␣diminished␣if␣residents␣need␣to␣wait␣in␣queue␣
in␣order␣to␣reach␣the␣bins.␣␣Vehicles␣should␣generally␣drive␣in␣one␣direction,␣
minimizing␣the␣need␣to␣back␣up.␣␣Ramp␣areas␣should␣have␣railing␣or␣other␣safety␣
precautions␣as␣required.␣
Designed to limit the potential for contamination and illegal dumping
Depots␣that␣have␣been␣designed␣to␣limit␣the␣potential␣for␣contamination␣and␣illegal␣
dumping␣contribute␣to␣the␣success␣of␣the␣program.␣␣Bins␣equipped␣with␣size-
restricted␣openings␣help␣deter␣contamination.␣␣An␣example␣is␣an␣opening␣that␣allows␣
flattened␣cardboard␣materials␣only.␣␣Flattening␣cardboard␣increases␣bin␣capacity␣and␣
helps␣ensure␣boxes␣are␣emptied␣out␣prior␣to␣the␣transfer.␣␣Illegal␣dumping␣signs␣
should␣be␣posted␣in␣the␣depot␣area␣citing␣municipal␣by-laws.␣
Illegal␣dumping␣is␣common␣at␣depots,␣but␣is␣often␣eliminated␣when␣depots␣are␣
staffed␣and␣serviced␣with␣trained␣personnel.␣␣Employees␣can␣assist␣residents␣in␣
placing␣recyclables␣into␣proper␣containers␣and␣provide␣general␣information␣about␣the␣
110 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
recycling␣program.␣␣Furthermore,␣employee␣dedication␣and␣program␣buy-in␣is␣critical␣
to␣reducing␣contamination␣and␣illegal␣dumping␣issues.␣␣As␣a␣consequence,␣staff␣
working␣at␣the␣depot␣should␣be␣fully␣trained␣and␣knowledgeable␣about␣the␣details␣of␣
the␣entire␣municipal␣waste␣management␣program.␣
Depots␣without␣staff␣tend␣to␣have␣higher␣contamination␣and␣more␣illegal␣dumping␣of␣
materials␣at␣gates,␣in␣front␣of,␣or␣around␣recycling␣bins.␣␣In␣some␣communities,␣un-
staffed␣depots␣became␣so␣expensive␣and␣time-consuming␣to␣operate␣and␣maintain,␣
that␣program␣managers␣chose␣to␣close␣the␣depot␣and␣start␣a␣curbside␣collection␣
service.␣Thus,␣programs␣with␣un-staffed␣depots␣should␣develop␣a␣maintenance␣plan␣
for␣the␣sites␣to␣ensure␣aesthetic␣and␣functional␣appeal.␣␣The␣assistance␣of␣
enforcement␣staff␣may␣help␣educate␣and␣deter␣offenders.␣␣
Bins␣need␣to␣be␣emptied␣before␣overflowing.␣␣Overflowing␣bins␣create␣an␣impression␣
that␣the␣municipality␣does␣not␣care␣to␣properly␣maintain␣the␣recycling␣program,␣which␣
can␣negatively␣affect␣the␣attitude␣of␣the␣residents␣and␣their␣willingness␣to␣participate.␣␣
Front-loader␣bins␣can␣be␣emptied␣on␣an␣appropriate␣schedule,␣driven␣by␣the␣required␣
capacity.␣␣Carts␣and␣roll␣off␣bins␣are␣usually␣used␣when␣the␣depot␣is␣close␣to␣a␣
processing␣facility␣and␣pick␣ups␣can␣be␣done␣more␣frequently.␣␣Appropriate␣front␣end␣
containers,␣roll␣off␣bins␣with␣compaction␣or␣even␣highway␣transfer␣are␣used␣when␣the␣
haul␣distances␣are␣substantial.␣␣
Attractive and well maintained
A␣depot␣that␣appears␣clean␣and␣orderly␣gives␣a␣positive␣perception␣to␣residents␣that␣
the␣program␣is␣operating␣successfully.␣␣Paved␣areas␣that␣can␣be␣maintained␣during␣
winter␣months␣help␣ensure␣that␣the␣site␣can␣be␣accessed␣by␣residents␣all␣year.␣␣If␣a␣
depot␣is␣not␣paved,␣it␣should␣be␣graded␣to␣ensure␣water␣does␣not␣pond␣in␣the␣area␣
and␣deter␣participation.␣␣Depot␣areas␣should␣be␣cleared␣of␣snow␣and␣sanded␣and/or␣
salted,␣as␣required,␣in␣winter␣months;␣this␣practice␣also␣helps␣to␣minimize␣potential␣
liabilities.␣
Any␣debris␣or␣non-recyclables␣should␣be␣removed␣promptly␣to␣keep␣the␣site␣
appearance␣neat␣and␣tidy.␣␣If␣depots␣are␣not␣cleaned␣regularly␣they␣develop␣a␣poor␣
reputation␣and␣residents␣may␣stop␣using␣the␣facility,␣often␣resulting␣in␣increased␣
illegal␣dumping.␣␣
Appropriate signage with clear instructions to residents
Provisions␣should␣be␣made␣to␣display␣information␣in␣a␣manner␣that␣is␣understandable␣
and␣heavily␣biased␣toward␣universally␣understood␣graphics,␣photos␣or␣displays␣of␣
acceptable␣and␣unacceptable␣items.␣Depot␣signage␣should␣have␣large␣lettering␣that␣is␣
clear␣and␣visible␣from␣a␣reasonable␣distance.␣␣The␣colours␣should␣be␣bright␣and␣
complement␣the␣depot␣appearance.␣␣Standard␣graphics␣and␣symbols␣that␣are␣
informative␣and␣easy␣to␣interpret␣should␣be␣used.␣The␣graphics␣and␣symbols␣should␣
be␣consistent␣with␣the␣recycling␣program␣logos␣and␣font␣styles.␣␣Each␣bin␣should␣be␣
clearly␣labelled␣to␣define␣the␣type␣of␣materials␣it␣can␣receive.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣111
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Large␣signs␣mounted␣near␣the␣depot␣entrance␣should␣indicate␣acceptable␣and␣
unacceptable␣materials.␣␣Illegal␣dumping␣signs␣should␣also␣be␣posted␣at␣depots␣at␣
various␣locations␣as␣required.␣␣For␣centres␣that␣are␣not␣visible␣from␣main␣roads,␣
directional␣signs␣should␣be␣used␣to␣aid␣users␣in␣finding␣the␣depot.␣
The␣Knowledge␣Network␣contains␣a␣number␣of␣depot␣graphics␣and␣signage␣examples␣
for␣download.␣␣
Provide adequate promotion and education to enhance awareness of residents
Residents␣need␣to␣become␣aware␣of␣the␣depot␣location␣and␣receive␣frequent␣
reminders␣about␣the␣recycling␣program.␣␣A␣weather-proof␣information␣area␣at␣the␣site,␣
with␣pamphlets␣available␣for␣residents␣to␣take␣away,␣can␣help␣in␣the␣promotion␣of␣the␣
program.␣
Communities␣with␣high␣percentage␣of␣seasonal␣residents␣need␣to␣time␣their␣
educational␣and␣promotional␣campaigns␣with␣the␣arrival␣of␣these␣seasonal␣residents.␣␣
Some␣programs␣may␣choose␣to␣give␣a␣free␣blue␣box␣to␣residents␣for␣storing␣materials␣
between␣depot␣drop-off␣trips.␣␣
Robust record keeping processes
It␣is␣important␣to␣accurately␣measure␣and␣record␣weights␣of␣materials␣collected␣at␣the␣
depot.␣␣Regardless␣of␣the␣haul␣system␣used,␣materials␣should␣be␣weighed␣prior␣to␣
tipping␣at␣the␣processing␣facility.␣␣These␣volumetrics␣allow␣for␣accurate␣Datacall␣
submission␣and␣provide␣means␣to␣manage,␣evaluate,␣and␣fine-tune␣the␣program.␣␣
Different␣materials␣should␣be␣weighed␣separately␣if␣materials␣are␣sorted␣into␣
separate␣bins␣at␣the␣depot.␣␣
Optimized container design and transportation system
Municipal␣recycling␣program␣coordinators␣need␣to␣select␣an␣effective␣system␣of␣
transporting␣recyclables␣to␣processing␣facilities␣or␣end-markets.␣␣Often␣waste␣audits␣
and/or␣participation␣studies␣are␣needed␣to␣determine␣approximate␣material␣volumes␣
on␣weekly,␣monthly,␣and␣seasonal␣basis.␣␣Once␣an␣expected␣material␣amount␣has␣
been␣determined,␣container␣and␣transportation␣selections␣need␣to␣be␣considered.␣
Containers␣can␣range␣from␣95-gallon␣carts,␣four-␣or␣six-yard␣closed␣bins␣that␣are␣
material␣specific␣and␣require␣specialized␣haul␣trucks,␣four-␣or␣six-yard␣front␣loader␣bins,␣
or␣roll-off␣containers␣ranging␣in␣size␣from␣12␣yard␣to␣40␣yards.␣␣Caution␣should␣be␣
used␣before␣committing␣to␣the␣use␣of␣specialized␣haul␣trucks␣for␣non-standard␣bins,␣
as␣there␣are␣limited␣options␣available␣in␣case␣of␣truck␣breakdown␣or␣other␣equipment␣
failure.␣Specialized␣trucks␣are␣also␣likely␣to␣be␣unusable␣for␣other␣municipal␣
operations,␣which␣will␣tend␣to␣increase␣overall␣waste␣management␣and␣recycling␣
costs.␣␣For␣some␣municipalities,␣contracting␣the␣transportation␣of␣containers␣can␣help␣
offset␣the␣capital␣investment␣start-up␣costs␣for␣purchasing␣the␣required␣vehicles.␣␣␣
Container␣selection␣will␣depend␣largely␣on␣processing␣capabilities␣(whether␣materials␣
can␣be␣co-mingled␣for␣two-stream␣processing␣or␣single␣stream␣processing,␣or␣
materials␣must␣be␣completely␣sorted).␣␣It␣will␣also␣depend␣on␣capital␣investment␣
112 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
funds␣available.␣␣Small␣programs␣may␣consider␣renting␣containers␣or␣contracting␣
transportation␣services␣that␣include␣the␣provision␣of␣containers.␣␣Contractor␣
availability␣and␣distance␣to␣processing␣facilities␣will␣also␣dictate␣the␣type␣of␣containers␣
used.␣␣If␣a␣processing␣facility␣is␣nearby,␣smaller␣and/or␣standard␣containers,␣such␣as␣
carts␣or␣roll␣off␣containers,␣may␣be␣more␣economical.␣␣In␣cases␣where␣long␣distance␣
hauls␣are␣needed␣it␣is␣critical␣to␣incorporate␣compaction␣within␣the␣system␣to␣
minimize␣transportation␣costs.␣␣This␣may␣be␣accomplished␣with␣the␣use␣of␣standard␣
front␣end␣container␣that␣utilizes␣the␣truck␣compaction␣system␣where␣services␣are␣not␣
available␣at␣the␣depot␣site.␣␣When␣services␣are␣available,␣roll␣off␣compactors␣with␣a␣
ramp␣can␣be␣used.␣␣Where␣large␣volumes␣justify␣it,␣transfer␣trailers␣with␣or␣without␣
compaction␣may␣be␣the␣best␣option.␣␣
Program␣managers␣should␣strive␣to␣maximize␣the␣use␣of␣containers␣to␣help␣ensure␣
only␣full␣loads␣are␣picked␣up.␣␣Hauling␣full␣and␣densely␣packed␣containers␣will␣reduce␣
transportation␣costs␣on␣a␣per␣unit␣basis.␣␣Depot␣staff␣should␣try␣to␣move␣materials␣
around␣in␣the␣bin␣to␣help␣ensure␣all␣corners␣and␣other␣space␣is␣utilized.␣␣Staff␣can␣use␣
loaders␣or␣hand␣tools␣to␣facilitate␣this␣process.␣␣It␣is␣not␣recommended,␣however,␣to␣
ask␣residents␣or␣employees␣to␣enter␣the␣bins␣or␣try␣to␣move␣materials␣by␣hand␣due␣to␣
the␣risk␣of␣injury.␣
␣
Sources and Links
http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/eefund/projects/benchmark.htm#45␣
http://www.vubiz.com/stewardship/Welcome.asp␣Use␣login␣and␣password␣to␣access␣
the␣Knowledge␣Network,␣where␣an␣entire␣module␣is␣dedicated␣to␣depots␣
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/wm/recycle/tech_rpts/Schuylkill.h
tm␣
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/wm/recycle/tech_rpts/Blairsville.h
tm␣
http://www.markham.ca/Markham/Channels/wastemgmt/recycledepots.htm␣
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/pw/waste/crc/␣
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/wm/recycle/tech_rpts/McKean.ht
m␣
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/wm/recycle/tech_rpts/Cambria.ht
m␣
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/wm/recycle/tech_rpts/Carbon.ht
m␣
http://www.uog.edu/cals/PEOPLE/Pubs/WASTE/F-888.PDF␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣113
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Best Practices in Collection and Processing of
Challenging Plastics
␣
Overview
In␣an␣effort␣to␣increase␣waste␣diversion␣rates␣and␣remove␣non-biodegradable␣
materials␣from␣the␣landfill,␣some␣Ontario␣municipalities␣are␣choosing␣to␣include␣
auxiliary␣plastic␣materials␣in␣their␣Blue␣Box␣programs.␣␣Chief␣among␣these␣materials␣
are␣Polyethylene␣(PE)␣film␣bags,␣polystyrene␣foam␣and␣containers,␣and␣oversized␣
Polyethylene␣Terephthalate␣(PET)␣bottles.␣␣However,␣due␣to␣their␣physical␣properties,␣
these␣plastics␣present␣a␣variety␣of␣challenges␣in␣collection␣and␣processing,␣hindering␣
operational␣efficiencies␣and␣driving␣up␣the␣costs.␣␣␣
Differences␣of␣opinion␣remain␣about␣whether␣the␣collection␣of␣these␣challenging␣
plastic␣materials␣is␣itself␣a␣best␣practice␣for␣municipal␣programs␣to␣implement␣to␣
increase␣diversion,␣or␣which␣practices␣are␣best␣to␣use␣in␣collection,␣processing␣and␣
marketing␣of␣these␣materials.␣There␣is␣currently␣little␣data␣on␣the␣costs␣and␣
associated␣recovery␣levels␣specifically␣attributable␣to␣these␣materials␣in␣Ontario␣
programs␣that␣include␣them.␣␣There␣are␣few␣model␣programs,␣as␣each␣community␣
treats␣these␣materials␣differently␣(except␣for␣oversize␣PET␣bottles,␣which␣are␣all␣either␣
excluded␣from␣collection␣or␣discarded␣early␣in␣the␣processing␣step).␣However,␣some␣
Ontario␣programs␣are␣already␣collecting␣film␣and␣polystyrene␣materials␣and␣others␣
have␣expressed␣interest␣in␣doing␣so.␣Obtaining␣the␣costs␣of␣recycling␣film␣and␣PS␣
from␣Ontario␣communities␣currently␣collecting␣these␣materials␣would␣be␣a␣start␣at␣
defining␣best␣practices␣for␣these␣materials,␣but␣the␣objectives␣of␣this␣particular␣
project␣did␣not␣provide␣for␣separate␣detailed␣consideration␣of␣these␣materials␣within␣
the␣original␣framework.␣We␣do␣recommend␣research␣focused␣on␣these␣communities␣
to␣gather␣the␣important␣data␣that␣could␣then␣be␣used␣to␣model␣the␣effectiveness␣and␣
efficiency␣of␣such␣collection␣programs.␣The␣practices␣presented␣here␣provide␣a␣
hierarchy␣of␣options␣for␣communities␣that␣wish␣to␣implement␣collection␣of␣these␣
materials.␣The␣information␣presented␣in␣this␣report␣is␣the␣most␣current␣and␣most␣
detailed␣to␣be␣found␣in␣the␣existing␣literature,␣in␣listings␣of␣resources␣available,␣and␣in␣
conversations␣with␣plastic␣industry␣representatives.␣␣
This␣section␣is␣designed␣to␣provide␣guidance␣in␣making␣the␣choice␣to␣include␣these␣
materials␣into␣the␣program␣and␣developing␣methods␣to␣recycle␣them␣in␣an␣effective␣
and␣efficient␣manner.␣␣The␣handling␣of␣each␣material␣is␣described␣in␣detail␣below.␣
␣
Key Benefits and Outcomes
By␣including␣challenging␣plastics␣to␣a␣recycling␣program,␣municipalities␣may␣
experience␣the␣following␣benefits:␣
Increased␣diversion␣from␣landfill␣
Enhanced␣customer␣satisfaction␣levels␣
Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight␣
114 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
However,␣there␣are␣a␣number␣of␣drawbacks␣associated␣with␣collecting␣and␣
processing␣these␣plastics:␣
Extremely␣high␣cost␣per␣tonne␣
Decreased␣operational␣efficiencies␣of␣trucks␣and␣processing␣facility␣
Increased␣incidence␣of␣maintenance␣issues␣at␣the␣MRF␣
Decreased␣storage␣space␣at␣the␣MRF␣
Low␣marketing␣revenues␣due␣to␣limited␣markets␣
␣
Section A: Best Practices in Handling PE Film
Up␣to␣85␣percent␣of␣the␣PE␣film␣generated␣by␣households␣is␣readily␣marketable,␣
including␣grocery␣bags,␣retail␣shopping␣bags,␣newspaper␣sleeves,␣dry␣cleaning␣bags,␣
and␣any␣other␣clean,␣dry␣bag␣marked␣with␣a␣#2␣(HDPE)␣or␣#4␣(LDPE)␣resin␣code.␣In␣
Canada,␣rinsed␣HDPE␣milk␣pouches␣and␣outer␣bags,␣bread␣bags,␣sandwich␣bags␣and␣
bulk␣food␣bags,␣diaper␣outer␣bags,␣frozen␣food␣bags,␣and␣over-wrap␣for␣toilet␣tissue␣
and␣paper␣towels␣are␣defined␣as␣recyclable␣under␣market␣specifications.␣The␣films␣
are␣mostly␣made␣of␣Low-Density␣Polyethylene␣(LDPE,␣#4),␣Linear␣Low␣Density␣
Polyethylene␣(LLDPE,␣#4),␣and␣High-Density␣Polyethylene␣(HDPE,␣#2).␣␣
Other␣PE␣film␣pertinent␣facts␣include:␣
Recyclable␣films␣in␣the␣residential␣waste␣stream␣comprise␣approximately␣13%␣of␣
the␣plastics.␣Recyclable␣PE␣household␣film␣comprises␣85␣percent␣of␣all␣
household␣films,␣offering␣an␣opportunity␣for␣increased␣recovery␣of␣household␣
materials.␣
Even␣in␣programs␣that␣don't␣ask␣for␣film␣and␣bags,␣this␣material␣has␣been␣known␣to␣
approach␣four␣percent␣by␣weight␣of␣material␣at␣the␣MRF.␣
Theoretical␣calculations␣have␣shown␣that␣one␣sorter␣can␣positively␣sort␣28␣kg␣per␣
hour␣of␣household␣PE␣bags␣at␣a␣MRF,␣based␣on␣70␣bags␣per␣lb␣(4,325␣bags␣per␣
hour)␣
A␣material␣recovery␣facility␣in␣California␣with␣an␣overall␣capacity␣of␣200␣tonnes␣per␣
day␣reports␣a␣throughput␣of␣30-40␣tonnes␣per␣month␣of␣film,␣with␣8␣sorters␣
spending␣at␣least␣some␣of␣their␣time␣picking␣bags.␣␣
The␣value␣of␣the␣California␣facility's␣recovered␣film␣is␣low,␣at␣US␣$20␣per␣ton,␣due␣
to␣low␣quality.␣The␣California␣facility␣also␣reports␣that␣even␣with␣sorters␣handling␣
the␣material,␣at␣least␣one␣hour␣per␣day␣is␣spent␣removing␣bags␣and␣film␣that␣have␣
accumulated␣on␣the␣star␣screens.␣
In␣Ontario,␣according␣to␣the␣CSR␣Online␣price␣sheet,␣PE␣film␣sells␣at␣$47␣per␣tonne␣
in␣March,␣2007.␣The␣average␣price␣per␣tonne␣in␣2006␣was␣$137␣per␣tonne␣and␣in␣
2005␣reached␣a␣high␣of␣$148␣per␣tonne␣averaged␣over␣the␣year.␣
Collection␣of␣household␣bags␣and␣film␣is␣a␣challenge,␣with␣its␣high␣volume␣to␣
weight␣ratio␣and␣potential␣to␣instantly␣become␣offensive␣litter␣if␣wind-borne.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣115
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
One␣study␣estimates␣the␣incremental␣gross␣cost␣of␣collecting␣and␣processing␣film␣
at␣$900/tonne.␣
Collection
There␣are␣three␣mainstream␣methods␣of␣collecting␣PE␣film.␣␣Each␣of␣these␣is␣
described␣in␣greater␣detail␣below:␣
Retail␣drop-off␣collection␣
Curbside␣collection,␣including␣single␣stream,␣two-stream,␣and␣blue␣bag␣
Depot␣collection␣
Retail drop-off collection
Retail␣drop-off␣collection␣residents␣bringing␣plastic␣bags␣back␣to␣the␣point␣of␣purchase.␣
The␣trend␣is␣toward␣this␣collection␣practice␣in␣the␣United␣States.␣The␣California␣
Integrated␣Waste␣Management␣Board␣(CIWMB)␣and␣the␣Progressive␣Bag␣Alliance␣
(PBA)␣launched␣a␣retail␣take-back␣recycling␣program␣in␣California␣in␣response␣to␣
California's␣AB␣2449␣legislation.␣AB␣2449,␣effective␣July␣1,␣2007,␣requires␣most␣large␣
grocery␣stores␣and␣drug␣stores␣to␣offer␣in-store␣plastic␣bag␣recycling␣programs.␣Initial␣
advertising␣place␣on␣June␣11th␣was␣sponsored␣by␣additional␣program␣partners␣-␣the␣
California␣Retailers␣Association,␣California␣Grocers␣Association,␣and␣Keep␣California␣
Beautiful.␣Consumers␣will␣be␣educated␣to␣bring␣bags␣back␣to␣retail␣locations,␣where␣
the␣retailers␣will␣bale␣or␣otherwise␣package␣the␣material␣for␣markets.␣The␣role␣of␣the␣
PBA␣is␣to␣work␣with␣stores␣to␣find␣markets␣for␣the␣material.␣The␣PBA␣intends␣to␣
connect␣the␣stores␣with␣markets␣that␣will␣pay␣the␣stores␣for␣the␣material.␣In␣the␣U.S.,␣
recycling␣trends␣often␣begin␣in␣California␣and␣spread␣to␣other␣areas␣of␣the␣country.␣
With␣retail␣bag␣collection␣the␣costs␣are␣borne␣by␣the␣store␣and␣not␣the␣public␣
recycling␣agency.␣However,␣frequently␣local␣recycling␣coordinators␣are␣not␣partners␣in␣
establishing␣or␣operating␣these␣programs,␣leading␣to␣a␣lack␣of␣communication,␣gaps␣
in␣public␣education,␣and␣no␣accountability␣for␣the␣materials␣collected.␣␣The␣following␣
attributes␣can␣make␣a␣drop-off␣collection␣option␣a␣success:␣
The␣recycling␣bin(s)␣provided␣must␣be␣accessible,␣clean,␣attractive,␣and␣serviced␣
regularly␣
Public␣education␣must␣be␣a␣priority,␣with␣various␣media␣as␣well␣as␣in-store␣displays␣
used␣to␣communicate␣instructions␣on␣what␣and␣how␣to␣recycle␣at␣the␣store␣
The␣material␣collected␣must␣be␣properly␣handled,␣processed␣and␣marketed␣to␣a␣
reliable␣end␣use,␣and␣the␣public␣must␣be␣notified␣of␣this␣as␣part␣of␣the␣
educational␣program.␣
The␣local␣community␣could␣provide␣collection␣bins␣and␣P&E,␣while␣the␣store␣covers␣
the␣handling,␣processing␣and␣transportation␣costs␣to␣a␣processing␣center,␣either␣their␣
own␣distribution␣center␣and␣facility␣or␣the␣local␣MRF.␣
Curbside collection: Two-stream scenario
116 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
In␣this␣scenario␣(mainly␣employed␣in␣US),␣residents␣deposit␣their␣various␣household␣
bags␣and␣acceptable␣plastic␣films␣into␣one␣large␣plastic␣bag,␣and␣place␣it␣between␣the␣
containers␣blue␣box␣and␣the␣fibres␣blue␣box␣or␣bundle.␣The␣lightweight␣bag␣must␣be␣
wedged␣firmly␣in␣place␣to␣avoid␣being␣dislodged␣and␣windblown.␣The␣collection␣
vehicle␣operator␣picks␣up␣this␣large␣bag,␣simultaneously␣registering␣that␣it␣is␣feather-
light␣and␣squeezing␣it␣to␣ensure␣that␣no␣rigid␣objects␣are␣enclosed.␣If␣contamination␣
seems␣evident,␣the␣bag␣is␣left.␣
These␣bags␣of␣bags␣are␣then␣placed␣in␣yet␣another␣plastic␣bag␣of␣a␣large␣size,␣
approximately␣60␣gallons␣(227␣litres),␣hanging␣in␣a␣convenient␣place␣on␣the␣truck␣body.␣
Full␣bags␣are␣tied␣off␣and␣deposited␣in␣the␣newspaper␣or␣cardboard␣compartment␣of␣
the␣truck.␣␣
Curbside collection: Single-stream scenario
In␣single-stream␣systems,␣aggressive␣public␣education␣campaigns␣are␣needed␣to␣
ensure␣that␣residents␣again␣bag␣all␣their␣small␣bags␣and␣film␣products␣into␣one␣larger␣
bag,␣and␣place␣this␣bag␣in␣their␣blue␣box␣or␣collection␣bag.␣␣
In␣programs␣that␣use␣an␣enclosed␣cart␣for␣single-stream␣collection,␣a␣practice␣not␣yet␣
common␣in␣Ontario,␣residents␣should␣be␣educated␣not␣to␣deposit␣individual␣bags␣that␣
can␣fall␣or␣blow␣out␣of␣the␣cart␣during␣the␣collection␣tip.␣Because␣of␣the␣commingling␣
with␣all␣other␣materials,␣bags␣collected␣through␣single-stream␣programs␣may␣be␣more␣
costly␣to␣retrieve␣and␣of␣lesser␣quality.␣␣
Curbside collection: Blue or clear bag scenario
The␣larger␣collection␣bag␣for␣the␣smaller␣bags␣could␣be␣a␣separate␣blue␣or␣clear␣bag,␣
or␣another␣bag␣of␣bags␣could␣be␣stuffed␣into␣one␣blue/clear␣bag␣with␣the␣other␣
materials.␣This␣separate␣blue/clear␣bag␣is␣then␣picked␣up␣and␣thrown␣in␣the␣truck␣with␣
the␣rest␣of␣the␣bags,␣and␣possibly␣compacted.␣Again,␣the␣collection␣operator␣would␣
check␣for␣light␣weight␣and␣the␣presence␣of␣rigid␣objects.␣
Depot collection
Several␣containers,␣such␣as␣90-gallon␣roll␣carts,␣can␣be␣set␣up␣with␣PE␣liners␣for␣depot␣
users␣to␣deposit␣bags␣and␣film.␣Large␣display␣signs␣can␣be␣set␣up␣adjacent␣to␣these␣
containers␣illustrating␣the␣acceptable␣and␣non-acceptable␣materials␣for␣immediate,␣
on-site␣instruction␣and␣reinforcement.␣␣
As␣needed,␣the␣site␣attendant␣can␣visit␣the␣collection␣containers␣and␣use␣a␣tool␣to␣
compact␣the␣bags␣as␣much␣as␣possible␣in␣order␣to␣contain␣the␣largest␣number␣of␣
bags␣before␣tying␣off␣and␣replacing␣the␣liner␣bag.␣These␣large,␣stuffed␣bags␣may␣then␣
be␣stored␣in␣a␣covered␣dumpster␣or␣a␣compactor␣for␣later␣removal␣to␣the␣MRF.␣
Processing
The␣first␣point␣of␣capture␣for␣bags␣is␣the␣tip␣floor␣or␣a␣pre-sort␣station,␣before␣there␣is␣
any␣potential␣for␣the␣bags␣to␣open␣and␣scatter␣individual␣bags.␣␣Sorters␣on␣each␣
subsequent␣line␣should␣be␣trained␣to␣capture,␣bag,␣and␣then␣deposit␣any␣bags␣missed␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣117
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
in␣the␣pre-sort␣into␣a␣storage␣bunker.␣Sorters␣may␣also␣be␣trained␣to␣de-bag␣any␣
containers␣and␣fibres␣from␣plastic␣bags,␣but␣the␣recovery␣for␣recycling␣of␣these␣bags␣
which␣may␣contain␣residual␣products␣is␣questionable.␣
The␣most␣efficient␣way␣of␣moving␣bags␣from␣both␣the␣tip␣floor␣and␣the␣sort␣lines␣into␣
the␣storage␣bunker␣may␣be␣with␣a␣vacuum␣system.␣The␣vacuum␣system␣could␣load␣
an␣overhead␣storage␣bin␣to␣save␣space,␣due␣to␣the␣light␣weight␣of␣the␣material.␣The␣
vacuum␣system,␣or␣gravity,␣could␣also␣potentially␣load␣the␣material␣into␣the␣baler.␣␣
Automatic␣de-baggers␣that␣may␣be␣used␣in␣blue␣bag␣processing␣facilities␣could␣
potentially␣also␣open␣the␣smaller␣bag␣inside␣that␣contains␣the␣accumulated␣household␣
bags␣and␣scatter␣the␣smaller␣bags.␣Additionally,␣any␣blue␣bags␣that␣are␣stuffed␣full␣of␣
smaller␣bags␣only␣must␣be␣directed␣away␣from␣the␣de-bagger␣and␣directly␣to␣the␣baler.␣
Blue␣bags␣that␣held␣other␣recyclables␣may␣or␣may␣not␣be␣recyclable,␣depending␣on␣
the␣market␣specification␣for␣blue␣film␣and␣the␣degree␣of␣moisture␣and␣contamination␣
in␣these␣bags.␣
Baling␣film␣may␣be␣made␣easier␣and␣more␣frequent␣by␣adopting␣the␣"Sandwich␣Bale␣
™"␣pioneered␣by␣Wal-Mart␣stores.␣This␣is␣a␣bale␣with␣layers␣of␣film␣plastic␣alternating␣
with␣layers␣of␣cardboard.␣When␣the␣bale␣is␣broken␣open,␣the␣film␣and␣OCC␣layers␣
naturally␣and␣easily␣separate.␣However,␣a␣market␣must␣be␣found␣that␣will␣accept␣this␣
type␣of␣bale,␣and␣then␣separate␣the␣materials␣for␣further␣processing␣(Ontario␣market␣
availability␣for␣this␣products␣is␣unknown␣at␣this␣time).␣␣
Promotion and Education
Residents␣must␣be␣properly␣trained␣about␣the␣correct␣types␣of␣bags␣and␣films␣to␣
include␣for␣recycling,␣the␣types␣that␣are␣prohibited,␣and␣the␣acceptable␣way␣to␣
package␣the␣bags␣and␣film.␣Consistent␣and␣repetitive␣messages␣designed␣to␣motivate␣
change␣toward␣specific␣behaviours␣and␣habits␣must␣be␣applied␣rigorously␣using␣any␣
and␣all␣appropriate␣media␣channels.␣␣
The␣most␣important␣message␣is␣to␣"Bag␣the␣Bags".␣Additionally␣residents␣can␣be␣
educated␣about␣"Tying␣the␣Knot"␣before␣stuffing␣bags␣into␣the␣larger␣bags.␣␣
Markets
The␣American␣Chemistry␣Council's␣recycled␣plastics␣markets␣database␣lists␣six␣
companies␣in␣Ontario␣as␣buyers␣of␣post-consumer␣residential␣retail␣bags␣and␣other␣
films.␣Additionally␣fourteen␣companies␣are␣listed␣as␣buyers␣of␣"post-consumer,␣
industrial,␣commercial,␣institutional"␣bags␣and␣film,␣which␣may␣indicate␣that␣they␣
would␣purchase␣material␣collected␣in␣retail␣stores␣but␣not␣from␣MRFs.␣␣The␣largest␣
end-use␣for␣this␣material␣is␣composite␣plastic␣lumber␣products.␣Large␣amounts␣of␣
blue␣bags␣may␣reduce␣the␣quality␣and␣price␣of␣the␣material.␣
Ontario Communities Recycling Bags and Film
Fourteen␣communities␣in␣Ontario␣collect␣bags␣and␣film␣in␣their␣curbside␣programs␣
(some␣of␣these␣at␣their␣depots␣as␣well).␣Ten␣of␣these␣municipalities␣instruct␣residents␣
to␣place␣their␣bags␣and␣film␣inside␣one␣bag␣and␣tie␣it,␣then␣place␣this␣bag␣either␣in,␣or␣
118 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
beside,␣their␣blue␣box␣(or␣equivalent)␣for␣containers␣(one␣community␣is␣single-stream␣
but␣still␣uses␣blue␣boxes).␣Two␣communities␣instruct␣residents␣to␣place␣their␣bag␣in␣a␣
second,␣gray␣box␣with␣fibre␣products.␣One␣single␣stream␣community␣instructs␣
residents␣to␣place␣their␣bag␣inside␣their␣cart,␣and␣one␣blue␣bag␣community␣instructs␣
residents␣to␣use␣a␣separate␣blue␣or␣clear␣bag␣for␣household␣bags␣and␣film.␣␣
Eight␣communities␣that␣collect␣bags␣and␣film␣allow␣the␣most␣of␣the␣materials␣in␣the␣
complete␣EPIC␣list␣of␣grocery␣bags,␣retail␣shopping␣bags,␣newspaper␣sleeves,␣dry␣
cleaning␣bags,␣rinsed␣HDPE␣milk␣pouches␣and␣outer␣bags,␣bread␣bags,␣sandwich␣
bags␣and␣bulk␣food␣bags,␣diaper␣outer␣bags,␣frozen␣food␣bags,␣and␣over-wrap␣for␣
toilet␣tissue␣and␣paper␣towels.␣Five␣communities␣restrict␣the␣list␣to␣grocery␣bags␣
and/or␣shopping␣bags␣only.␣
␣
Implementing PE film handling Best Practices
Retail␣drop-off␣collection␣is␣the␣desired␣approach␣for␣film␣recycling,␣because␣costs␣are␣
shared␣by␣the␣retailer.␣Merchants␣have␣a␣business␣interest␣in␣providing␣recycling␣
services␣on-site␣for␣their␣store␣brand␣bags,␣as␣well␣as␣competitors'␣bags,␣and␣
residents␣would␣not␣have␣to␣make␣a␣special␣trip␣to␣recycle␣their␣bags.␣Active␣
partnership␣by␣the␣municipal␣recycling␣coordinator␣is␣necessary␣to␣promote␣the␣
program,␣build␣participation,␣and␣educate␣users.␣The␣preferred␣handling␣method␣is␣
back-haul␣of␣the␣material␣to␣a␣retailer's␣distribution␣facility␣for␣baling.␣If␣a␣MRF␣must␣
be␣used,␣the␣local␣recycling␣coordinator␣would␣be␣required␣to␣work␣with␣the␣facility␣to␣
minimize␣material␣handling␣issues.␣␣
For␣communities␣that␣decline␣to␣use␣retail␣collection,␣or␣wish␣to␣supplement␣it␣with␣
another␣method,␣depot␣collection␣is␣the␣next␣preferred␣method.␣Depots␣take␣
advantage␣of␣the␣"free"␣labour␣and␣energy␣expended␣by␣residents␣in␣bringing␣this␣
lightweight␣material␣to␣the␣location,␣as␣opposed␣to␣capture␣at␣every␣individual␣
household.␣Site␣attendants,␣where␣they␣are␣used,␣can␣monitor␣for␣contamination␣and␣
provide␣additional␣packaging␣and␣even␣compaction␣of␣the␣bags␣prior␣to␣delivery␣to␣the␣
MRF.␣Adding␣bags␣to␣an␣existing␣depot␣would␣add␣very␣little␣incremental␣cost␣in␣
terms␣of␣land,␣labour,␣and␣other␣factors.␣
For␣those␣communities␣that␣prefer␣to␣collect␣bags␣and␣films␣at␣curbside,␣the␣following␣
practices␣should␣be␣followed:␣␣
Emphasize␣public␣education,␣specifically␣the␣"Bag␣Your␣Bags"␣message␣
Use␣a␣set-out␣method␣that␣minimizes␣opportunities␣for␣bags␣to␣become␣
windblown␣litter␣
Utilize␣vehicle␣operators␣to␣check␣for␣contamination␣and␣leave␣bags␣that␣are␣
contaminated␣as␣an␣educational␣tool␣
Combine␣large␣full␣bags␣with␣the␣fibre␣portion␣of␣the␣load␣in␣the␣truck␣to␣facilitate␣
separation␣and␣removal␣at␣the␣MRF␣and␣to␣minimize␣bag␣breakage␣and␣
contamination␣due␣to␣contact␣with␣broken,␣sharp-edged␣or␣wet␣recyclable␣
containers.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣119
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
For␣MRF␣processing␣of␣bags,␣effort␣should␣be␣made␣to␣remove␣bagged␣bags␣
immediately␣after␣tipping␣or␣at␣a␣pre-sort␣station,␣before␣the␣bags␣can␣encounter␣MRF␣
equipment.␣Handling␣of␣bags␣and␣contact␣with␣other␣recyclables␣should␣be␣minimized.␣
In␣blue␣bag␣systems,␣care␣should␣be␣used␣with␣automatic␣bag␣breakers.␣Vacuum␣
equipment␣may␣be␣an␣effective␣way␣of␣moving␣the␣material.␣
The␣highest␣value␣markets␣should␣be␣sought␣for␣the␣bags␣and␣film.␣To␣obtain␣these␣
markets,␣producing␣high␣quality␣material␣must␣be␣a␣priority␣that␣begins␣with␣public␣
education␣and␣continues␣throughout␣the␣handling␣and␣sorting␣process.␣Residents␣
must␣be␣taught␣what␣to␣include␣and␣what␣is␣prohibited;␣operators␣must␣leave␣behind␣
contaminated␣bags;␣contact␣with␣other␣materials␣at␣the␣MRF␣should␣be␣minimized.␣
Markets␣should␣be␣consulted␣about␣the␣impact␣of␣recycling␣plastic␣bags␣in␣which␣
other␣recyclables␣were␣mistakenly␣packaged␣by␣the␣residents␣and␣of␣recycling␣blue␣or␣
clear␣collection␣bags␣(specifically,␣the␣impact␣of␣the␣blue␣bags␣should␣be␣assessed).␣␣
Ontario␣communities␣are␣already␣recycling␣bags␣and␣films␣through␣curbside␣and␣drop-
off␣systems.␣If␣such␣programs␣are␣to␣be␣considered␣for␣widespread␣implementation␣
in␣the␣province,␣more␣data␣should␣be␣gathered␣from␣these␣communities␣about␣the␣
costs␣and␣operational␣impacts␣of␣such␣programs␣in␣order␣to␣accurately␣document␣
best␣practices␣and␣to␣encourage␣continual␣improvement.␣Program␣costs␣should␣be␣
justified␣in␣the␣overall␣recycling␣program␣budget,␣taking␣into␣consideration␣the␣
community's␣waste␣reduction␣and␣recycling␣goals␣and␣how␣bag␣and␣film␣recycling␣
helps␣them␣meet␣those␣goals.␣␣
␣
Section B: Best Practices in Handling Polystyrene
Polystyrene␣resin␣is␣both␣effective␣and␣efficient␣in␣its␣original␣use␣-␣as␣packaging␣
material.␣It␣is␣inexpensive␣to␣manufacture;␣therefore␣the␣costs␣of␣its␣original␣
production␣and␣transportation␣are␣considered␣a␣reasonable␣trade-off␣for␣its␣many␣
benefits.␣However,␣a␣cost-effective␣scheme␣for␣its␣post-use␣management␣is␣elusive␣
because:␣
It␣diffuses␣into␣society␣in␣its␣many␣uses,␣and␣bringing␣it␣back␣together␣in␣quantities␣
large␣enough␣to␣process␣and␣market␣is␣challenging␣
Its␣many␣shapes␣and␣forms␣render␣it␣difficult␣to␣efficiently␣package␣for␣transport,␣
post-use␣
The␣costs␣become␣larger␣as␣the␣product's␣quality␣is␣degraded;␣these␣costs␣can␣no␣
longer␣be␣covered␣in␣the␣price␣
While␣polystyrene␣accounts␣for␣less␣than␣one␣percent␣of␣the␣municipal␣waste␣stream,␣
at␣certain␣times␣of␣year,␣such␣as␣the␣holidays␣or␣consumer␣goods␣sales␣events,␣it␣
becomes␣a␣significant␣and␣challenging␣component␣of␣the␣household-generated␣waste.␣␣␣
In␣handling␣it,␣municipalities␣face␣a␣number␣of␣obstacles.␣␣Chief␣among␣them␣are:␣
Polystyrene␣foam␣exhibits␣a␣very␣high␣volume␣to␣weight␣ratio,␣making␣economical␣
transportation␣a␣challenge␣
120 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Polystyrene␣foam␣breaks␣easily␣when␣processed␣through␣MRF␣equipment,␣leading␣
to␣contamination␣of␣marketed␣materials␣and␣affecting␣the␣cleanliness␣of␣the␣
facility␣
Polystyrene␣foam␣does␣not␣compress␣in␣the␣baling␣process,␣and␣may␣break␣into␣
smaller␣pieces␣
Foamed␣PS␣meat␣and␣produce␣trays␣have␣high␣potential␣of␣food␣contamination,␣
possibly␣leading␣to␣sanitation␣issues␣at␣MRFs␣
Current Collection and Processing
According␣to␣the␣Canadian␣Polystyrene␣Recycling␣Association␣(CPRA),␣11␣Canadian␣
municipalities␣are␣collecting␣polystyrene␣in␣their␣curbside␣programs,␣and␣another␣
three␣are␣collecting␣through␣depot␣or␣special␣collection␣events␣only.␣However,␣some␣
of␣these␣municipalities␣are␣located␣in␣other␣provinces,␣and␣at␣least␣six␣Ontario␣
programs,␣which␣the␣CPRA␣does␣not␣list,␣are␣known␣to␣collect␣polystyrene.␣␣These␣
communities␣all␣prohibit␣loose-fill␣polystyrene␣packaging␣("popcorn"␣or␣"peanuts")␣in␣
their␣programs.␣␣
Since␣the␣CPRA␣standards␣require␣baling,␣it␣is␣assumed␣that␣most␣of␣the␣foamed␣PS␣
is␣baled.␣Some␣material␣from␣depot␣collection,␣if␣close␣to␣the␣CPRA␣plant,␣may␣be␣
delivered␣loose.␣
Promotion and Education
There␣is␣no␣model␣for␣P&E␣for␣polystyrene␣products␣because␣each␣municipality's␣
program␣reflects␣their␣unique␣collection␣and␣processing␣constraints,␣as␣shown␣by␣the␣
following␣examples:␣
The␣City␣of␣Kingston␣allows␣"Plastic/Styrofoam"␣containers␣in␣the␣blue␣box.␣Rigid␣
and␣foamed␣plastic␣containers␣are␣allowed,␣but␣not␣loose␣fill␣packaging␣and␣
protective␣foam␣must␣measure␣less␣than␣36"x24"x8"␣
The␣City␣of␣Peterborough␣allows␣rigid␣PS␣baked␣goods␣trays␣"marked␣#6␣only"␣and␣
foamed␣PS␣food␣containers␣(meat␣trays,␣egg␣cartons)␣in␣the␣blue␣box;␣however,␣
foamed␣packing␣material␣is␣accepted␣only␣at␣drop-off␣
The␣County␣of␣Wellington␣presumably␣allows␣rigid␣polystyrene␣packages␣in␣the␣
blue␣box,␣as␣their␣guidelines␣are␣broad␣and␣do␣not␣use␣the␣resin␣identification␣
code.␣However,␣Styrofoam␣is␣specifically␣prohibited␣
Northumberland␣County␣collects␣foamed␣polystyrene␣"cushion"␣packaging␣at␣
special␣collection␣events␣after␣the␣holiday␣season.␣Food␣packaging␣is␣prohibited.␣
The␣material␣is␣accumulated␣in␣roll-off␣containers␣at␣drop-off␣depots.␣The␣County␣
also␣accepts␣PS␣food␣containers␣in␣its␣curbside␣program␣as␣a␣component␣of␣
"Plastic␣Jars,␣Bottles␣and␣Containers␣#1-7"␣
Markets
A␣polystyrene␣market␣currently␣exists␣in␣Ontario.␣␣CPRA,␣an␣82,000␣square-foot␣
facility␣located␣in␣Peel␣Region␣(Mississauga),␣is␣designed␣specifically␣to␣recycle␣and␣
sell␣polystyrene␣from␣the␣industrial,␣commercial␣and␣consumer␣waste␣streams.␣The␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣121
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
plant␣capacity␣is␣about␣5,000␣tonnes␣per␣year.␣␣␣
Polystyrene␣is␣recycled␣into␣office␣
desktop␣accessories,␣nursery␣trays,␣automotive␣and␣hardware␣accessories,␣audio␣and␣
video␣cassette␣cases,␣vacuum␣cleaner␣attachments␣and␣building␣products.␣
CPRA␣purchases␣two␣grades␣of␣polystyrene␣bales:␣Type␣A␣contains␣both␣rigid␣and␣
foam␣PS␣and␣Type␣B␣contains␣only␣foam␣PS.␣Type␣A␣bales␣allow␣10␣percent␣
contamination␣while␣Type␣B␣bales␣allow␣15␣percent␣contamination.␣The␣CSR␣Price␣
Sheet␣shows␣that␣CPRA␣is␣currently␣paying␣75␣CDN$/tonne␣for␣material␣delivered␣to␣
their␣facility.␣This␣price␣has␣not␣changed␣since␣2001.␣
␣
Implementation
Ontario␣is␣fortunate␣to␣have␣a␣major␣end-use␣processor␣for␣polystyrene␣accepting␣
both␣foamed␣and␣rigid␣grades,␣either␣separated␣or␣mixed.␣For␣polystyrene,␣the␣
constraints␣to␣recycling␣are␣issues␣related␣to␣handling␣and␣transportation,␣not␣markets.␣
Some␣municipalities␣in␣Ontario␣are␣recycling␣polystyrene,␣both␣the␣rigid␣and␣the␣
foamed,␣at␣depots,␣at␣special␣collection␣events,␣and␣through␣curbside.␣However,␣a␣
"model"␣program␣has␣not␣been␣identified,␣and␣very␣little␣is␣known␣about␣the␣handling␣
issues,␣processing␣issues␣and␣costs␣of␣such␣programs␣
Communities␣that␣wish␣to␣add␣polystyrene␣to␣their␣recycling␣programs␣should␣begin␣
with␣special␣collection␣events␣limited␣to␣foamed␣PS,␣tied␣to␣the␣holidays␣or␣periodic␣
sales␣on␣consumer␣goods␣such␣as␣appliances␣and␣electronics.␣These␣events␣can␣be␣
held␣at␣existing␣recycling␣depots,␣or,␣if␣arrangements␣can␣be␣made,␣in␣partnership␣
with␣retailers␣selling␣these␣goods␣and␣possibly␣held␣at␣malls␣and␣shopping␣centres␣
(similar␣to␣one␣method␣for␣collecting␣end-of-life␣electronics␣and␣possibly␣in␣tandem␣
with␣such␣an␣event).␣The␣benefits␣of␣holding␣these␣events␣are:␣␣
The␣public␣will␣provide␣the␣"free"␣transportation␣and␣sorting␣labour␣
A␣container␣is␣not␣dedicated␣full-time␣at␣a␣depot␣while␣a␣sufficient␣quantity␣to␣
process␣and␣ship␣is␣accumulated,␣with␣associated␣weather,␣storage␣space␣and␣
contamination␣issues␣
It␣may␣offer␣an␣opportunity␣for␣increased␣public␣awareness␣of␣the␣community␣
recycling␣program.␣This␣is␣a␣way␣to␣keep␣costs␣under␣control␣yet␣still␣offer␣a␣
service␣that␣many␣residents␣deem␣valuable.␣
Communities␣that␣wish␣to␣provide␣an␣ongoing␣polystyrene␣collection␣program␣for␣
citizens␣should␣look␣first␣to␣depot␣collection.␣A␣separate␣collection␣container␣for␣
foamed␣polystyrene␣would␣add␣only␣incremental␣costs␣to␣the␣depot␣operation;␣
however,␣it␣would␣most␣likely␣need␣to␣be␣a␣covered␣container.␣Ongoing␣storage␣
space␣would␣also␣be␣needed.␣The␣rigid␣polystyrene␣containers␣could␣be␣added␣to␣a␣
"non-bottle␣rigid"␣plastic␣collection␣stream.␣Several␣marketing␣options␣exist␣for␣this␣
material,␣including␣baling␣with␣the␣other␣rigid␣containers␣for␣export,␣or␣sorting␣to␣
separate␣the␣HDPE,␣PET␣and␣PP␣then␣baling␣with␣the␣foamed␣PS.␣The␣advantage␣of␣
collecting␣non-bottle␣rigid␣PS␣at␣depots␣is␣that␣the␣public␣could␣be␣trained␣to␣sort␣
these␣from␣the␣plastic␣bottles␣by␣placing␣them␣in␣separate␣containers.␣␣
122 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
The␣next␣level␣of␣collection,␣if␣a␣community␣strongly␣desired␣to␣provide␣this␣service␣or␣
if␣the␣collection␣at␣special␣events␣and␣depots␣proved␣impractical,␣would␣be␣curbside␣
collection␣of␣polystyrene.␣Again,␣collecting␣the␣PS␣rigid␣containers␣mixed␣with␣other␣
plastics␣would␣not␣be␣difficult␣at␣the␣curb,␣but␣market␣research␣would␣need␣to␣be␣
conducted␣to␣determine␣the␣degree␣of␣MRF␣sorting␣needed.␣The␣foamed␣polystyrene␣
would␣pose␣challenges␣in␣the␣areas␣of␣potential␣blowing␣litter,␣space␣in␣the␣collection␣
truck,␣and␣then␣MRF␣storage␣and␣baling.␣Foamed␣loose-fill␣packaging,␣called␣
"peanuts"␣or␣"popcorn"␣should␣be␣excluded␣due␣to␣serious␣litter␣concerns.␣␣␣␣
Regardless␣of␣the␣collection␣method␣chosen,␣communities␣need␣to␣calculate␣the␣
transportation␣costs␣to␣the␣CPRA␣and␣determine␣if␣a␣polystyrene␣recycling␣program␣
can␣fit␣into␣their␣overall␣budget,␣given␣the␣impact␣polystyrene␣has␣on␣their␣recovery␣
rates␣and␣waste␣reduction␣goals.␣
Transportation␣and␣material␣storage␣will␣be␣the␣most␣costly␣elements␣of␣a␣
polystyrene␣collection␣program.␣Food␣contamination␣could␣be␣costly␣in␣terms␣of␣
downgrading␣marketed␣loads,␣and␣public␣education␣materials␣should␣stress␣that␣food␣
containers␣must␣be␣rinsed␣before␣recycling.␣
Additional␣research␣is␣needed␣into␣the␣practices␣of␣communities␣currently␣collecting␣
and␣processing␣polystyrene,␣to␣determine␣more␣specific␣details␣on␣operational␣issues,␣
costs,␣and␣opportunities␣for␣improvement.␣
␣
Section C: Best Practices in Handling Oversized PET Bottles
Large␣size␣PET␣water␣bottles,␣from␣8␣to␣15␣litres,␣are␣being␣marketed␣in␣Canada␣by␣at␣
least␣two␣bottled␣water␣companies.␣These␣bottles,␣designed␣for␣home␣dispensing␣
units,␣are␣displacing␣the␣15␣to␣18␣litre␣polycarbonate,␣multi-use␣water␣bottles␣
captured␣by␣a␣deposit-return␣system.␣They␣are␣increasingly␣being␣found␣in␣the␣blue␣
box␣program␣as␣residents␣correctly␣interpret␣them␣as␣being␣recyclable.␣These␣bottles␣
are␣mandated␣to␣be␣recycled␣by␣Part␣1␣of␣Schedule␣1␣of␣Ontario␣Regulation␣101/94␣by␣
virtue␣of␣the␣non-size␣specific␣definition␣of␣the␣PET␣beverage␣bottle.␣␣␣
Recycling␣oversized␣PET␣bottles␣is␣facilitated␣by:␣
␣Their␣larger␣size.␣␣PET␣water␣bottles␣weigh␣up␣to␣50␣grams,␣capturing␣a␣
significant␣amount␣of␣material␣in␣each␣handling␣step␣
Packaging␣contents.␣␣Since␣they␣only␣package␣water,␣bottles␣are␣not␣contaminated␣
by␣contents␣
However,␣these␣materials␣present␣some␣issues␣for␣program␣operators.␣␣These␣
include:␣
The␣large␣size␣of␣the␣bottles␣makes␣them␣a␣challenge␣to␣collect␣in␣traditional␣blue␣
boxes,␣as␣they␣take␣up␣more␣space␣in␣the␣box␣and␣on␣the␣collection␣truck␣
MRFs␣must␣remove␣these␣bottles␣early␣in␣the␣sorting␣process␣in␣the␣same␣step␣as␣
removal␣of␣buckets␣and␣large␣contaminants␣
Some␣MRFs␣may␣not␣have␣storage␣space␣for␣the␣additional␣bottle␣stream␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣123
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Collection
These␣large␣size␣PET␣bottles␣take␣up␣one-third␣of␣the␣volume␣of␣a␣typical␣blue␣box,␣
and␣a␣correspondingly␣large␣ratio␣of␣space␣in␣a␣single-stream␣or␣blue␣bag␣program.␣
They␣also␣take␣up␣more␣space␣in␣the␣collection␣trucks.␣While␣scenarios␣about␣trucks␣
making␣extra␣trips␣to␣MRFs␣solely␣because␣the␣large␣PET␣bottles␣have␣filled␣the␣
compartments␣have␣been␣imagined,␣no␣evidence␣exists␣that␣this␣is␣a␣risk␣with␣the␣
current␣market␣penetration.␣␣The␣impact␣of␣bottle␣size␣is␣less␣significant␣at␣depots,␣
where␣containers␣are␣larger.␣For␣communities␣desiring␣to␣recover␣these␣bottles,␣an␣
additional␣bin␣dedicated␣to␣these␣larger␣size␣containers␣could␣be␣provided.␣
Distinguishing␣of␣these␣bottles␣by␣the␣public␣should␣be␣relatively␣easy.␣
Processing
The␣first␣point␣of␣capture␣for␣the␣large␣PET␣bottles␣is␣the␣tip␣floor,␣where␣they␣are␣
pulled␣from␣the␣incoming␣container␣stream,␣much␣as␣buckets␣and␣large␣contaminants␣
are␣removed.␣Virtually␣all␣of␣the␣PET␣bottles␣separated␣on␣the␣tip␣floor␣at␣Ontario␣
MRFs␣are␣currently␣being␣discarded.␣
If␣the␣bottles␣are␣allowed␣to␣continue␣up␣the␣in-feed␣conveyor,␣in␣MRFs␣that␣have␣
shaker␣screens␣for␣separating␣containers␣from␣fibre,␣these␣PET␣bottles␣end␣up␣in␣the␣
fibre␣stream␣due␣to␣their␣size,␣weight␣and␣shape,␣and␣they␣are␣discarded␣there.␣In␣
MRFs␣without␣screens,␣the␣bottles␣still␣may␣be␣too␣large␣to␣fit␣in␣the␣sorting␣chutes␣
for␣the␣smaller␣PET␣bottles.␣␣Furthermore,␣most␣balers␣are␣capable␣of␣compressing␣
these␣bottles,␣either␣in␣a␣mixed␣PET␣bale␣or␣as␣a␣specialty␣bale.␣
Installing␣a␣dedicated,␣PET␣bottle-only␣grinder␣at␣the␣point␣of␣first␣removal␣may␣be␣the␣
most␣efficient␣processing␣method␣for␣these␣bottles.␣This␣alternative␣would␣require␣
capital␣investment,␣operator␣training,␣Gaylord␣boxes␣for␣material␣storage,␣and␣a␣
willing␣market.␣
Promotion and Education
It␣is␣unknown␣how␣many␣communities␣in␣Ontario␣are␣prohibiting␣these␣bottles␣and␣
clearly␣stating␣the␣prohibition␣in␣their␣promotion/education␣material.␣␣Motivating␣
residents␣to␣recycle␣these␣bottles,␣if␣such␣action␣is␣desirable,␣would␣most␣likely␣be␣
relatively␣easy,␣as␣the␣bottles␣are␣unique␣and␣easily␣identified.␣
Markets
PET␣re-claimers␣may␣refuse␣to␣accept␣any␣large␣PET␣water␣bottles␣mixed␣with␣the␣
other␣PET␣because␣their␣size␣makes␣them␣problematic.␣They␣are␣simply␣too␣big␣for␣
the␣clearance␣between␣the␣high-speed␣conveyors␣and␣the␣automated␣bottle␣sorting␣
units␣that␣most␣re-claimers␣utilize.␣The␣bottles␣have␣enough␣"memory"␣to␣spring␣
back␣into␣a␣larger␣shape␣when␣de-baled.␣Even␣a␣few␣of␣these␣bottles␣can␣cause␣pile-
ups␣on␣the␣sorting␣lines,␣which␣can␣happen␣very␣quickly␣and␣require␣line␣shut-down␣to␣
clear.␣
If␣markets␣are␣willing␣to␣accept␣these␣bottles,␣most␣would␣prefer␣these␣bottles␣to␣be␣
baled␣separately,␣but␣may␣accept␣these␣bales␣on␣the␣same␣truck␣with␣the␣other␣PET␣
124 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
bales.␣␣Markets␣for␣ground␣material␣exist,␣but␣would␣have␣to␣agree␣to␣purchase␣
material␣ground␣in␣a␣MRF.␣
If␣the␣bottles␣are␣made␣from␣a␣standard␣bottle␣resin␣with␣an␣intrinsic␣viscosity␣(I.V.)␣in␣
the␣8.4␣range,␣and␣are␣made␣in␣a␣two-stage,␣injection-stretch␣blow␣moulded␣process,␣
they␣are␣fully␣compatible␣with␣existing␣PET␣markets.␣␣Some␣bottles␣may␣be␣made␣
from␣a␣higher-I.V.␣material␣in␣a␣one-stage␣process.␣There␣is␣concern␣that␣these␣
bottles␣are␣not␣compatible␣in␣existing␣PET␣bottle␣markets.␣
␣
Implementation
Virtually␣all␣communities␣in␣Ontario␣that␣receive␣these␣bottles␣for␣recycling␣are␣
currently␣discarding␣them.␣Given␣the␣uncertainties,␣and␣the␣currently␣small␣market␣
penetration␣of␣this␣product,␣the␣impact␣of␣disposal␣by␣the␣MRFs␣on␣the␣solid␣waste␣
stream␣is␣not␣yet␣significant.␣␣
Currently␣much␣is␣unknown␣about␣the␣market␣penetration,␣recycling␣market␣demand,␣
or␣resin␣composition␣of␣these␣8␣to␣15-litre␣PET␣water␣bottles.␣PET␣markets␣have␣
indicated␣publicly␣a␣desire␣for␣more␣recovered␣post-consumer␣PET␣of␣the␣current,␣
typical␣composition;␣it␣is␣not␣known␣to␣what␣extent␣they␣would␣accept␣the␣larger␣
bottles␣due␣to␣equipment␣constraints.␣␣
Communities␣wishing␣to␣recover␣these␣bottles,␣either␣through␣depot␣or␣curbside␣
collection,␣should␣first␣find␣out␣whether␣the␣bottles␣sold␣in␣their␣region␣were␣all␣of␣the␣
same␣resin␣composition.␣If␣they␣were,␣and␣the␣likelihood␣of␣this␣changing␣was␣small,␣
the␣community␣would␣then␣seek␣markets␣for␣the␣material,␣either␣baled␣separately␣or␣
ground.␣If␣markets␣were␣found,␣a␣system␣of␣handling␣the␣material␣to␣facilitate␣
recovery␣at␣the␣appropriate␣point␣would␣be␣needed.␣␣
A␣retail␣store␣take-back␣program␣could␣be␣explored␣for␣these␣bottles,␣with␣the␣
recovered␣bottles␣delivered␣to␣the␣MRF␣in␣large␣loads␣and␣handled,␣baled␣and␣
marketed␣separately.␣For␣communities␣that␣choose␣to␣recycle␣these␣bottles␣curbside,␣
a␣second␣blue␣box␣could␣be␣provided␣for␣residents.␣␣
Sources and Links
PE Film
Recycled␣Products␣and␣Markets␣Databases,␣American␣Chemistry␣Council:␣
http://www.plasticsresource.com/s_plasticsresource/sec.asp?TRACKID=&CID=86&
DID=127␣
The␣Online␣Resource␣for␣Film␣Recovery␣in␣California:␣
http://www.plasticbagrecycling.info/coord.php␣
California␣Integrated␣Waste␣Management␣Board,␣AB␣2449␣-␣Recycling␣Plastic␣
Carryout␣Bags␣
www.ciwmb.ca.gov/lgcentral/basics/plasticbag.htm␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣125
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Canadian␣Plastics␣Industry␣Association␣(CPIA),␣Environment␣and␣Plastics␣Industry␣
Council␣(EPIC):␣"Best Practices Guide for the Collection and Handling of Polyethylene
Plastic Bags and Film in Municipal Curbside Recycling Programs".␣
CSR␣Online:␣"The␣Price␣Sheet",␣http://www.csr.org/pricesheet/pricesheet.htm␣
"It's in the Bag: The Direction of Residential Film Recycling",␣Patty␣Moore,␣Moore␣
Recycling␣Associates␣and␣Kim␣Holmes,␣Plastics␣Recycling␣Update;␣Plastics Recycling
2007,␣February␣13-14,␣Dallas,␣Texas.␣
"Blue Box Residential Recycling Best Practices - A Private Sector Perspective",␣
Guilford␣and␣Associates␣for␣Stewardship␣Ontario␣and␣the␣Ontario␣Waste␣
Management␣Association,␣February␣1,␣2007.␣
"County of Santa Cruz - Film Plastic Recycling",␣Dan␣DeGrassi,␣Santa␣Cruz␣County;␣
Plastics Recycling 2007,␣February␣13-14,␣Dallas,␣Texas.␣
Polystyrene
EPIC␣Polystyrene␣Fact␣Sheet:
http://www.cpia.ca/files/files/files_Fact_Sheet_on_Polystyrene.doc␣
CSR␣Online:␣The␣Price␣Sheet:␣http://www.csr.org/pdf/pricesheet/2007/03_2007ps.pdf␣
Fact␣Sheet:␣"Polystyrene and the Environment",␣American␣Chemistry␣Council's␣
Plastics␣Foodservice␣Packaging␣Group:
http://www.polystyrene.org/environment/environment.html␣
Oversized PET Bottles
"Improving the Efficiency of the Blue Box Program", an␣AMO/AMRC␣Position␣Paper,␣
July␣2006:␣http://www.amrc.ca/policy/Improving␣
126 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Other␣Practices␣Meriting␣Consideration␣
Other␣practices␣that␣could␣not␣be␣validated␣through␣the␣use␣of␣the␣fact-based␣
evidence␣framework␣or␣which␣evoked␣disagreement␣among␣project␣team␣members␣
that␣could␣not␣be␣resolved␣are␣listed␣in␣this␣section.␣␣These␣should␣not␣be␣construed␣
as␣guidance;␣instead,␣municipalities␣can␣use␣this␣list␣as␣pool␣of␣ideas␣that␣may␣be␣of␣
benefit␣to␣the␣local␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣In␣fact,␣due␣to␣the␣isolated␣circumstances␣
under␣which␣they␣are␣employed,␣some␣practice␣polar␣opposites␣of␣each␣other.␣
Therefore,␣additional␣analysis␣and␣feasibility␣studies␣need␣to␣be␣conducted␣in␣order␣to␣
determine␣the␣applicability␣of␣these␣practices␣to␣any␣given␣program.␣␣Most␣of␣these␣
were␣not␣discussed␣in␣this␣report.␣However,␣the␣Project␣Team␣did␣elect␣to␣discuss␣
the␣pros␣and␣cons␣of␣various␣collection␣frequency␣options,␣including␣co-collection,␣
given␣the␣variety␣of␣collection␣patterns␣prevalent␣in␣Ontario␣today.␣␣It␣is␣important␣to␣
note␣that␣the␣reason␣why␣these␣various␣options␣are␣listed␣below␣is␣that␣we␣could␣not␣
document␣any␣of␣them␣as␣being␣"best."␣␣
␣
Practice
Benefits
Municipalities
Observed Employing
the Practice
General
Governance␣structure␣where␣the␣entity␣
that␣serves␣as␣program␣coordinator␣is␣
empowered␣to␣act␣on␣behalf␣of␣
jurisdictions␣in␣the␣region␣to␣provide␣
Blue␣Box␣services␣
Ability␣to␣make␣decisions␣that␣are␣best␣for␣the␣
program␣
Coordinated␣P&E,␣policies␣and␣incentives␣
More␣agile,␣responsive␣program␣␣
Political␣influence␣is␣reduced␣
Bluewater,␣Peel,␣Wellington␣
County,␣Cochrane␣Temiskaming␣
Waste␣Management␣Board,␣
OVWRC,␣Muskoka,␣Simcoe,␣County␣
of␣Peterborough␣
Shifting␣capital␣expenses␣such␣as␣
collection␣vehicles␣onto␣contractors␣
Program␣doesn't␣have␣to␣compete␣with␣other␣
municipal␣services␣for␣capital␣funds␣
Contractor␣makes␣capital␣decisions␣that␣are␣
best␣for␣its␣operation␣
No␣need␣to␣accumulate␣and␣manage␣capital␣
reserve␣funds␣␣␣
Halton,␣Orillia,␣Russell,␣Muskoka,␣
Carling,␣Simcoe,␣Ottawa,␣Cornwall,␣
OVWRC,␣Waterloo␣
Promotion␣of␣other␣waste␣reduction,␣
diversion,␣and␣environmental␣quality␣
programs␣
Improves␣environmental␣ethic␣resulting␣in␣
increased␣Blue␣Box␣participation␣and␣diversion␣
Hamilton,␣City␣of␣Peterborough,␣
Russell,␣Muskoka,␣Carling,␣Simcoe,␣
Ottawa,␣Cornwall,␣OVWRC,␣
Waterloo,␣York,␣␣
Collection
Bag-based␣collection␣
Reduced␣collection␣cost␣
Ability␣to␣compact␣recyclables␣and␣minimize␣
glass␣breakage␣
Surge␣capacity␣for␣bin␣overflow␣
Thunder␣Bay,␣Northumberland␣
County,␣Peel␣(bin␣overflow)␣
ctice
ht␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣127
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Weekly␣collection␣
Higher␣tonnes␣recovered␣(SERA␣study␣found␣
that␣weekly␣collection␣increases␣recycling␣rate␣
by␣2␣to␣4␣percentage␣points).␣
Russell,␣Cornwall,␣Waterloo,␣York,␣
Simcoe,␣Muskoka,␣County␣of␣
Peterborough␣␣
Alternating␣weekly␣collection␣of␣fibres␣
and␣containers␣(two␣boxes)␣
20␣percent␣contractor␣bid␣savings␣
Less␣seconds␣per␣stop␣
Cube␣out␣collection␣vehicles␣
Items␣are␣pre-sorted,␣saving␣on␣collection␣and␣
processing␣
Sufficient␣capacity␣in␣recycling␣containers␣
needed␣
Kingston,␣OVWRC,␣Ottawa␣
Bi-weekly␣collection␣␣
Reduce␣collection␣time␣and␣transportation␣
costs␣
Requires␣provision␣of␣sufficient␣Blue␣Box␣
capacity␣
Positive␣impacts␣noted␣in␣rural␣areas␣and␣
single␣stream␣programs␣with␣carts␣(Toronto␣
found␣that␣carts␣allow␣recycling␣frequency␣at␣
once␣every␣two␣weeks/␣improves␣recycling␣
capture␣by␣at␣least␣10%/␣facilitates␣automated␣
collection)␣
Windsor,␣Southgate,␣Halton,␣
Timmins,␣Toronto␣
Co-collection␣of␣recyclables␣with␣other␣
waste␣streams␣
Reduce␣transportation␣costs␣
Need␣to␣travel␣down␣the␣road␣less␣frequently␣
Toronto,␣Southgate,␣Bluewater,␣
Peel␣
Collection␣on␣one␣side␣of␣the␣street␣in␣a␣
rural␣setting␣
Reduce␣collection␣time␣␣
Reduce␣transportation␣costs␣
Increase␣safety␣liability␣
Difficult␣in␣winter␣conditions␣
May␣result␣in␣safety␣issues␣
May␣not␣be␣compatible␣with␣PAYT␣
Quinte,␣Bluewater␣
Front␣end␣containers␣for␣depot␣service␣
Lower␣collection␣costs,␣but␣limited␣to␣
programs␣with␣several␣depot␣locations␣
Bluewater␣
Development␣of␣incentives␣/␣penalties␣
for␣collectors␣based␣on␣contamination␣
rates␣
Provides␣incentive␣for␣collectors␣to␣be␣more␣
discriminate␣in␣including␣items␣obviously␣not␣
recyclable␣
Ottawa,␣Waterloo,␣OVWRC,␣York␣
Processing
Municipally␣owned␣MRF␣facility␣and␣
equipment␣
Flexibility␣on␣adjusting␣recovery␣of␣
materials/grades/residue␣levels␣
Preservation␣of␣capital␣investment␣
Northumberland,␣Kingston␣(MRF␣
maintenance),␣Quinte,␣Essex␣
Windsor,␣Toronto␣(Dufferin␣MRF),␣
Waterloo,␣Simcoe␣(Only␣some␣
processed␣there),␣York,␣Cornwall,␣
OVWRC␣
128 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Use␣of␣technology␣and␣early␣in␣the␣
process.␣
Greater␣recovery␣of␣valuable␣commodities␣
Less␣dependency␣on␣labour␣force␣
Cleaner␣commodities␣
Less␣rejections␣
Bluewater,␣Cornwall␣
Compaction␣of␣residue␣for␣disposal␣
Reduced␣disposal␣costs␣
Potential␣to␣market␣residue␣for␣resorting␣
Some␣programs␣have␣found␣baling␣residue␣to␣
be␣cost-effective␣
Kingston␣
Peel␣
Northumberland␣County␣
Use␣negative␣sorting␣technique␣
whenever␣possible␣
Maximize␣workforce␣usage␣
Lower␣labour␣cost␣
Quinte,␣Windsor,␣Bluewater,␣
Simcoe,␣␣
Knowledge␣and␣application␣of␣ANSI␣
Z245.41-2004␣Standard␣
Less␣injury␣
More␣productive␣and␣happier␣employees␣
Cleaner␣commodities␣
York,␣Peel,␣Toronto,␣Bluewater,␣
OVWRC,␣␣
Ergonomically␣designed␣equipment␣
Less␣injury␣
More␣productive␣and␣happier␣employees␣
Cleaner␣commodities␣
Bluewater,␣OVWRC,␣York,␣Peel,␣␣
Strongly␣Enforced␣Safety␣rules␣
Increased␣safety␣
Increased␣productivity␣and␣morale␣
OVWRC,␣York,␣␣
Central␣MRF␣Location␣
Reduced␣transit␣time␣
More␣productive␣time␣on␣route␣
Northumberland,␣City␣of␣
Peterborough,␣Timmins,␣Muskoka,␣
Waterloo,␣Simcoe␣
Use␣of␣conveyor␣time␣delay␣devices␣
Accommodates␣variable␣contamination␣levels␣
without␣stopping␣
Cleaner␣commodities␣
Windsor,␣Peel,␣Bluewater,␣York␣
Quality␣control␣at␣the␣pre-baler␣
Higher␣revenues␣and␣decreased␣number␣of␣
downgrades␣due␣to␣higher␣quality␣of␣material␣
Essex-Windsor,␣Bluewater,␣York,␣
Simcoe,␣Waterloo,␣
Development␣of␣incentives␣/␣penalties␣
for␣processors␣based␣on␣capture␣rates␣
Minimizes␣residue␣rates␣
Toronto,␣Peel␣
Marketing
Marketing␣done␣by␣municipality␣
Municipalities␣keep␣revenues␣
Municipalities␣manage␣market␣risk␣instead␣of␣
pay␣contractors␣to␣take␣on␣risk␣
Durham␣
Kingston␣
Peel␣(containers)␣
Toronto␣(containers),␣Waterloo,␣
OVWRC␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣129
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Marketing␣done␣by␣contractor␣
Better␣knowledge␣of␣markets␣
Large␣volume␣pricing␣if␣a␣large␣contractor␣with␣
multiple␣locations␣
Revenue␣sharing␣needed␣for␣contractor␣
incentives␣␣
Timmins,␣␣
Peel␣(fibres)␣
Toronto␣(fibres),␣Simcoe,␣Muskoka,␣
Carling,␣York,␣Ottawa,␣Cornwall,␣
Russell␣
Contractor␣keeps␣predominant␣portion␣of␣
market␣revenues␣
Less␣risk␣and␣uncertainty␣for␣the␣program␣
Orillia,␣Amaranth,␣Timmins,␣
Wellington,␣Carling,␣Russell,␣␣
Municipality␣keeps␣predominant␣portion␣
of␣market␣revenues␣
More␣net␣revenue␣
Less␣risk␣for␣contractor␣
Budget␣is␣less␣predictable␣
Most,␣York,␣Ottawa,␣Simcoe,␣␣
Cornwall,␣OVWRC,␣Waterloo␣
Established␣Relationships␣with␣end␣
markets␣
Consistent␣movement␣of␣materials␣
Better␣pricing␣overall␣
Quinte,␣Niagara,␣Bluewater,␣
Ottawa,␣Simcoe,␣Muskoka,␣
Cornwall,␣OVWRC,␣Waterloo␣
Use␣of␣more␣than␣one␣buyer␣for␣
marketed␣commodities␣
Keeps␣prices␣competitive␣
More␣net␣revenue␣
Options␣during␣difficult␣periods␣
Bluewater,␣Windsor,␣Ottawa,␣
Simcoe,␣Cornwall,␣OVWRC,␣
Waterloo,␣␣
Market␣natural␣HDPE␣bottles␣
$200␣per␣tonne␣price␣premium␣generally␣
outweighs␣additional␣sorting␣cost␣
Peel,␣Timmins␣
Where␣large␣volumes␣exist,␣split␣sales␣
between␣fixed␣contracts␣and␣spot␣
marketing␣
Consistent␣movement␣of␣materials␣
Better␣pricing␣overall␣
Distribution␣of␣risk␣
Toronto,␣Windsor,␣Simcoe,␣
Waterloo,␣York,␣Ottawa,␣Cornwall,␣
OVWRC␣
Knowledge␣of␣the␣marketplace␣and␣price␣
indexes␣
Keeps␣prices␣competitive␣
More␣net␣revenue␣
Options␣during␣difficult␣periods␣
Quinte,␣Simcoe␣,␣Waterloo,␣York,␣
Muskoka,␣Ottawa,␣Cornwall,␣
OVWRC␣
Administration and Tendering
Pay␣collection␣on␣per␣household␣basis␣
Pay␣contractor␣for␣level␣of␣service,␣not␣risk␣
Durham,␣Wellington␣County,␣Orillia␣
Municipality-owned␣weight␣scales␣
Ensures␣transparency␣and␣accountability␣on␣
the␣part␣of␣the␣contractor␣and␣staff␣
Windsor,␣Niagara,␣Quinte,␣Toronto␣
(Dufferin␣MRF),␣Waterloo,␣Cornwall,␣
Simcoe,␣York,␣OVWRC␣
Reasonable,␣not␣overburdening␣bonding␣
(e.g.,␣up␣to␣50␣percent␣of␣annual␣contract␣
value)␣
Lower␣cost␣due␣for␣contractors␣
More␣competitive␣pricing␣due␣to␣greater␣
number␣of␣bidders␣
␣␣
130 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Customer␣service␣line,␣with␣database␣of␣
customer␣complaints␣with␣follow-up␣
Answers␣customer␣questions␣
Increases␣customer␣satisfaction␣and␣
participation/recovery␣
Reduces␣contamination␣
Hamilton,␣Waterloo,␣Simcoe,␣
Ottawa␣
Promotion and Education
Provide␣direct␣mail␣promotional␣material,␣
i.e.,␣calendars,␣newsletter,␣etc.␣by␣bulk␣
mail␣(Canada␣Post)␣
Increases␣diversion␣
Raise␣community␣awareness␣
Windsor,␣Halton,␣Simcoe,␣Waterloo,␣
Muskoka,␣Cornwall,␣Ottawa,␣
OVWRC,␣Russell,␣Carling,␣County␣of␣
Peterborough␣␣
Community␣outreach␣and␣education␣
through␣seminars␣and␣demonstrations␣at␣
schools␣and␣community␣events␣␣
Increases␣program␣awareness␣␣
Pressure␣on␣the␣parents␣to␣recycle␣from␣kids␣
Consistent␣message␣on␣program␣details␣
Halton,␣Essex-Windsor,␣Bluewater,␣
City␣of␣Peterborough,␣Peel,␣Simcoe,␣
Waterloo,␣Muskoka,␣York,␣Ottawa,␣
Cornwall,␣OVWRC,␣County␣of␣
Peterborough␣
Photo-Based␣Materials␣
Reliance␣on␣Brands,␣rather␣than␣packaging␣
More␣appealing␣to␣residents␣
Clearer␣message␣to␣residents␣
Increases␣recovery␣
Windsor,␣Bluewater,␣Ottawa,␣
OVWRC,␣Waterloo,␣York,␣Peel␣
Use␣of␣multiple␣channels,␣i.e.,␣special␣
events,␣website,␣home␣shows,␣truck␣
sales,␣print,␣TV,␣radio,␣etc.␣␣
Consistent␣and␣continuous␣messaging␣
reinforcing␣the␣program␣
Ability␣to␣reach␣multiple␣segments␣through␣
diversification␣of␣media␣
Windsor-Essex,␣Quinte,␣Toronto,␣
Waterloo,␣OVWRC,␣Ottawa,␣
Muskoka,␣York,␣Peel␣
Use␣of␣vehicles␣that␣are␣likely␣to␣be␣
retained,␣such␣as␣useful␣calendars,␣or␣
phone␣book␣printed␣information␣
Residents␣have␣a␣guide␣to␣set␣out␣items␣and␣
dates␣
Increases␣diversion␣
Waterloo,␣Muskoka,␣Ottawa,␣
Cornwall,␣Simcoe,␣York,␣OVWRC,␣
Russell,␣Peterborough␣County␣
P␣&␣E␣available␣at␣depots␣and␣depots␣
well␣signed␣
Reduces␣contamination␣
Increases␣diversion␣
OVWRC,␣Simcoe,␣Waterloo,␣
Cornwall␣
Lottery,␣giveaways,␣and␣rewards␣for␣
participation␣
Increases␣program␣awareness␣␣
Hamilton␣
Policies and Incentives
Provision␣of␣free␣Blue␣Boxes␣only␣to␣
new␣residents␣or␣as␣a␣replacement␣for␣a␣
broken␣one␣
Increased␣diversion␣
Lower␣likelihood␣of␣misuse␣and␣abuse␣
Essex␣Windsor,␣London,␣Russell,␣
Ottawa,␣Toronto,␣Peel,␣Simcoe,␣
York␣
New␣multi-family␣construction␣must␣
provide␣space␣for␣recycling␣containers.␣
Eliminates␣facilities␣issues␣as␣a␣disincentive␣to␣
recycle␣
Peel,␣Toronto␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣131
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
In␣order␣to␣be␣eligible␣for␣municipal␣
garbage␣collection,␣the␣multi-family␣
building␣must␣be␣fully␣participating␣in␣the␣
municipal␣recycling␣program.␣
Increases␣diversion␣
Raise␣community␣awareness␣
Toronto,␣Orillia␣
Set␣a␣maximum␣amount␣of␣garbage␣
allowed␣at␣multi-family␣buildings␣based␣
on␣unit␣count␣
Increases␣diversion␣
Raise␣community␣awareness␣
Toronto␣
Set␣a␣minimum␣amount␣of␣recycling␣that␣
must␣be␣collected␣from␣each␣multi-
family␣building␣on␣collection␣day␣in␣order␣
to␣be␣considered␣fully␣participating␣in␣
recycling.␣
Increases␣diversion␣
Raise␣community␣awareness␣
Toronto␣
Waste␣Management␣bylaws␣
Increases␣diversion␣
Raise␣community␣awareness␣
Hamilton,␣Toronto,␣Muskoka,␣
Simcoe,␣Waterloo,␣York,␣Ottawa,␣
Cornwall,␣OVWRC,␣Russell,␣Carling,␣
County␣of␣Peterborough␣␣
␣
132 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Decision␣Tree␣for␣Conditional␣
Best␣Practices␣
Not all Best Practices apply universally to all Blue Box
programs. A Decision Tree accounts for three major
factors of program variability and allows for alignment
of Conditional Best Practices with specific program
characteristics.
Overview␣of␣Decision␣Tree␣␣
Purpose
The␣purpose␣of␣the␣Decision␣Tree␣is␣to␣guide␣Blue␣Box␣program␣managers␣interested␣
in␣enhancing␣their␣programs␣through␣a␣series␣of␣choices␣that␣characterize␣their␣
programs␣and␣that␣narrow␣the␣list␣of␣Best␣Practices␣pertaining␣to␣each␣of␣their␣Blue␣
Box␣programs.␣The␣decision␣tree␣methodology␣was␣chosen␣because:␣
Few␣Best␣Practices␣are␣universally␣applicable␣
It␣allows␣for␣defining␣under␣what␣conditions␣certain␣practices␣are␣"best"␣
It␣provides␣a␣holistic,␣systems␣approach␣involving␣combinations␣of␣practices␣that␣
collectively␣result␣in␣optimal␣recycling␣program␣under␣specified␣conditions␣
A␣working␣group␣of␣the␣Project␣Team␣was␣convened␣to␣structure␣the␣Decision␣Tree.␣␣
Several␣Tree␣iterations␣were␣developed␣each␣having␣various␣advantages␣and␣
disadvantages.␣The␣final␣version␣of␣the␣Tree␣was␣refined␣by␣the␣full␣Project␣Team.␣␣␣
␣
Intended Use
The␣Decision␣Tree␣and␣its␣outputs␣have␣been␣created␣with␣a␣very␣narrow␣and␣specific␣
purpose␣-␣to␣provide␣initial␣guidance␣to␣municipal␣program␣operators␣in␣designing,␣
managing,␣and␣operating␣their␣municipal␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣The␣Tree␣intends␣to␣
describe,␣in␣general␣terms,␣the␣desired␣state␣for␣a␣given␣program␣type,␣which␣may␣or␣
may␣not␣be␣different␣from␣the␣current␣state␣of␣operations.␣The␣gap,␣if␣one␣exists,␣may␣
be␣attributed␣to␣a␣number␣of␣factors,␣including,␣but␣not␣limited␣to:␣
Inherent␣community␣characteristics␣that␣are␣not␣captured␣by␣the␣Decision␣Tree␣␣
Conditions␣that␣are␣not␣within␣municipality's␣span␣of␣control␣
Historical␣barriers␣affecting␣program␣evolution␣
Lack␣of␣skills,␣knowledge,␣and␣management␣focus␣
Regardless␣of␣the␣cause␣of␣the␣gap,␣municipal␣program␣coordinators␣are␣advised␣to␣
become␣familiar␣with␣the␣Fundamental␣and␣Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣applicable␣to␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣133
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
their␣community␣profile␣and␣evaluate␣the␣feasibility␣and␣appropriateness␣of␣adopting␣
these␣practices␣to␣enhance␣their␣program␣efficiency␣and␣effectiveness.␣In␣addition,␣
each␣community␣will␣need␣to␣determine␣the␣specific␣means␣by␣which␣each␣practice␣
should␣be␣implemented␣based␣on␣its␣own␣unique␣conditions␣and␣circumstances.␣␣It␣is␣
only␣through␣such␣careful␣design␣and␣implementation␣that␣that␣the␣practices␣
identified␣in␣this␣report␣will␣truly␣be␣employed␣in␣a␣best␣practices␣fashion.␣␣The␣Project␣
Team␣envisions␣that␣Stewardship␣Ontario␣and␣other␣stakeholder␣organizations␣will␣be␣
developing␣more␣detailed␣guidance␣and␣offering␣technical␣assistance␣to␣aid␣
communities␣in␣making␣this␣transition.␣␣
␣
Decision␣Tree␣Structure␣
Foundational "Roots"
The␣Decision␣Tree␣is␣founded␣upon␣the␣Best␣Practices␣definition␣and␣principles,␣with␣
the␣understanding␣that␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣apply␣to␣all␣programs,␣regardless␣
of␣community␣characteristics.␣␣␣
In␣addition,␣the␣Tree␣is␣rooted␣in␣the␣Blue␣Box␣program␣legislation,␣which␣defines␣
geography␣and␣population␣thresholds␣for␣operating␣a␣municipal␣recycling␣program␣in␣
Ontario.␣It␣also␣takes␣into␣consideration␣the␣provincial␣guidance␣aimed␣at␣achieving␣
60%␣diversion␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials.␣␣␣
Also␣considered␣foundational␣is␣that␣all␣programs␣need␣to␣provide␣for␣worker␣and␣
public␣safety␣with␣respect␣to␣facility␣design␣and␣program␣operations.␣
Nodes or "Branches"
The␣degree␣of␣program␣variance,␣described␣earlier␣in␣this␣report,␣necessitates␣a␣
framework␣to␣logically␣group␣and␣cluster␣programs␣that␣exhibit␣similar␣characteristics.␣␣
However,␣by␣accounting␣for␣a␣large␣number␣of␣observed␣program␣variations,␣the␣
number␣of␣potential␣groups␣can␣become␣extremely␣large␣and␣nonsensical.␣␣For␣
example,␣a␣set␣of␣only␣ten␣variations␣with␣two␣choices␣each␣will␣produce␣1024␣
possible␣combinations␣(210),␣far␣exceeding␣the␣number␣of␣existing␣Ontario␣programs␣
(less␣than␣200).␣Therefore,␣the␣Team␣chose␣to␣account␣for␣three␣main␣program␣
variables␣considered␣to␣have␣significant␣impact␣on␣program␣design␣and␣operations.␣␣
As␣a␣result,␣the␣Decision␣Tree␣has␣three␣nodes␣or␣"branches",␣delineated␣as␣follows␣
and␣illustrated␣in␣the␣three␣figures␣below.␣
Geography:␣North␣or␣South␣(2␣choices)␣
Program size: defined␣by␣annual␣tonnage␣handled␣through␣the␣program:␣Small,␣
Medium,␣Large␣(3␣choices)␣
Household density:␣defined␣by␣number␣of␣households␣per␣kilometre:␣Rural,␣
Suburban,␣Urban␣(3␣choices)␣
The␣implication␣of␣this␣framework␣is␣that␣depending␣on␣the␣community's␣geographic␣
location,␣size,␣and␣density,␣a␣different␣set␣of␣Best␣Practices␣will␣apply.␣␣Conditional␣
Best␣Practices␣take␣into␣account␣these␣program␣differences.␣␣
Geography Breakpoints:
The basis for delineation between
Northern and Southern communities is
Blue Box Program Plan legislation,
which defines physical boundaries of
Northern and Southern parts of the
province.
Program Size Breakpoints:
Program size is defined by the annual
Blue Box material tonnes marketed by
the program.
Small: less than 10,000 tonnes
Medium: 10,000 - 40,000 tonnes
Large: more than 40,000 tonnes
Household Density Breakpoints:
Household density is defined by the
number of households per kilometre of
road in the municipalities:
Rural: less than 10 households/km
Suburban: 10-70 households/km
Urban: more than 70 households/km
134 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Illustrative␣Example␣of␣the␣Decision␣Tree␣Structure␣␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣135
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Southern
Small Density
Assessment
Proceed to
Southern Small
Rural Profile
Proceed to
Southern Small
Suburban Profile
Proceed to
Southern Small
Urban Profile
Is your
household density less than 10
homes per kilometer
of roads?
Is your
household density between 10
and 70 homes per kilometer
of roads?
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Your
household density is more
than 70 homes per kilometer
of roads?
A Different Approach
The questions on this page require you to know how many kilometers of roads within the service area exist to calculate the number of
households per kilometer of road. You should be able to get the kilometers from your roads or planning department as they are used to report
your performance under the Municipal Performance Measures Program managed by Municipal Affairs.
Nevertheless, if you are unsure of the number of kilometers of roads in your community or how to proceed before you have the data, you can
use the following rule of thumb approach.
1) If you are a predominantly rural community (at least 80% of households are rural) then you are likely classified as having less than 10
households per kilometer of road.
2) If you are a predominantly urban community (at least 80% of households are urban) with at least 20% of your households in multi residential
dwellings then you are likely classified as having more than 70 households per kilometer of road.
3) If you fall in either previous category and are mostly suburban then you are likely classified as having between 10 and 70 households per
kilometer of roads.
Density
Assessment
136 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Program Profiles
The␣Decision␣Tree␣framework␣produces␣a␣total␣of␣18␣theoretical␣program␣types,␣of␣
which␣12␣actually␣exist␣in␣Ontario.␣␣The␣Project␣Team␣prepared␣descriptions␣of␣the␣
Best␣Practices␣use␣for␣each␣of␣these␣12␣program␣types.␣␣Termed␣"Program␣Profiles",␣
these␣descriptions␣provide␣guidance␣on␣the␣desired␣state␣of␣municipal␣recycling␣
programs␣for␣a␣given␣program␣type.␣␣Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣are␣discussed␣in␣each␣
Program␣Profile,␣augmented␣by␣references␣to␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣and␣
relevant␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlights.␣␣␣Please␣refer␣to␣the␣Table␣of␣Contents␣at␣the␣
beginning␣of␣this␣document␣for␣the␣page␣number␣of␣the␣appropriate␣Program␣Profile␣
for␣your␣community.␣␣For␣the␣programs␣visited␣in␣this␣project,␣Appendix␣A␣lists␣the␣
applicable␣program␣profiles.␣
␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣137
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Small Rural Southern Blue Box Program
␣
Overview
This␣Program␣Profile,␣paired␣with␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣and␣Spotlight␣
summaries,␣is␣designed␣to␣provide␣general␣guidance␣to␣municipalities␣on␣how␣to␣
design,␣manage,␣and␣operate␣their␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣under␣Best␣Practices.␣␣It␣is␣
specifically␣tailored␣to␣programs␣of␣defined␣size,␣density,␣and␣geography␣in␣order␣to␣
enhance␣applicability␣of␣Best␣Practices␣and␣increase␣the␣likelihood␣of␣their␣adoption.␣␣␣
␣
Program Characteristics
The␣following␣characteristics␣were␣used␣to␣define␣this␣Program␣Profile:␣␣
Geographical␣Region:␣Southern␣community␣
Size␣of␣Program:␣Generating␣less␣than␣10,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣
Residential␣Density:␣Less␣than␣10␣homes␣per␣kilometre␣of␣road␣(more␣than␣
80%␣rural)␣
␣
Programs␣in␣this␣profile␣are␣rural␣in␣nature,␣with␣only␣a␣small␣portion␣of␣households␣
located␣in␣urban␣areas.␣␣These␣programs␣may␣be␣managed␣by␣a␣Township␣or␣a␣
County,␣with␣very␣little␣urban␣development.␣␣The␣challenge␣in␣this␣group␣is␣to␣achieve␣
diversion␣goals␣and␣provide␣efficient,␣cost-effective␣curbside␣and␣depot␣service␣to␣
rural␣households.␣
␣
Applicable Best Practices
Each␣of␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣listed␣in␣the␣table␣below␣applies␣to␣all␣Blue␣
Box␣programs.␣These␣practices␣are␣introduced␣in␣the␣text␣below,␣and␣described␣in␣
greater␣detail␣in␣the␣separate␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣summaries.␣␣␣
Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣that␣apply␣to␣every␣program␣in␣this␣profile␣are␣also␣listed␣in␣
the␣table.␣␣Several␣other␣Conditional␣Practices␣are␣best␣for␣some,␣but␣not␣all␣programs␣
in␣this␣profile.␣␣These␣practices␣and␣the␣specific␣conditions␣under␣which␣they␣apply␣
are␣discussed␣below.␣␣Leading␣practices␣are␣presented␣in␣bold␣type,␣for␣ease␣of␣
reference.␣␣Additional␣guidance␣regarding␣practices␣that␣may␣be␣best␣under␣certain␣
circumstances␣is␣also␣provided␣for␣consideration.␣␣Lastly,␣supplementary␣best␣
practices␣guidance␣for␣specific␣program␣areas␣(e.g.,␣collection,␣processing,␣depot␣and␣
multi-residential␣recycling)␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣"Spotlight"␣summaries.␣␣
Program␣Profile
Use␣of␣Program␣Profile
␣
This␣document␣is␣intended␣to␣provide␣
general␣guidance,␣not␣detailed␣
prescriptive␣recommendations,␣on␣
how␣any␣given␣program␣should␣be␣
structured.␣␣␣
The␣Project␣Team␣believes␣that␣by␣
adopting␣Best␣Practices␣outlined␣in␣
this␣document,␣recycling␣coordinators␣
will␣improve␣the␣performance␣of␣their␣
Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣However,␣the␣
degree␣of␣improvement␣will␣vary␣
across␣municipalities,␣as␣multiple␣
factors␣contribute␣to␣overall␣program␣
performance.␣Furthermore,␣more-
detailed␣guidance␣may␣be␣needed␣by␣
some␣communities␣to␣ensure␣that␣
practices␣are␣truly␣implemented␣in␣a␣
Best Practices fashion.
138 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
␣
FUNDAMENTAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣in␣all␣profiles␣
Development␣and␣implementation␣of␣an␣up-to-date␣plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣
an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣
Multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣to␣collection␣and␣processing␣recyclables␣␣
Establishing␣defined␣performance␣measures␣including␣diversion␣targets␣and␣
monitoring␣and␣a␣continuous␣improvement␣program␣
Optimization␣of␣operations␣in␣collections␣and␣processing␣␣
Training␣of␣key␣program␣staff␣in␣core␣competencies␣required␣
Following␣generally␣accepted␣principles␣for␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣
management␣
Appropriately␣planned,␣designed,␣and␣funded␣promotion␣and␣education␣program␣
Established␣and␣enforced␣policies␣that␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣␣
CONDITIONAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣programs␣fitting␣this␣profile␣
Expanded␣list␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣accepted␣
Program Planning and Design
Limited␣resources,␣lack␣of␣landfill␣space,␣and␣the␣need␣to␣focus␣on␣priorities␣and␣be␣
resourceful␣are␣the␣main␣reasons␣for␣maintaining and implementing an up-to-
date plan for recycling as part of an integrated waste management system.␣␣
Such␣a␣plan␣will␣ensure␣a␣strategic␣management␣focus␣that,␣when␣combined␣with␣
complementary␣waste␣reduction,␣organics,␣reuse,␣energy␣from␣waste,␣and␣waste␣
diversion␣incentives␣(bag␣limits,␣user␣pay),␣will␣result␣in␣a␣robust␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣
Additional␣elements␣of␣a␣plan␣for␣recycling␣as␣part␣of␣an␣integrated␣waste␣
management␣system␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣
section.␣
This␣profile␣group␣offers␣considerable␣potential␣for␣multi-municipal␣cooperation.␣␣A␣
multi-municipal planning approach␣enables␣participating␣jurisdictions␣to␣evaluate␣
opportunities␣to␣work␣together␣in␣making␣the␣most␣efficient␣use␣of␣limited␣personnel␣
and␣equipment␣resources,␣to␣generate␣economies␣of␣scale,␣and␣to␣improve␣market␣
leverage␣when␣contracting␣and␣moving␣recyclable␣materials␣into␣the␣marketplace.␣In␣
addition,␣communities␣can␣work␣together␣in␣a␣region␣to␣establish␣a␣common␣list␣of␣
target␣materials␣and␣similar␣collection␣programs.␣␣This␣will␣create␣consistency␣among␣
neighbouring␣municipalities,␣which␣facilitates␣public␣understanding␣regarding␣what␣
and␣how␣to␣recycle.␣␣A␣further␣benefit␣is␣the␣ability␣to␣develop␣contingency␣plans␣with␣
neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣Aggregation␣of␣blue␣box␣tonnage␣through␣shared␣use␣of␣
processing␣facilities␣will␣result␣in␣higher␣throughput,␣thereby␣lowering␣per-tonne␣net␣
costs␣for␣all␣participating␣communities.␣␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣the␣details␣of␣a␣multi-
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣139
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
municipal␣planning␣approach␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣
Practices␣section.␣
Having␣a␣plan␣is␣of␣only␣limited␣benefit␣if␣there␣are␣no␣defined␣diversion targets and
performance measures, supported by data collection and analysis that
measure the effectiveness of the plan and its implementation.␣␣Performance␣
measures␣and␣data␣to␣be␣obtained␣include␣monitoring␣of␣diversion␣amounts,␣
conducting␣waste␣audits,␣and␣conducting␣participation␣studies.␣␣It␣is␣with␣such␣
program␣monitoring␣that␣sound␣decisions␣can␣be␣made␣based␣on␣local␣program␣data,␣
within␣a␣framework␣of␣a␣continuously␣improving␣the␣program.␣Additional␣discussion␣
of␣performance␣measures␣and␣program␣monitoring␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Performance␣data,␣once␣obtained␣and␣analyzed,␣will␣allow␣for␣the␣optimization of
operations.␣The␣benefits␣of␣optimization␣include␣balanced␣routes␣and␣payloads,␣
reduced␣collection␣time␣(and␣therefore␣reduced␣collection␣costs),␣and␣less␣costly␣
processing.␣Specific␣opportunities␣that␣apply␣to␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣are␣further␣
discussed␣in␣the␣Collection␣and␣Processing␣sections␣of␣this␣Program␣Profile␣and␣in␣
the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
For␣communities␣within␣this␣profile,␣programs␣designed␣to␣achieve␣60%␣diversion␣of␣
Blue␣Box␣materials␣would␣need␣to collect the␣five mandatory Blue Box materials
as well as some of the "supplementary" Blue Box materials␣that:␣␣comprise␣a␣
significant␣portion␣of␣the␣waste␣stream␣(as␣determined␣by␣waste␣audits),␣have␣reliable␣
markets,␣and␣can␣be␣practically␣recovered␣for␣recycling.␣␣For␣programs␣within␣this␣
grouping␣that␣do␣not␣presently␣have␣their␣own␣MRF,␣choices␣regarding␣designated␣
materials␣to␣be␣included␣in␣collection␣and␣the␣degree␣of␣commingling␣of␣these␣
materials␣will␣be␣determined␣by␣the␣characteristics␣of␣the␣MRF␣where␣their␣materials␣
are␣currently,␣or␣potentially,␣processed.␣
Collection
Use␣of␣drop-off depots for recovering recyclables is a Best Practice in low-
density rural areas,␣where␣curbside␣recycling␣is␣cost␣prohibitive.␣It␣is␣more␣cost-
effective␣to␣employ␣the␣use␣of␣depots␣in␣areas␣where␣curbside␣collection␣costs␣
exceed␣$50␣per␣household␣per␣year.␣␣␣This is almost always the case for rural
communities generating less than 2000 tonnes per year.␣(See␣the␣text␣box␣at␣the␣
end␣of␣the␣document␣for␣specific␣information␣on␣collection␣and␣processing␣best␣
practices␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣size.)␣␣␣
Even␣when␣curbside␣collection␣is␣provided,␣drop-off depots␣are␣the␣Best␣Practice␣to␣
collect overflow Blue Box materials and additional recyclable materials, for
which curbside collection is not practical or cost-effective.␣␣Supporting␣Best␣
Practices␣related␣to␣drop-off␣depots␣are␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight. Where feasible, if anywhere, curbside collection of recyclables should
be used to service all available curbside-eligible households in the community.␣␣
Best␣Practices␣for␣curbside␣recycling␣in␣jurisdictions␣of␣this␣profile␣type␣are␣discussed␣
140 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
in␣the␣Collection␣section␣below,␣with␣more␣information␣on␣curbside␣collection␣
provided␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Communities␣of␣this␣profile␣will␣likely␣have␣a␣minimal␣multi-family␣population.␣␣Multi-
family recyclables collection, if performed, should be incorporated into
curbside collection service routes wherever possible to minimize collection
costs.␣␣Because␣of␣the␣unique␣challenges␣of␣multi-family␣recycling,␣associated␣Best␣
Practices␣are␣further␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
To␣increase␣the␣economic␣feasibility␣of␣curbside␣recycling,␣it␣is␣a␣Best␣Practice␣to␣
employ measures that increase the amount of material collected per stop and
maximize collection efficiency.␣␣␣This␣is␣particularly␣important␣in␣areas␣of␣low-
density␣population,␣as␣it␣is␣more␣challenging␣to␣perform␣curbside␣recycling␣at␣an␣
annual␣per-household␣cost␣below␣$50.␣␣␣
For curbside programs, providing sufficient rigid collection containers free of
charge␣to␣residents␣will␣ensure␣that␣overflow␣materials␣are␣not␣disposed.␣Selection␣
of␣the␣size␣and/or␣number␣of␣containers␣needs␣to␣take␣into␣consideration␣estimated␣
set␣out␣volume␣of␣recyclables,␣based␣on␣the␣frequency␣of␣collection.␣␣Most␣programs␣
will␣provide␣weekly␣or␣bi-weekly␣collection␣of␣recyclables.␣␣When curbside
collection service is provided, collection of Blue Box materials should be at
least as frequent as waste collection.
The␣number␣of␣streams␣collected␣will␣be␣dictated␣by␣the␣processing␣options␣available␣
to␣the␣program,␣as␣discussed␣in␣the␣next␣section.␣␣Single␣stream␣collection␣can␣
benefit␣small␣rural␣programs␣because␣of␣the␣reduced␣collection␣and␣transfer␣costs␣
when␣a␣single␣stream␣MRF␣is␣located␣within␣a␣one-hour's␣drive.␣Furthermore,␣
because␣transfer␣of␣recyclables␣may␣be␣cost-effective␣for␣transporting␣materials,␣
handling␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣in␣a␣single␣stream␣can␣minimize␣glass␣breakage␣due␣to␣
the␣cushioning␣properties␣of␣paper␣and␣plastic␣products␣as␣materials␣are␣tipped,␣
loaded␣into␣a␣transfer␣trailer,␣and␣tipped␣again.␣␣␣␣
Other␣opportunities␣for␣improving␣collection␣efficiencies␣and␣reducing␣costs␣that␣
apply␣to␣programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣include␣the␣use␣of␣increased␣commingling␣
and␣controlled␣compaction,␣where␣applicable␣and␣reducing␣non-productive␣operator␣
time..␣␣These␣and␣other␣Best␣Practices␣are␣expanded␣upon␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣
Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Processing
Our␣research␣and␣various␣studies␣have␣come␣to␣the␣same␣conclusion␣with␣respect␣to␣
operating␣a␣material␣recovery␣facility␣(MRF)␣with␣less␣than␣10,000␣tonnes␣per␣year.␣␣
The␣results␣show␣that␣it␣is␣extremely␣difficult␣to␣justify␣the␣capital␣expense␣to␣build␣
the␣facility␣and␣keep␣it␣operated␣on␣a␣full-time␣basis,␣typically␣resulting␣in␣operating␣
costs␣in␣excess␣of␣$100␣per␣tonne␣processed.␣␣␣
Whenever␣possible,␣all␣programs␣with␣this␣profile␣should␣explore partnership
opportunities and/or use larger MRFs available in neighbouring jurisdictions,
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣141
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
located within an hour's drive.␣␣Such␣arrangements␣can␣provide␣for␣efficient␣
processing␣of␣recyclables␣and␣usually␣offer␣a␣broader␣range␣of␣materials.␣
If␣a␣neighbouring␣larger␣MRF␣is␣not␣available␣within␣reach,␣partnership␣opportunities␣
should␣be␣explored␣for␣all␣programs,␣especially␣those␣in␣the␣lower␣tonnage␣range.␣␣
The␣aggregation␣of␣blue␣box␣tonnage␣will␣result␣in␣a␣larger␣MRF's␣requirement␣of␣
higher␣throughput,␣thereby␣lowering␣per-tonne␣processing␣costs␣for␣all␣participating␣
communities.␣␣With␣enough␣cooperation,␣it␣may␣be␣possible␣to␣break␣through␣the␣
10,000␣tonnes␣"barrier"␣and/or␣$100␣per␣tonne␣threshold␣and␣maximize␣economies␣
of␣scale.␣␣
In␣the␣absence␣of␣multi-municipal␣cooperation,␣the␣program's␣next␣best␣option␣may␣
be␣to␣transfer␣and␣ship␣materials␣to␣a␣more␣distant␣MRF.␣␣Any␣community␣with␣more␣
than␣a␣one␣hour␣haul␣distance␣to␣a␣MRF␣should␣consider␣the␣use␣of␣transfer␣facilities␣
to␣potentially␣reduce␣system␣costs.␣␣Preference should be given to MRFs that can
handle single stream materials␣to␣maximize␣collection␣and␣transfer␣savings.␣
As␣a␣last␣option,␣some␣programs␣have␣been␣successful␣at␣keeping␣costs␣low␣by␣
sorting␣most␣or␣all␣the␣materials␣at␣the␣curb␣and␣performing␣rudimentary␣processing,␣
usually␣limited␣to␣monitoring␣for␣contaminants␣and␣baling␣for␣material␣shipment.␣␣This␣
typically␣results␣in␣higher␣collection␣costs␣and␣a␣somewhat␣limited␣target␣material␣
range.␣␣One␣additional␣alternative␣is␣to␣provide␣alternating␣week␣collection,␣combined␣
with␣a␣basic␣manual␣sorting␣line␣that␣can␣be␣used␣for␣both␣fibres␣and␣containers,␣as␣
needed.␣Other␣optimization␣strategies␣for␣MRFs␣are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Training
Best␣Practices␣include␣ensuring key program staff are adequately trained␣in␣the␣
core␣competencies␣required␣for␣each␣duty.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Procurement and Contract Management
Best␣Practices␣include␣following␣generally accepted principles for effective
procurement and contract management.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Promotion and Education
An␣effective promotion and education (P&E) program␣leads␣to␣higher␣resident␣
participation␣rates,␣improved␣material␣quality,␣lower␣residue␣rates,␣and␣increased␣
customer␣satisfaction.␣␣A␣variety␣of␣P&E␣strategies␣can␣be␣employed␣by␣municipal␣
programs␣to␣achieve␣desired␣program␣goals,␣as␣described␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Furthermore,␣to␣increase␣program␣effectiveness,␣municipalities␣may␣need␣to␣
coordinate␣P&E␣activities␣with␣their␣neighbours.␣␣Multi-municipal␣P&E␣enables␣
participating␣communities␣to␣have␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣
collection␣programs␣in␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣When␣combined␣with␣the␣
142 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
availability␣of␣mass␣media␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣profile,␣a␣multi-municipal␣mass␣media␣
campaign␣can␣be␣employed␣that␣allows␣for␣consistent␣promotion␣of␣messages,␣as␣
residents␣continually␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣
Policies and Incentives
In␣order␣to␣achieve␣the␣60%␣diversion␣target␣set␣by␣the␣Province,␣programs␣in␣this␣
category␣will␣need␣to use incentives and policies that promote waste diversion.␣␣
Such␣tools␣may␣include␣solid␣waste␣bag␣limits,␣user␣pay␣program␣for␣waste,␣and/or␣
enforced␣mandatory␣recycling␣bylaws.␣␣Each␣community␣needs␣to␣evaluate␣its␣waste␣
diversion␣plans␣and␣initiatives␣to␣determine␣the␣right␣balance␣of␣economic␣and␣non-
monetary␣incentives.␣␣A␣detailed␣discussion␣of␣policies␣and␣incentives␣that,␣when␣
established␣and␣enforced,␣serve␣to␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
␣
Spotlight: Rural Communities with less than 10 homes per km of roads (80% Rural) where curbside collection is
cost prohibitive
Collection
For␣some␣rural␣communities␣in␣Ontario,␣curbside␣recycling␣service␣is␣cost␣prohibitive,␣meaning␣it␣is␣likely␣to␣exceed␣$50␣per␣
household␣per␣year.␣␣It␣is␣often␣logistically␣impractical,␣given␣the␣limited␣resources␣of␣communities␣of␣that␣size.␣␣The␣Best␣Practice␣
for␣collection␣of␣recyclables␣in␣these␣small␣communities␣is␣use of drop-off depots to collect Blue Box materials.␣
Whenever␣possible␣(meaning␣if␣there␣is␣a␣suitable␣MRF␣within␣a␣reasonable␣haul␣distance),␣collection should be conducted
with the greatest degree of commingling in order to result in significant savings in transfer costs.␣␣Furthermore,␣
controlled compaction␣can␣be␣used␣to␣maximize␣payloads.␣␣Compaction␣at␣a␣depot␣can␣take␣place␣in␣the␣form␣of␣a␣roll-off␣
compactor␣unit,␣where␣power␣and␣a␣ramp␣is␣available␣or␣with␣the␣use␣of␣front-end␣containers␣and␣its␣associated␣collection␣vehicle␣
to␣collect␣one␣or␣more␣streams␣compacted.␣␣The␣compaction␣needs␣to␣be␣controlled␣so␣that␣the␣pressure␣is␣sufficient␣to␣achieve␣a␣
reasonable␣amount␣of␣volume␣reduction,␣without␣over-compacting␣the␣materials.␣␣Supporting␣Best␣Practices␣related␣to␣
establishment␣and␣operation␣of␣drop-off␣depots␣are␣discussed␣further␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Processing
Partnership and transfer opportunities should be explored␣for␣such␣small␣rural␣programs.␣Operating␣a␣material␣recovery␣
facility␣in␣this␣volume␣range␣is␣not␣feasible.␣␣Whenever␣possible,␣programs␣handling␣less␣than␣2,000␣tonnes␣should use a larger
MRF available in neighbouring jurisdictions.␣␣␣
In␣the␣absence␣of␣a␣neighbouring␣MRF,␣the␣program's␣next␣best␣option␣is␣to␣transfer␣and␣ship␣to␣a␣more␣distant␣MRF.␣␣Any␣
community␣with␣more␣than␣a␣one␣hour␣haul␣distance␣to␣a␣MRF␣should␣consider␣the␣use␣of␣transfer␣facilities␣to␣potentially␣reduce␣
system␣costs.␣␣Preference should be given to MRFs that can handle single stream materials␣to␣minimize␣transfer␣costs.␣␣
Supporting␣Best␣Practices␣related␣to␣transfer␣of␣recyclable␣materials␣are␣discussed␣further␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣143
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Small Suburban Southern Blue Box Program
␣
Overview
This␣Program␣Profile,␣paired␣with␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣and␣Spotlight␣
summaries,␣is␣designed␣to␣provide␣general␣guidance␣to␣municipalities␣on␣how␣to␣
design,␣manage,␣and␣operate␣their␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣under␣Best␣Practices.␣␣It␣is␣
specifically␣tailored␣to␣programs␣of␣defined␣size,␣density,␣and␣geography␣in␣order␣to␣
enhance␣applicability␣of␣Best␣Practices␣and␣increase␣the␣likelihood␣of␣their␣adoption.␣␣␣
␣
Program Characteristics
The␣following␣characteristics␣were␣used␣to␣define␣this␣Program␣Profile:␣␣
Geographical␣Region:␣Southern␣community␣
Size␣of␣Program:␣Generating␣less␣than␣10,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣
Residential␣Density:␣Between␣10␣and␣70␣homes␣per␣kilometre␣of␣roads␣
(mixed␣urban␣and␣rural,␣or␣suburban)␣
Programs␣having␣this␣profile␣may␣have␣a␣mix␣of␣rural␣and␣urban␣areas,␣with␣a␣
reasonable␣portion␣of␣households␣located␣in␣urban␣settings␣(between␣20%␣and␣80%).␣␣
These␣programs␣may␣be␣better␣known␣as␣a␣small␣Village␣or␣Town,␣or␣perhaps␣even␣a␣
relatively␣rural␣County.␣␣Landfill␣space␣is␣either␣exceptionally␣costly␣or␣is␣already␣lost␣
to␣development.␣␣The␣challenge␣in␣this␣group␣is␣to␣achieve␣diversion␣goals␣and␣
provide␣efficient,␣cost␣effective␣recycling␣services␣to␣potentially␣both␣rural␣and␣urban␣
residents␣with␣limited␣multi-family␣units.␣
Applicable Best Practices
Each␣of␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣listed␣in␣the␣table␣below␣applies␣to␣all␣Blue␣
Box␣programs.␣These␣practices␣are␣introduced␣in␣the␣text␣below,␣and␣described␣in␣
greater␣detail␣in␣the␣separate␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣summaries.␣␣␣
Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣that␣apply␣to␣every␣program␣in␣this␣profile␣are␣also␣listed␣in␣
the␣table.␣␣Several␣other␣Conditional␣Practices␣are␣best␣for␣some,␣but␣not␣all␣programs␣
in␣this␣profile.␣␣These␣practices␣and␣the␣specific␣conditions␣under␣which␣they␣apply␣
are␣discussed␣below.␣␣Leading␣practices␣are␣presented␣in␣bold␣type,␣for␣ease␣of␣
reference.␣␣Additional␣guidance␣regarding␣practices␣that␣may␣be␣best␣under␣certain␣
circumstances␣is␣also␣provided␣for␣consideration.␣␣Lastly,␣supplementary␣best␣
practices␣guidance␣for␣specific␣program␣areas␣(e.g.,␣collection,␣processing,␣depot␣and␣
multi-residential␣recycling)␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣"Spotlight"␣summaries.␣␣
FUNDAMENTAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣in␣all␣profiles␣
Development␣and␣implementation␣of␣an␣up-to-date␣plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣
an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣
Program␣Profile
Use␣of␣Program␣Profile
It␣is␣important␣to␣note␣that␣this␣
document␣is␣intended␣to␣provide␣
general␣guidance,␣not␣detailed,␣
prescriptive␣recommendations,␣on␣
how␣any␣given␣program␣should␣be␣
structured.␣␣␣
The␣Project␣Team␣believes␣that␣by␣
adopting␣Best␣Practices␣outlined␣in␣
this␣document,␣recycling␣coordinators␣
will␣improve␣the␣performance␣of␣their␣
Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣However,␣the␣
degree␣of␣improvement␣will␣vary␣
across␣municipalities,␣as␣multiple␣
factors␣contribute␣to␣overall␣program␣
performance.␣Furthermore,␣more-
detailed␣guidance␣may␣be␣needed␣by␣
some␣communities␣to␣ensure␣that␣
practices␣are␣truly␣implemented␣in␣a␣
Best␣Practices␣fashion.␣
144 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣to␣collection␣and␣processing␣recyclables␣␣
Establishing␣defined␣performance␣measures␣including␣diversion␣targets␣and␣
monitoring␣and␣a␣continuous␣improvement␣program␣
Optimization␣of␣operations␣in␣collections␣and␣processing␣␣
Training␣of␣key␣program␣staff␣in␣core␣competencies␣required␣
Following␣generally␣accepted␣principles␣for␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣
management␣
Appropriately␣planned,␣designed,␣and␣funded␣promotion␣and␣education␣program␣
Established␣and␣enforced␣policies␣that␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣␣
CONDITIONAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣fitting␣this␣profile␣
Expanded␣list␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣accepted␣
Program Planning and Design
It␣is␣important␣to␣maintain and implement an up-to-date plan for recycling as
part of an integrated waste management system.␣␣Such␣a␣plan␣will␣ensure␣a␣
strategic␣management␣focus␣that,␣when␣combined␣with␣complementary␣waste␣
reduction,␣organics,␣reuse,␣energy␣from␣waste,␣and␣waste␣diversion␣incentives␣(bag␣
limits,␣user␣pay),␣will␣result␣in␣a␣robust␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣Additional␣elements␣of␣a␣
plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system,␣can␣be␣found␣
in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
A␣multi-municipal planning approach␣enables␣participating␣jurisdictions␣the␣
opportunity␣to␣evaluate␣opportunities␣to␣work␣together␣in␣making␣the␣most␣efficient␣
use␣of␣limited␣personnel␣and␣equipment␣resources,␣to␣generate␣economies␣of␣scale,␣
and␣to␣improve␣market␣leverage␣when␣contracting␣and␣moving␣recyclable␣materials␣
into␣the␣marketplace.␣In␣addition,␣communities␣can␣work␣together␣in␣a␣region␣to␣
establish␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣collection␣programs.␣␣This␣will␣
create␣consistency␣among␣neighbouring␣municipalities,␣which␣facilitates␣public␣
understanding␣regarding␣what␣and␣how␣to␣recycle.␣␣This␣is␣particularly␣important,␣as␣
residents␣often␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣A␣further␣benefit␣is␣the␣
ability␣to␣develop␣contingency␣plans␣with␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣This␣community␣
group␣also␣offers␣considerable␣potential␣for␣multi-municipal␣cooperation␣beyond␣
planning␣for␣collection,␣processing,␣and␣marketing.␣␣Aggregation␣of␣blue␣box␣tonnage␣
will␣result␣in␣higher␣throughput,␣thereby␣lowering␣per-tonne␣net␣costs␣for␣all␣
participating␣communities.␣␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣the␣details␣of␣a␣multi-municipal␣
planning␣approach␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣
section.␣
Having␣a␣plan␣is␣of␣only␣limited␣benefit␣if␣there␣are␣no␣defined␣diversion targets and
performance measures,␣supported by data collection and analysis␣that␣measure␣
the␣effectiveness␣of␣the␣plan␣and␣its␣implementation.␣␣Performance␣measures␣and␣
data␣to␣be␣obtained␣include␣monitoring␣of␣diversion␣amounts,␣conducting␣waste␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣145
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
audits,␣and␣conducting␣participation␣studies.␣␣It␣is␣with␣such␣program␣monitoring␣that␣
sound␣decisions␣can␣be␣made␣based␣on␣local␣program␣data,␣within␣a␣framework␣of␣a␣
continuously␣improving␣the␣program.␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣performance␣measures␣
and␣program␣monitoring␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣
Practices␣section.␣
Performance␣data,␣once␣obtained␣and␣analyzed,␣will␣allow␣for␣the␣optimization of
operations.␣The␣benefits␣of␣optimization␣include␣balanced␣routes␣and␣payloads,␣
reduced␣collection␣time␣(and␣therefore␣reduced␣collection␣costs),␣and␣less␣costly␣
processing.␣Specific␣opportunities␣that␣apply␣to␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣are␣further␣
discussed␣in␣the␣Collection␣and␣Processing␣sections␣of␣this␣Program␣Profile.␣
For␣communities␣within␣this␣profile,␣programs␣designed␣to␣achieve␣60%␣diversion␣of␣
Blue␣Box␣materials␣would␣need␣to collect the five mandatory Blue Box materials
as well as some of the "supplementary" Blue Box materials␣that:␣␣comprise␣a␣
significant␣portion␣of␣the␣waste␣stream␣(as␣determined␣by␣waste␣audits),␣have␣reliable␣
markets,␣and␣can␣be␣practically␣recovered␣for␣recycling.␣␣For␣programs␣within␣this␣
grouping␣that␣do␣not␣presently␣have␣their␣own␣MRF,␣choices␣regarding␣designated␣
materials␣to␣be␣included␣in␣collection␣and␣the␣degree␣of␣commingling␣of␣these␣
materials␣will␣be␣determined␣by␣the␣characteristics␣of␣the␣MRF␣where␣their␣materials␣
are␣currently,␣or␣potentially,␣are␣processed.␣␣␣
Collection
Having␣a␣mix␣of␣rural␣and␣urban␣areas,␣as␣is␣the␣case␣for␣programs␣having␣this␣profile,␣
results␣in␣curbside recycling being cost-justified in some areas and drop-off
depots being more cost-effective in others.␣␣In␣areas␣where␣curbside␣collection␣
costs␣exceed␣$50␣per␣household␣per␣year,␣it␣is␣more␣cost-effective␣to␣provide␣
recycling␣service␣using␣residential␣drop-off␣depots.␣␣Even␣when␣curbside␣collection␣is␣
provided,␣drop-off depots␣are␣the␣Best␣Practice␣to collect overflow Blue Box
materials and additional types of recyclable materials, for which curbside
collection is not practical or cost-effective.␣␣Supporting␣Best␣Practices␣related␣to␣
drop-off␣depots␣are␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣␣Where
feasible, curbside collection of recyclables should be used to service all
available curbside-eligible households.␣␣Best␣Practices␣for␣curbside␣recycling␣in␣
jurisdictions␣of␣this␣profile␣type␣are␣discussed␣in␣the␣Collection␣section␣below,␣with␣
more␣information␣on␣curbside␣recycling␣provided␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight.␣
Programs␣of␣this␣profile␣are␣likely␣to␣have␣some,␣but␣not␣a␣large␣number␣of␣multi-
family␣housing␣units.␣␣Multi-family recyclables collection should be incorporated
into curbside collection service routes wherever possible to minimize
collection costs.␣␣Because␣of␣the␣unique␣challenges␣of␣multi-family␣recycling,␣
associated␣Best␣Practices␣are␣further␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight.␣
146 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
To␣increase␣the␣economic␣feasibility␣of␣curbside␣recycling,␣it␣is␣a␣Best␣Practice␣to␣
employ measures that increase the amount of material collected per stop and
maximize collection efficiency.␣␣␣␣␣␣
For curbside collection programs, providing sufficient rigid collection
containers free of charge␣to␣residents␣will␣ensure␣that␣overflow␣materials␣are␣not␣
disposed.␣Selection␣of␣the␣size␣and/or␣number␣of␣containers␣needs␣to␣take␣into␣
consideration␣estimated␣set␣out␣volume␣of␣recyclables,␣based␣on␣the␣frequency␣of␣
collection.␣␣Most␣programs␣will␣provide␣weekly␣or␣bi-weekly␣collection␣of␣recyclables.␣␣
Collection of Blue Box materials should be at least as frequent as waste
collection when curbside collection service is provided.␣␣␣
The␣number␣of␣streams␣collected␣will␣be␣dictated␣by␣the␣processing␣options␣available␣
to␣the␣program␣as␣discussed␣in␣the␣next␣section.␣␣Single␣stream␣collection␣can␣benefit␣
the␣remote␣portions␣of␣the␣region␣due␣to␣reduced␣collection␣costs␣when␣a␣single␣
stream␣MRF␣is␣located␣within␣a␣one-hour's␣drive.␣␣Furthermore,␣because␣transfer␣of␣
recyclables␣may␣be␣cost-effective␣for␣transporting␣materials,␣handling␣Blue␣Box␣
materials␣in␣a␣single␣stream␣can␣minimize␣glass␣breakage␣due␣to␣the␣cushioning␣
properties␣of␣paper␣and␣plastic␣products␣as␣materials␣are␣tipped,␣loaded␣into␣a␣
transfer␣trailer,␣and␣tipped␣again.␣␣␣␣
Furthermore,␣because␣transfer␣of␣recyclables␣may␣be␣cost-effective␣for␣transporting␣
materials␣from␣remote␣parts␣of␣the␣region,␣handling␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣in␣a␣single␣
stream␣can␣minimize␣glass␣breakage␣due␣to␣the␣cushioning␣properties␣of␣paper␣and␣
plastic␣products␣as␣materials␣are␣tipped,␣loaded␣into␣a␣transfer␣trailer,␣and␣tipped␣
again.␣␣␣
Collecting␣materials␣single␣stream␣allows␣other␣collection␣practices␣to␣be␣
implemented␣that␣can␣significantly␣reduce␣the␣collection␣cost.␣␣One␣of␣these␣
practices␣is␣controlled compaction␣that␣allows␣collection␣to␣be␣more␣productive␣
because␣trucks␣can␣stay␣on␣route␣longer␣before␣filling.␣␣The␣compaction␣needs␣to␣be␣
controlled␣so␣that␣the␣pressure␣is␣sufficient␣to␣achieve␣a␣reasonable␣amount␣of␣
volume␣reduction,␣without␣over-compacting␣the␣materials.␣␣Over-compaction␣results␣
in␣glass␣breakage␣and␣flattening␣of␣round␣containers,␣which␣can␣cause␣the␣automated␣
systems␣in␣a␣single␣stream␣MRF␣to␣be␣less␣effective␣in␣separating␣flat␣paper␣products␣
from␣round␣containers.␣Compaction␣can␣also␣be␣used␣in␣two␣stream␣collection;␣
however,␣the␣per-household␣cost␣for␣collection␣in␣single␣stream␣systems␣is␣typically␣
less␣than␣comparable␣two␣stream␣systems␣because␣materials␣can␣be␣loaded␣into␣a␣
single␣stream␣truck␣in␣less␣time.␣
Other␣opportunities␣for␣improving␣collection␣efficiencies␣and␣reducing␣costs␣that␣
apply␣to␣programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣include:␣the use of route optimization
software and providing carts or dumpsters at multi-family buildings.␣These␣and␣
other␣collection␣optimization␣practices␣are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣147
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Processing
Our␣research␣and␣various␣studies␣have␣come␣to␣the␣same␣conclusion␣with␣respect␣to␣
operating␣a␣material␣recovery␣facility␣(MRF)␣with␣less␣than␣10,000␣tonnes␣per␣year.␣␣
The␣results␣show␣that␣it␣is␣extremely␣difficult␣to␣justify␣the␣capital␣expense␣to␣build␣
the␣facility␣and␣keep␣it␣operated␣on␣a␣full-time␣basis,␣typically␣resulting␣in␣operating␣
costs␣in␣excess␣of␣$100␣per␣tonne␣processed.␣␣␣
Whenever␣possible,␣all␣programs␣with␣this␣profile␣should␣explore partnership
opportunities and/or use larger MRFs available in neighbouring jurisdictions,
located within an hour's drive.␣␣Such␣arrangements␣can␣provide␣for␣efficient␣
processing␣of␣recyclables␣and␣usually␣offer␣a␣broader␣range␣of␣materials.␣
If␣a␣neighbouring␣larger␣MRF␣is␣not␣available␣within␣reach,␣partnership␣opportunities␣
should␣be␣explored␣for␣all␣programs,␣especially␣those␣in␣the␣lower␣tonnage␣range.␣␣
The␣aggregation␣of␣blue␣box␣tonnage␣will␣result␣in␣a␣larger␣MRF's␣requirement␣of␣
higher␣throughput,␣thereby␣lowering␣per-tonne␣processing␣costs␣for␣all␣participating␣
communities.␣␣With␣enough␣cooperation,␣it␣may␣be␣possible␣to␣break␣through␣the␣
10,000␣tonnes␣"barrier"␣and/or␣$100␣per␣tonne␣threshold␣and␣maximize␣economies␣
of␣scale.␣␣
In␣the␣absence␣of␣multi-municipal␣cooperation,␣the␣program's␣next␣best␣option␣may␣
be␣to␣transfer␣and␣ship␣materials␣to␣a␣more␣distant␣MRF.␣␣Any␣community␣with␣more␣
than␣a␣one␣hour␣haul␣distance␣to␣a␣MRF␣should␣consider␣the␣use␣of␣transfer␣facilities␣
to␣potentially␣reduce␣system␣costs.␣␣Preference should be given to MRFs that can
handle single stream materials to maximize collection and transfer savings.␣
As␣a␣last␣option,␣some␣programs␣have␣been␣successful␣at␣keeping␣costs␣low␣by␣
sorting␣most␣or␣all␣the␣materials␣at␣the␣curb␣and␣performing␣rudimentary␣processing,␣
usually␣limited␣to␣monitoring␣for␣contaminants␣and␣baling␣for␣material␣shipment.␣␣This␣
typically␣results␣in␣higher␣collection␣costs␣and␣a␣somewhat␣limited␣target␣material␣
range.␣␣One␣additional␣alternative␣is␣to␣provide␣alternating␣week␣collection,␣combined␣
with␣a␣basic␣manual␣sorting␣line␣that␣can␣be␣used␣for␣both␣fibres␣and␣containers,␣as␣
needed.␣Other␣optimization␣strategies␣for␣MRFs␣are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Training
Best␣Practices␣include␣ensuring key program staff are adequately trained␣in␣the␣
core␣competencies␣required␣for␣each␣duty.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Procurement and Contract Management
Best␣Practices␣include␣following␣generally accepted principles for effective
procurement and contract management.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
148 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Promotion and Education
An␣effective promotion and education (P&E) program␣leads␣to␣higher␣resident␣
participation␣rates,␣improved␣material␣quality,␣lower␣residue␣rates,␣and␣increased␣
customer␣satisfaction.␣␣A␣variety␣of␣P&E␣strategies␣can␣be␣employed␣by␣municipal␣
programs␣to␣achieve␣desired␣program␣goals,␣as␣described␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Furthermore,␣to␣increase␣program␣effectiveness,␣municipalities␣may␣need␣to␣
coordinate␣P&E␣activities␣with␣their␣neighbours.␣␣Multi-municipal␣P&E␣enables␣
participating␣communities␣to␣have␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣
collection␣programs␣in␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣When␣combined␣with␣the␣
availability␣of␣mass␣media␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣profile,␣a␣multi-municipal␣mass␣media␣
campaign␣can␣be␣employed␣that␣allows␣for␣consistent␣promotion␣of␣messages,␣as␣
residents␣continually␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣
Policies and Incentives
In␣order␣to␣achieve␣the␣60%␣diversion␣target␣set␣by␣the␣Province,␣programs␣in␣this␣
category␣will␣need␣to use incentives and policies that promote waste diversion.␣␣
Such␣tools␣may␣include␣solid␣waste␣bag␣limits,␣user␣pay␣program␣for␣waste,␣and/or␣
enforced␣mandatory␣recycling␣bylaws.␣Each␣community␣needs␣to␣evaluate␣its␣waste␣
diversion␣plans␣and␣initiatives␣to␣determine␣the␣right␣balance␣of␣economic␣and␣non-
monetary␣incentives.␣␣A␣detailed␣discussion␣of␣policies␣and␣incentives␣that,␣when␣
established␣and␣enforced,␣serve␣to␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣149
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Small Urban Southern Blue Box Program
␣
Overview
␣This␣Program␣Profile,␣paired␣with␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣and␣Spotlight␣
summaries,␣is␣designed␣to␣provide␣general␣guidance␣to␣municipalities␣on␣how␣to␣
design,␣manage,␣and␣operate␣their␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣under␣Best␣Practices.␣␣It␣is␣
specifically␣tailored␣to␣programs␣of␣defined␣size,␣density,␣and␣geography␣in␣order␣to␣
enhance␣applicability␣of␣Best␣Practices␣and␣increase␣the␣likelihood␣of␣their␣adoption.␣␣␣␣␣
␣
Program Characteristics
The␣following␣characteristics␣were␣used␣to␣define␣this␣Program␣Profile:␣␣
Geographical␣Region:␣Southern␣community␣
Size␣of␣Program:␣Generating␣less␣than␣10,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣
Residential␣Density:␣More␣than␣70␣homes␣per␣km␣of␣roads␣(80%␣Urban)␣
␣
Programs␣having␣this␣profile␣are␣urban␣in␣nature.␣These␣municipalities␣may␣be␣better␣
known␣as␣a␣large␣Town␣or␣a␣small␣or␣medium␣City,␣and␣are␣likely␣to␣be␣a␣significant␣
population␣center␣of␣their␣area.␣␣Landfill␣space␣is␣either␣exceptionally␣costly␣or␣is␣
already␣lost␣to␣development.␣␣The␣challenge␣in␣this␣group␣is␣to␣achieve␣diversion␣
goals␣and␣maximize␣efficient,␣cost-effective␣recycling␣services␣to␣all␣urban␣residents␣
with␣a␣number␣of␣multi-family␣units.␣
Applicable Best Practices
Each␣of␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣listed␣in␣the␣table␣below␣applies␣to␣all␣Blue␣
Box␣programs.␣These␣practices␣are␣introduced␣in␣the␣text␣below,␣and␣described␣in␣
greater␣detail␣in␣the␣separate␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣summaries.␣␣␣
Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣that␣apply␣to␣every␣program␣in␣this␣profile␣are␣also␣listed␣in␣
the␣table.␣␣Several␣other␣Conditional␣Practices␣are␣best␣for␣some,␣but␣not␣all␣programs␣
in␣this␣profile.␣␣These␣practices␣and␣the␣specific␣conditions␣under␣which␣they␣apply␣
are␣discussed␣below.␣␣Leading␣practices␣are␣presented␣in␣bold␣type,␣for␣ease␣of␣
reference.␣␣Additional␣guidance␣regarding␣practices␣that␣may␣be␣best␣under␣certain␣
circumstances␣is␣also␣provided␣for␣consideration.␣␣Lastly,␣supplementary␣best␣
practices␣guidance␣for␣specific␣program␣areas␣(e.g.,␣collection,␣processing,␣depot␣and␣
multi-residential␣recycling)␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣"Spotlight"␣summaries.␣␣
FUNDAMENTAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣in␣all␣profiles␣
Development␣and␣implementation␣of␣an␣up-to-date␣plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣
an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣
Program␣Profile
Use␣of␣Program␣Profile
This␣document␣is␣intended␣to␣provide␣
general␣guidance,␣not␣detailed␣
prescriptive␣recommendations,␣on␣
how␣any␣given␣program␣should␣be␣
structured.␣␣␣
The␣Project␣Team␣believes␣that␣by␣
adopting␣Best␣Practices␣outlined␣in␣
this␣document,␣recycling␣coordinators␣
will␣improve␣the␣performance␣of␣their␣
Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣However,␣the␣
degree␣of␣improvement␣will␣vary␣
across␣municipalities,␣as␣multiple␣
factors␣contribute␣to␣overall␣program␣
performance.␣Furthermore,␣more-
detailed␣guidance␣may␣be␣needed␣by␣
some␣communities␣to␣ensure␣that␣
practices␣are␣truly␣implemented␣in␣a␣
Best␣Practices␣fashion.␣
150 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣to␣collection␣and␣processing␣recyclables␣␣
Establishing␣defined␣performance␣measures␣including␣diversion␣targets␣and␣
monitoring␣and␣a␣continuous␣improvement␣program␣
Optimization␣of␣operations␣in␣collections␣and␣processing␣␣
Training␣of␣key␣program␣staff␣in␣core␣competencies␣required␣
Following␣generally␣accepted␣principles␣for␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣
management␣
Appropriately␣planned,␣designed,␣and␣funded␣promotion␣and␣education␣program␣
Established␣and␣enforced␣policies␣that␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣␣
CONDITIONAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣fitting␣this␣profile␣
Expanded␣list␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣accepted␣
Program Planning and Design
It␣is␣important␣to␣maintain and implement an up-to-date plan for recycling as
part of an integrated waste management system.␣␣Such␣a␣plan␣will␣ensure␣a␣
strategic␣management␣focus␣that,␣when␣combined␣with␣complementary␣waste␣
reduction,␣organics,␣reuse,␣energy␣from␣waste,␣and␣waste␣diversion␣incentives␣(bag␣
limits,␣user␣pay),␣will␣result␣in␣a␣robust␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣Additional␣elements␣of␣a␣
plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system,␣can␣be␣found␣
in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
A␣multi-municipal planning approach␣enables␣participating␣jurisdictions␣the␣
opportunity␣to␣establish␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣collection␣
programs.␣␣This␣will␣create␣consistency␣among␣neighbouring␣municipalities,␣which␣
facilitates␣public␣understanding␣regarding␣what␣and␣how␣to␣recycle.␣␣This␣is␣
particularly␣important,␣as␣residents␣often␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣
A␣further␣benefit␣is␣the␣ability␣to␣develop␣contingency␣plans␣with␣neighbouring␣
jurisdictions.␣␣This␣community␣group␣also␣offers␣considerable␣potential␣for␣multi-
municipal␣cooperation␣beyond␣planning␣for␣collection,␣processing,␣and␣marketing.␣␣
Aggregation␣of␣blue␣box␣tonnage␣will␣result␣in␣higher␣throughput,␣thereby␣lowering␣
per-tonne␣net␣costs␣for␣all␣participating␣communities.␣␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣the␣
details␣of␣a␣multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Having␣a␣plan␣is␣of␣only␣limited␣benefit␣if␣there␣are␣no␣defined␣diversion targets and
performance measures, supported by data collection and analysis␣that␣measure␣
the␣effectiveness␣of␣the␣plan␣and␣its␣implementation.␣␣Performance␣measures␣and␣
data␣to␣be␣obtained␣include␣monitoring␣of␣diversion␣amounts,␣conducting␣waste␣
audits,␣and␣conducting␣participation␣studies.␣␣It␣is␣with␣such␣program␣monitoring␣that␣
sound␣decisions␣can␣be␣made␣based␣on␣local␣program␣data,␣within␣a␣framework␣of␣a␣
continuously␣improving␣the␣program.␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣performance␣measures␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣151
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
and␣program␣monitoring␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣
Practices␣section.␣
Performance␣data,␣once␣obtained␣and␣analyzed,␣will␣allow␣for␣the␣optimization of
operations.␣The␣benefits␣of␣optimization␣include␣balanced␣routes␣and␣payloads,␣
reduced␣collection␣time␣(and␣therefore␣reduced␣collection␣costs),␣and␣less␣costly␣
processing.␣Specific␣opportunities␣that␣apply␣to␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣are␣further␣
discussed␣in␣the␣Collection␣and␣Processing␣sections␣of␣this␣Program␣Profile.␣
For␣communities␣within␣this␣profile,␣programs␣designed␣to␣achieve␣60%␣diversion␣of␣
Blue␣Box␣materials␣would␣need␣to collect the five mandatory Blue Box materials,
as well as some of the "supplementary" Blue Box materials␣that:␣␣comprise␣a␣
significant␣portion␣of␣the␣waste␣stream␣(as␣determined␣by␣waste␣audits),␣have␣reliable␣
markets,␣and␣can␣be␣practically␣recovered␣for␣recycling.␣␣For␣programs␣within␣this␣
grouping␣that␣do␣not␣presently␣have␣their␣own␣MRF,␣choices␣regarding␣designated␣
materials␣to␣be␣included␣in␣collection␣and␣the␣degree␣of␣commingling␣of␣these␣
materials␣will␣be␣determined␣by␣the␣characteristics␣of␣the␣MRF␣where␣their␣materials␣
are␣currently,␣or␣potentially,␣are␣processed.␣␣␣
Collection
Given␣the␣high-density␣nature␣of␣housing␣in␣communities␣of␣this␣profile,␣curbside
recycling is likely to be cost-effective and the primary means by which Blue
Box materials should be collected.␣Curbside␣collection␣is␣discussed␣further␣below,␣
as␣well␣as␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣␣Drop-off depots should be
utilized to collect overflow Blue Box materials and additional recyclable
materials for which curbside collection is not practical or cost-effective.␣
Supporting␣Best␣Practices␣related␣to␣drop-off␣depots␣are␣discussed␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Programs␣in␣this␣profile␣will␣likely␣have␣a␣sizable␣multi-family␣population.␣␣Multi-
family recyclables collection needs to be a substantial part of this program,
and should be integrated with curbside collection service wherever possible␣in␣
order␣to␣ensure␣program␣success.␣␣Because␣of␣the␣unique␣challenges␣of␣multi-family␣
recycling,␣associated␣Best␣Practices␣are␣further␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣
Practice␣Spotlight.␣
To␣minimize␣curbside␣recycling␣costs,␣it␣is␣a␣Best␣Practice␣to␣employ␣measures␣that␣
increase␣the␣amount␣of␣material␣collected␣per␣stop␣and␣maximize␣collection␣efficiency.␣␣␣␣
Providing sufficient rigid collection containers free of charge␣to␣residents␣will␣
ensure␣that␣overflow␣materials␣are␣not␣disposed.␣Selection␣of␣the␣size␣and/or␣number␣
of␣containers␣needs␣to␣take␣into␣consideration␣estimated␣set␣out␣volume␣of␣
recyclables,␣based␣on␣the␣frequency␣of␣collection.␣␣Most␣programs␣will␣provide␣
weekly␣or␣bi-weekly␣collection␣of␣recyclables.␣␣Collection of Blue Box materials
should be at least as frequent as waste collection.
For␣programs␣in␣this␣profile,␣the␣number␣of␣streams␣collected␣will␣be␣dictated␣by␣the␣
processing␣options␣available␣to␣the␣program,␣as␣discussed␣in␣the␣next␣section.␣␣Single␣
152 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
stream␣collection␣can␣benefit␣the␣program␣due␣to␣reduced␣collection␣costs␣when␣a␣
single␣stream␣MRF␣is␣located␣within␣a␣one-hour's␣drive.␣␣Furthermore,␣because␣
transfer␣of␣recyclables␣may␣be␣cost-effective␣for␣transporting␣materials,␣handling␣Blue␣
Box␣materials␣in␣a␣single␣stream␣can␣minimize␣glass␣breakage␣due␣to␣the␣cushioning␣
properties␣of␣paper␣and␣plastic␣products␣as␣materials␣are␣tipped,␣loaded␣into␣a␣
transfer␣trailer,␣and␣tipped␣again.␣␣␣␣
Other␣opportunities␣for␣improving␣collection␣efficiencies␣and␣reducing␣costs␣that␣
apply␣to␣programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣include␣the␣use of route optimization
software␣and␣providing carts or dumpsters at multi-family complexes.␣These␣
and␣other␣collection␣optimization␣practices␣are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣␣␣
Processing
Our␣research␣and␣various␣studies␣have␣come␣to␣the␣same␣conclusion␣with␣respect␣to␣
operating␣a␣material␣recovery␣facility␣(MRF)␣with␣less␣than␣10,000␣tonnes␣per␣year.␣␣
The␣results␣show␣that␣it␣is␣extremely␣difficult␣to␣justify␣the␣capital␣expense␣to␣build␣
the␣facility␣and␣keep␣it␣operated␣on␣a␣full-time␣basis,␣typically␣resulting␣in␣operating␣
costs␣in␣excess␣of␣$100␣per␣tonne␣processed.␣␣␣
Whenever␣possible,␣all␣programs␣with␣this␣profile␣should explore partnership
opportunities and/or use larger MRFs available in neighbouring jurisdictions,
located within an hour's drive.␣␣Such␣arrangements␣can␣provide␣for␣efficient␣
processing␣of␣recyclables␣and␣usually␣offer␣a␣broader␣range␣of␣materials.␣
If␣a␣neighbouring␣larger␣MRF␣is␣not␣available␣within␣reach,␣partnership␣opportunities␣
should␣be␣explored␣for␣all␣programs,␣especially␣those␣in␣the␣lower␣tonnage␣range.␣␣
The␣aggregation␣of␣blue␣box␣tonnage␣will␣result␣in␣a␣larger␣MRF's␣requirement␣of␣
higher␣throughput,␣thereby␣lowering␣per-tonne␣processing␣costs␣for␣all␣participating␣
communities.␣␣With␣enough␣cooperation,␣it␣may␣be␣possible␣to␣break␣through␣the␣
10,000␣tonnes␣"barrier"␣and/or␣$100␣per␣tonne␣threshold␣and␣maximize␣economies␣
of␣scale.␣␣
In␣the␣absence␣of␣multi-municipal␣cooperation,␣the␣program's␣next␣best␣option␣may␣
be␣to␣transfer␣and␣ship␣materials␣to␣a␣more␣distant␣MRF.␣␣Any␣community␣with␣more␣
than␣a␣one␣hour␣haul␣distance␣to␣a␣MRF␣should␣consider␣the␣use␣of␣transfer␣facilities␣
to␣potentially␣reduce␣system␣costs.␣␣Preferences␣should␣be␣given␣to␣MRFs␣that␣can␣
handle␣single␣stream␣materials␣to␣maximize␣collection␣and␣transfer␣savings.␣
As␣a␣last␣option,␣some␣programs␣have␣been␣successful␣at␣keeping␣costs␣low␣by␣
sorting␣most␣or␣all␣the␣materials␣at␣the␣curb␣and␣performing␣rudimentary␣processing,␣
usually␣limited␣to␣monitoring␣for␣contaminants␣and␣baling␣for␣material␣shipment.␣␣This␣
typically␣results␣in␣higher␣collection␣costs␣and␣a␣somewhat␣limited␣target␣material␣
range.␣␣One␣additional␣alternative␣is␣to␣provide␣alternating␣week␣collection,␣combined␣
with␣a␣basic␣manual␣sorting␣line␣that␣can␣be␣used␣for␣both␣fibres␣and␣containers,␣as␣
needed.␣Other␣optimization␣strategies␣for␣MRFs␣are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣153
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Training
Best␣Practices␣include␣ensuring key program staff are adequately trained␣in␣the␣
core␣competencies␣required␣for␣each␣duty.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Procurement and Contract Management
Best␣Practices␣include␣following␣generally accepted principles for effective
procurement and contract management.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣␣
Promotion and Education
An␣effective promotion and education (P&E) program␣leads␣to␣higher␣resident␣
participation␣rates,␣improved␣material␣quality,␣lower␣residue␣rates,␣and␣increased␣
customer␣satisfaction.␣␣A␣variety␣of␣P&E␣strategies␣can␣be␣employed␣by␣municipal␣
programs␣to␣achieve␣desired␣program␣goals,␣as␣described␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Furthermore,␣to␣increase␣program␣effectiveness,␣municipalities␣may␣need␣to␣
coordinate␣P&E␣activities␣with␣their␣neighbours.␣␣Multi-municipal␣P&E␣enables␣
participating␣communities␣to␣have␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣
collection␣programs␣in␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣When␣combined␣with␣the␣
availability␣of␣mass␣media␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣profile,␣a␣multi-municipal␣mass␣media␣
campaign␣can␣be␣employed␣that␣allows␣for␣consistent␣promotion␣of␣messages,␣as␣
residents␣continually␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣
Policies and Incentives
In␣order␣to␣achieve␣the␣60%␣diversion␣target␣set␣by␣the␣Province,␣programs␣in␣this␣
category␣will␣need␣to use incentives and policies that promote waste diversion.␣␣
Such␣tools␣may␣include␣solid␣waste␣bag␣limits,␣user␣pay␣program␣for␣waste,␣and/or␣
enforced␣mandatory␣recycling␣bylaws.␣␣Each␣community␣needs␣to␣evaluate␣its␣waste␣
diversion␣plans␣and␣initiatives␣to␣determine␣the␣right␣balance␣of␣economic␣and␣non-
monetary␣incentives.␣␣A␣detailed␣discussion␣of␣policies␣and␣incentives␣that,␣when␣
established␣and␣enforced,␣serve␣to␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
154 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Medium Rural Southern Blue Box Program
Overview
This␣Program␣Profile,␣paired␣with␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣and␣Spotlight␣
summaries,␣is␣designed␣to␣provide␣general␣guidance␣to␣municipalities␣on␣how␣to␣
design,␣manage,␣and␣operate␣their␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣under␣Best␣Practices.␣␣It␣is␣
specifically␣tailored␣to␣programs␣of␣defined␣size,␣density,␣and␣geography␣in␣order␣to␣
enhance␣applicability␣of␣Best␣Practices␣and␣increase␣the␣likelihood␣of␣their␣adoption.␣␣␣
␣
Program Characteristics
The␣following␣characteristics␣were␣used␣to␣define␣this␣Program␣Profile:␣␣
Geographical␣Region:␣Southern␣community␣
Size␣of␣Program:␣Generating␣between␣10,000␣and␣40,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣
Residential␣Density:␣Less␣than␣10␣homes␣per␣km␣of␣roads␣(more␣than␣80%␣
rural)␣
Programs␣having␣this␣profile␣are␣rural␣and␣regional␣in␣nature,␣comprised␣of␣a␣number␣
of␣small␣cities,␣towns,␣and␣townships,␣with␣only␣a␣small␣portion␣of␣households␣
located␣in␣urban␣areas.␣The␣challenge␣in␣this␣group␣is␣to␣achieve␣diversion␣goals␣and␣
provide␣efficient,␣cost-effective␣curbside␣service␣and␣to␣transport␣recyclables␣to␣a␣
MRF.␣
Applicable Best Practices
Each␣of␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣listed␣in␣the␣table␣below␣applies␣to␣all␣Blue␣
Box␣programs.␣These␣practices␣are␣introduced␣in␣the␣text␣below,␣and␣described␣in␣
greater␣detail␣in␣the␣separate␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣summaries.␣␣␣
Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣that␣apply␣to␣every␣program␣in␣this␣profile␣are␣also␣listed␣in␣
the␣table.␣␣Several␣other␣Conditional␣Practices␣are␣best␣for␣some,␣but␣not␣all␣programs␣
in␣this␣profile.␣␣These␣practices␣and␣the␣specific␣conditions␣under␣which␣they␣apply␣
are␣discussed␣below.␣␣Leading␣practices␣are␣presented␣in␣bold␣type,␣for␣ease␣of␣
reference.␣␣Additional␣guidance␣regarding␣practices␣that␣may␣be␣best␣under␣certain␣
circumstances␣is␣also␣provided␣for␣consideration.␣␣Lastly,␣supplementary␣best␣
practices␣guidance␣for␣specific␣program␣areas␣(e.g.,␣collection,␣processing,␣depot␣and␣
multi-residential␣recycling)␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣"Spotlight"␣summaries.␣␣
FUNDAMENTAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣in␣all␣profiles␣
Development␣and␣implementation␣of␣an␣up-to-date␣plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣
an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣
Multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣to␣collection␣and␣processing␣recyclables␣␣
Program␣Profile
Program␣Profile
Use␣of␣Program␣Profile
This␣document␣is␣intended␣to␣provide␣
general␣guidance,␣not␣detailed␣
prescriptive␣recommendations,␣on␣
how␣any␣given␣program␣should␣be␣
structured.␣␣␣
The␣Project␣Team␣believes␣that␣by␣
adopting␣Best␣Practices␣outlined␣in␣
this␣document,␣recycling␣coordinators␣
will␣improve␣the␣performance␣of␣their␣
Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣However,␣the␣
degree␣of␣improvement␣will␣vary␣
across␣municipalities,␣as␣multiple␣
factors␣contribute␣to␣overall␣program␣
performance.␣Furthermore,␣more-
detailed␣guidance␣may␣be␣needed␣by␣
some␣communities␣to␣ensure␣that␣
practices␣are␣truly␣implemented␣in␣a␣
Best␣Practices␣fashion.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣155
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Establishing␣defined␣performance␣measures␣including␣diversion␣targets␣and␣
monitoring␣and␣a␣continuous␣improvement␣program␣
Optimization␣of␣operations␣in␣collections␣and␣processing␣␣
Training␣of␣key␣program␣staff␣in␣core␣competencies␣required␣
Following␣generally␣accepted␣principles␣for␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣
management␣
Appropriately␣planned,␣designed,␣and␣funded␣promotion␣and␣education␣program␣
Established␣and␣enforced␣policies␣that␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣␣
CONDITIONAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣fitting␣this␣profile␣
Expanded␣list␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣accepted␣
Two␣stream␣collection␣and␣processing␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣
Program Planning and Design
It␣is␣important␣to␣maintain and implement an up-to-date plan for recycling as
part of an integrated waste management system.␣␣Such␣a␣plan␣will␣ensure␣a␣
strategic␣management␣focus,␣that,␣when␣combined␣with␣complementary␣waste␣
reduction,␣organics,␣reuse,␣and␣waste␣diversion␣incentives␣(bag␣limits,␣user␣pay);␣will␣
result␣in␣a␣robust␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣Additional␣elements␣of␣a␣plan␣for␣recycling␣as␣
part␣of␣an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Although␣a␣program␣within␣this␣grouping␣will␣be␣able␣to␣support␣its␣own␣MRF,␣some␣
program␣decisions␣will␣have␣a␣direct␣impact␣on␣the␣programs␣in␣surrounding␣counties,␣
towns,␣and␣townships.␣␣A␣multi-municipal planning approach␣will␣allow␣
surrounding␣jurisdictions␣to␣work␣together␣to␣make␣the␣most␣efficient␣use␣of␣limited␣
personnel,␣improve␣economies␣of␣scale,␣and␣improve␣market␣leverage␣when␣
contracting␣for␣services␣and␣marketing␣recovered␣materials.␣␣A␣multi-municipal␣
planning␣approach␣also␣offers␣participating␣jurisdictions␣the␣opportunity␣to␣establish␣a␣
common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣collection␣programs.␣This␣will␣create␣
consistency␣among␣neighbouring␣municipalities,␣which␣facilitates␣public␣
understanding␣regarding␣what␣and␣how␣to␣recycle.␣␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣the␣
details␣of␣a␣multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Having␣a␣plan␣is␣of␣only␣limited␣benefit␣if␣there␣are␣no␣defined␣diversion targets and
performance measures, supported by data collection and analysis␣that␣measure␣
the␣effectiveness␣of␣the␣plan␣and␣its␣implementation.␣␣Performance␣measures␣and␣
data␣to␣be␣obtained␣include␣monitoring␣of␣diversion␣amounts,␣conducting␣waste␣
audits,␣and␣conducting␣participation␣studies.␣␣It␣is␣with␣such␣program␣monitoring␣that␣
sound␣decisions␣can␣be␣made␣based␣on␣local␣program␣data,␣within␣a␣framework␣of␣a␣
continuously␣improving␣the␣program.␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣performance␣measures␣
156 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
and␣program␣monitoring␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣
Practices␣section.␣
Performance␣data,␣once␣obtained␣and␣analyzed,␣will␣allow␣for␣the␣optimization of
operations.␣The␣benefits␣of␣optimization␣include␣balanced␣routes␣and␣payloads,␣
reduced␣collection␣time␣(and␣therefore␣reduced␣collection␣costs),␣and␣less␣costly␣
processing.␣Due␣to␣the␣size␣of␣programs␣in␣this␣group␣there␣are␣opportunities␣to␣
invest␣in␣capital␣equipment␣to␣automate␣the␣recycling␣process␣and␣increase␣the␣rate␣
at␣which␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣are␣collected␣and␣processed.␣␣Specific␣opportunities␣that␣
apply␣to␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣are␣further␣discussed␣in␣the␣Collection␣and␣
Processing␣sections␣of␣this␣Program␣Profile.␣
For␣communities␣within␣this␣profile,␣programs␣designed␣to␣achieve␣60%␣diversion␣of␣
Blue␣Box␣materials␣would␣need␣to collect the five mandatory Blue Box materials,
as well as some of the "supplementary" Blue Box materials␣that:␣comprise␣a␣
significant␣portion␣of␣the␣waste␣stream␣(as␣determined␣by␣waste␣audits),␣have␣reliable␣
markets,␣and␣can␣be␣practically␣recovered␣for␣recycling.␣␣␣
Collection
Curbside collection of recyclables should be used to service all available
curbside-eligible households in the community, supported by drop-off depots
to provide access to recycling for residents in areas where density may not
support curbside and/or to collect additional recyclable materials that are not
collected curbside.␣␣It␣is␣more␣cost-effective␣to␣employ␣the␣use␣of␣depots␣in␣areas␣
where␣curbside␣collection␣costs␣exceed␣$50␣per␣household␣per␣year.␣Supporting␣Best␣
Practices␣related␣to␣drop-off␣depots␣are␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight.␣
Multi-family␣householders␣will␣likely␣comprise␣a␣very␣small␣portion␣of␣the␣population.␣␣
If␣offered,␣multi-residential recyclables collection should be integrated with
curbside collection service wherever possible.␣␣
Providing␣sufficient␣rigid collection containers free of charge␣to␣residents␣will␣
ensure␣that␣overflow␣materials␣are␣not␣disposed.␣Selection␣of␣the␣size␣and/or␣number␣
of␣containers␣needs␣to␣take␣into␣consideration␣estimated␣setout␣volume␣of␣
recyclables,␣based␣on␣the␣frequency␣of␣collection.␣␣Most␣programs␣will␣provide␣
weekly␣or␣bi-weekly␣collection␣of␣recyclables.␣␣Collection of Blue Box materials
should be at least as frequent as waste collection.␣
Programs within this profile should be␣collecting recyclables in two streams␣
(i.e.,␣fibres␣and␣containers),␣with␣the␣possible␣exception␣of␣keeping␣glass␣separate␣as␣
a␣third␣stream.␣␣Single-stream␣recycling␣is␣likely␣not␣warranted␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣
profile,␣unless␣a␣regional␣single␣stream␣MRF␣exists␣or␣can␣be␣constructed␣that␣would␣
process␣tonnages␣near␣or␣above␣40,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣(otherwise␣capital␣costs␣
could␣negatively␣impact␣cost-effectiveness).␣The␣cost␣of␣additional␣curbside␣sorting␣
beyond␣a␣2␣stream␣recyclables␣system␣should␣be␣weighed␣against␣the␣merits␣of␣any␣
reduced␣processing␣required␣and␣the␣potential␣of␣additional␣revenue.␣␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣157
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Opportunities␣for␣increasing␣recyclables␣collection␣efficiencies␣and␣reducing␣costs␣
grow␣with␣increased␣commingling.␣␣Two-stream␣collection␣enables␣the␣
implementation␣of␣practices,␣such␣as␣controlled compaction.␣Compaction␣needs␣to␣
be␣controlled␣so␣that␣the␣pressure␣is␣sufficient␣to␣achieve␣a␣reasonable␣amount␣of␣
volume␣reduction,␣resulting␣in␣more␣productive␣time␣spend␣on␣route,␣without␣
resulting␣in␣excessive␣glass␣breakage.␣␣
Transfer␣of␣recyclables␣should␣be␣considered␣if␣the␣direct␣haul␣time␣of␣collection␣
vehicles␣to␣a␣MRF␣exceeds␣one␣hour.␣␣Transfer␣may␣also␣provide␣more␣MRF␣
alternatives␣to␣programs␣than␣available␣locally.␣␣
Other␣opportunities␣for␣improving␣collection␣efficiencies␣and␣reducing␣costs␣that␣
apply␣to␣programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣include␣the␣use of route optimization
software, and providing carts or dumpsters at multi-family complexes.␣These␣
and␣other␣collection␣optimization␣practices␣are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Processing
Partnership and transfer opportunities should be seriously explored for all
programs with this profile in order to maximize processing efficiencies and
allow surrounding jurisdictions the benefits of delivering materials to the
program's MRF.␣Two-stream processing (fibres␣and␣containers)␣is␣most␣
appropriate␣in␣this␣tonnage␣range.␣The␣cost␣of␣single␣stream␣processing␣is␣greater␣
than␣that␣of␣two␣stream␣processing␣at␣the␣same␣capacity,␣and␣anticipated␣savings␣in␣
collection␣are␣able␣to␣offset␣these␣processing␣costs␣only␣at␣high␣throughput␣tonnages.␣␣
Other␣optimization␣strategies␣for␣MRFs␣are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Training
Best␣Practices␣include␣ensuring key program staff are adequately trained␣in␣the␣
core␣competencies␣required␣for␣each␣duty.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Procurement and Contract Management
Best␣Practices␣include␣following generally accepted principles for effective
procurement and contract management.␣␣This␣is␣discussed,␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Another␣Best␣Practice␣that␣specifically␣applies␣to␣this␣profile␣is␣the␣alignment of
service contract lengths with equipment depreciation terms.␣␣This␣practice␣is␣
conditional␣on␣the␣program:␣(1)␣contracting␣with␣a␣service␣provider␣rather␣than␣using␣
municipal␣staff;␣and␣(2)␣specifying␣that␣the␣service␣provider␣provide␣new␣collection␣
equipment␣or␣design␣and␣build␣a␣new␣MRF.␣␣The␣reason␣for␣aligning␣the␣contract␣
lengths␣with␣equipment␣depreciation␣terms␣is␣to␣ensure␣that␣the␣program␣doesn't␣
fully␣pay␣for␣equipment␣that␣may␣have␣additional␣life␣at␣the␣end␣of␣the␣contract.␣␣In␣
the␣case␣of␣MRFs,␣the␣term␣should␣be␣aligned␣with␣the␣first␣scheduled␣major␣
158 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
overhaul␣of␣the␣plant's␣equipment.␣␣A␣suitably␣long␣term␣also␣ensures␣that␣equipment␣
is␣installed␣that␣has␣a␣life␣cycle␣cost␣advantage␣that␣may␣not␣be␣realized␣by␣the␣
contractor␣over␣a␣shorter␣operating␣period.␣␣␣
When␣contracting␣for␣private␣sector␣collection␣and␣processing␣services,␣consideration␣
should␣be␣given␣to␣the␣advantages␣and␣disadvantages␣of␣separate␣versus␣combined␣
contracts␣and,␣in␣both␣cases,␣it␣is␣important␣to␣identify␣separate␣costs␣for␣collection␣
and␣processing.␣␣When␣contracting␣with␣a␣private␣sector␣MRF␣operator,␣the␣
municipality␣should␣keep␣the␣predominant␣proportion␣of␣material␣sales␣revenue.␣␣
Promotion and Education
An␣effective promotion and education (P&E) program␣leads␣to␣higher␣resident␣
participation␣rates,␣improved␣material␣quality,␣lower␣residue␣rates,␣and␣increased␣
customer␣satisfaction.␣␣A␣variety␣of␣P&E␣strategies␣can␣be␣employed␣by␣municipal␣
programs␣to␣achieve␣desired␣program␣goals,␣as␣described␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Furthermore,␣to␣increase␣program␣effectiveness,␣municipalities␣may␣need␣to␣
coordinate␣P&E␣activities␣with␣their␣neighbours.␣␣Multi-municipal␣P&E␣enables␣
participating␣communities␣to␣have␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣
collection␣programs␣in␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣When␣combined␣with␣the␣
availability␣of␣mass␣media␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣profile,␣a␣multi-municipal␣mass␣media␣
campaign␣can␣be␣employed␣that␣allows␣for␣consistent␣promotion␣of␣messages,␣as␣
residents␣continually␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣
Policies and Incentives
In␣order␣to␣achieve␣the␣60%␣diversion␣target␣set␣by␣the␣Province,␣programs␣in␣this␣
category␣will␣need␣to use incentives and policies that promote waste diversion.␣␣
Such␣tools␣may␣include␣solid␣waste␣bag␣limits,␣user␣pay␣program␣on␣waste,␣and/or␣
enforced␣mandatory␣recycling␣bylaws.␣␣Each␣community␣needs␣to␣evaluate␣its␣waste␣
diversion␣plans␣and␣initiatives␣to␣determine␣the␣right␣balance␣of␣economic␣and␣non-
monetary␣incentives.␣␣A␣detailed␣discussion␣of␣policies␣and␣incentives␣that,␣when␣
established␣and␣enforced,␣serve␣to␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣159
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Medium Suburban Southern Blue Box Program
␣
Overview
This␣Program␣Profile,␣paired␣with␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣and␣Spotlight␣
summaries,␣is␣designed␣to␣provide␣general␣guidance␣to␣municipalities␣on␣how␣to␣
design,␣manage,␣and␣operate␣their␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣under␣Best␣Practices.␣␣It␣is␣
specifically␣tailored␣to␣programs␣of␣defined␣size,␣density,␣and␣geography␣in␣order␣to␣
enhance␣applicability␣of␣Best␣Practices␣and␣increase␣the␣likelihood␣of␣their␣adoption.␣␣␣
␣
Program Characteristics
The␣following␣characteristics␣were␣used␣to␣define␣this␣Program␣Profile:␣␣
Geographical␣Region:␣Southern␣community␣
Size␣of␣Program:␣Generating␣between␣10,000␣and␣40,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣
Residential␣Density:␣Between␣10␣and␣70␣homes␣per␣km␣of␣roads␣(mixed␣
urban␣and␣rural,␣or␣suburban)␣
Programs␣having␣this␣profile␣are␣regional,␣with␣a␣mix␣of␣urban␣and␣rural␣areas,␣
including␣cities,␣towns,␣and␣townships.␣The␣challenge␣in␣this␣group␣is␣to␣achieve␣
diversion␣goals␣and␣provide␣efficient,␣cost-effective␣recycling␣services␣to␣all␣residents,␣
including␣those␣living␣in␣multi-family␣units.␣
Applicable Best Practices
Each␣of␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣listed␣in␣the␣table␣below␣applies␣to␣all␣Blue␣
Box␣programs.␣These␣practices␣are␣introduced␣in␣the␣text␣below,␣and␣described␣in␣
greater␣detail␣in␣the␣separate␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣summaries.␣␣␣
Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣that␣apply␣to␣every␣program␣in␣this␣profile␣are␣also␣listed␣in␣
the␣table.␣␣Several␣other␣Conditional␣Practices␣are␣best␣for␣some,␣but␣not␣all␣programs␣
in␣this␣profile.␣␣These␣practices␣and␣the␣specific␣conditions␣under␣which␣they␣apply␣
are␣discussed␣below.␣␣Leading␣practices␣are␣presented␣in␣bold␣type,␣for␣ease␣of␣
reference.␣␣Additional␣guidance␣regarding␣practices␣that␣may␣be␣best␣under␣certain␣
circumstances␣is␣also␣provided␣for␣consideration.␣␣Lastly,␣supplementary␣best␣
practices␣guidance␣for␣specific␣program␣areas␣(e.g.,␣collection,␣processing,␣depot␣and␣
multi-residential␣recycling)␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣"Spotlight"␣summaries.␣␣
FUNDAMENTAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣in␣all␣profiles␣
Development␣and␣implementation␣of␣an␣up-to-date␣plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣
an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣
Multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣to␣collection␣and␣processing␣recyclables␣␣
Establishing␣defined␣performance␣measures␣including␣diversion␣targets␣and␣
monitoring␣and␣a␣continuous␣improvement␣program␣
Program␣Profile
Use␣of␣Program␣Profile
This␣document␣is␣intended␣to␣provide␣
general␣guidance,␣not␣detailed␣
prescriptive␣recommendations,␣on␣
how␣any␣given␣program␣should␣be␣
structured.␣␣␣
The␣Project␣Team␣believes␣that␣by␣
adopting␣Best␣Practices␣outlined␣in␣
this␣document,␣recycling␣coordinators␣
will␣improve␣the␣performance␣of␣their␣
Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣However,␣the␣
degree␣of␣improvement␣will␣vary␣
across␣municipalities,␣as␣multiple␣
factors␣contribute␣to␣overall␣program␣
performance.␣Furthermore,␣more-
detailed␣guidance␣may␣be␣needed␣by␣
some␣communities␣to␣ensure␣that␣
practices␣are␣truly␣implemented␣in␣a␣
Best␣Practices␣fashion.␣
160 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Optimization␣of␣operations␣in␣collections␣and␣processing␣␣
Training␣of␣key␣program␣staff␣in␣core␣competencies␣required␣
Following␣generally␣accepted␣principles␣for␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣
management␣
Appropriately␣planned,␣designed,␣and␣funded␣promotion␣and␣education␣program␣
Established␣and␣enforced␣policies␣that␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣␣
CONDITIONAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣fitting␣this␣profile␣
Expanded␣list␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣accepted␣
Two-stream␣collection␣and␣processing␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣
Program Planning and Design
It␣is␣important␣to␣maintain and implement an up-to-date plan for recycling as
part of an integrated waste management system.␣␣Such␣a␣plan␣will␣ensure␣a␣
strategic␣management␣focus,␣that,␣when␣combined␣with␣complementary␣waste␣
reduction,␣organics,␣reuse,␣and␣waste␣diversion␣incentives␣(bag␣limits,␣user␣pay);␣will␣
result␣in␣a␣robust␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣Additional␣elements␣of␣a␣plan␣for␣recycling␣as␣
part␣of␣an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Although␣a␣program␣within␣this␣grouping␣will␣be␣able␣to␣support␣its␣own␣MRF,␣some␣
program␣decisions␣will␣have␣a␣direct␣impact␣on␣the␣programs␣in␣surrounding␣counties,␣
towns,␣and␣townships.␣␣A␣multi-municipal planning approach␣will␣allow␣
surrounding␣jurisdictions␣to␣work␣together␣to␣make␣the␣most␣efficient␣use␣of␣limited␣
personnel,␣improve␣economies␣of␣scale,␣and␣improve␣market␣leverage␣when␣
contracting␣for␣services␣and␣marketing␣recovered␣materials.␣␣This␣approach␣also␣
offers␣participating␣jurisdictions␣the␣opportunity␣to␣establish␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣
materials␣and␣similar␣collection␣programs.␣This␣will␣create␣consistency␣among␣
neighbouring␣municipalities,␣which␣facilitates␣public␣understanding␣regarding␣what␣
and␣how␣to␣recycle.␣␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣the␣details␣of␣a␣multi-municipal␣planning␣
approach␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Having␣a␣plan␣is␣of␣only␣limited␣benefit␣if␣there␣are␣no␣defined␣diversion targets and
performance measures, supported by data collection and analysis␣that␣measure␣
the␣effectiveness␣of␣the␣plan␣and␣its␣implementation.␣␣Performance␣measures␣and␣
data␣to␣be␣obtained␣include␣monitoring␣of␣diversion␣amounts,␣conducting␣waste␣
audits,␣and␣conducting␣participation␣studies.␣␣It␣is␣with␣such␣program␣monitoring␣that␣
sound␣decisions␣can␣be␣made␣based␣on␣local␣program␣data,␣within␣a␣framework␣of␣a␣
continuously␣improving␣the␣program.␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣performance␣measures␣
and␣program␣monitoring␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣
Practices␣section.␣
Performance␣data,␣once␣obtained␣and␣analyzed,␣will␣allow␣for␣the␣optimization of
operations.␣The␣benefits␣of␣optimization␣include␣balanced␣collection␣routes␣and␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣161
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
payloads,␣reduced␣collection␣time␣(and␣therefore␣reduced␣collection␣costs),␣and␣less␣
costly␣processing.␣␣Because␣of␣the␣size␣of␣programs␣in␣this␣group␣there␣are␣
opportunities␣to␣invest␣in␣capital␣equipment␣to␣automate␣the␣recycling␣process␣and␣
increase␣the␣rate␣at␣which␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣are␣collected␣and␣processed.␣␣Specific␣
opportunities␣that␣apply␣to␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣are␣further␣discussed␣in␣the␣
Collection␣and␣Processing␣sections␣below.␣
For␣communities␣within␣this␣profile,␣programs␣designed␣to␣achieve␣60%␣diversion␣of␣
Blue␣Box␣materials␣would␣need␣to collect the five mandatory Blue Box materials,
as well as some of the "supplementary" Blue Box materials␣that:␣comprise␣a␣
significant␣portion␣of␣the␣waste␣stream␣(as␣determined␣by␣waste␣audits),␣have␣reliable␣
markets,␣and␣can␣be␣practically␣recovered␣for␣recycling.␣␣␣
Collection
Curbside collection of recyclables should be used to service all available
curbside-eligible households in the community.␣Drop-off depots should be
utilized to collect overflow Blue Box materials and additional recyclable
materials for which curbside collection is not practical or cost-effective.␣␣
Supporting␣Best␣Practices␣related␣to␣drop-off␣depots␣are␣discussed␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Multi-family␣homes␣will␣likely␣make␣up␣a␣moderate␣portion␣of␣all␣homes␣and,␣thus,␣
cannot␣be␣ignored␣as␣a␣source␣of␣substantial␣quantities␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials.
Collection of multi-family recyclables should be integrated with curbside
collection of recyclables wherever possible, for cost and efficiency reasons.␣␣
Because␣of␣the␣unique␣challenges␣of␣multi-family␣recycling,␣associated␣Best␣Practices␣
are␣further␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Providing␣sufficient␣rigid collection containers free of charge␣to␣residents␣will␣
ensure␣that␣overflow␣materials␣are␣not␣disposed.␣Selection␣of␣the␣size␣and/or␣number␣
of␣containers␣needs␣to␣take␣into␣consideration␣estimated␣setout␣volume␣of␣
recyclables,␣based␣on␣the␣frequency␣of␣collection.␣␣Most␣programs␣will␣provide␣
weekly␣or␣bi-weekly␣collection␣of␣recyclables.␣␣Collection of Blue Box materials
should be at least as frequent as waste collection.
Programs within this profile should be collecting recyclables in two streams␣
(i.e.,␣fibres␣and␣containers),␣with␣the␣possible␣exception␣of␣keeping␣glass␣separate␣as␣
a␣third␣stream.␣␣Single-stream␣recycling␣is␣likely␣not␣warranted␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣
profile,␣unless␣a␣regional␣single␣stream␣MRF␣exists␣or␣can␣be␣constructed␣that␣would␣
process␣tonnages␣near␣or␣above␣40,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣(otherwise␣capital␣costs␣
could␣negatively␣impact␣combined␣collection␣and␣processing␣cost-effectiveness).␣␣
Opportunities␣for␣increasing␣recyclables␣collection␣efficiencies␣and␣reducing␣costs␣
grow␣with␣increased␣commingling.␣␣Two-stream␣collection␣enables␣the␣
implementation␣of␣practices,␣such␣as␣controlled compaction.␣Compaction␣needs␣to␣
be␣controlled␣so␣that␣the␣pressure␣is␣sufficient␣to␣achieve␣a␣reasonable␣amount␣of␣
volume␣reduction,␣resulting␣in␣more␣productive␣time␣spend␣on␣route,␣without␣
resulting␣in␣excessive␣glass␣breakage.␣Other␣opportunities␣for␣improving␣collection␣
162 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
efficiencies␣and␣reducing␣costs␣that␣apply␣to␣programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣include␣
the␣use of route optimization software and providing carts or dumpsters at
multi-family complexes.␣These␣are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣
Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Processing
Partnership and transfer opportunities should be seriously explored␣for␣all␣
programs␣with␣this␣profile␣in␣order␣to␣maximize␣processing␣efficiencies␣and␣allow␣
surrounding␣jurisdictions␣the␣benefits␣of␣delivering␣materials␣to␣the␣program's␣MRF.␣
Two-stream processing␣(fibres␣and␣containers)␣is␣most␣appropriate␣in␣this␣tonnage␣
range.␣The␣cost␣of␣single␣stream␣processing␣is␣greater␣than␣that␣of␣two-stream␣
processing␣at␣the␣same␣capacity,␣and␣anticipated␣savings␣in␣collection␣are␣able␣to␣
offset␣these␣processing␣costs␣only␣at␣high␣throughput␣tonnages.␣␣Other␣optimization␣
strategies␣for␣MRFs␣are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight.␣
Training
Best␣Practices␣include␣ensuring key program staff are adequately trained␣in␣the␣
core␣competencies␣required␣for␣each␣duty.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Procurement and Contract Management
Best␣Practices␣include␣following generally accepted principles for effective
procurement and contract management.␣␣This␣is␣discussed,␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
A␣Best␣Practice␣that␣specifically␣applies␣to␣this␣profile␣is␣the␣alignment of service
contract lengths with equipment depreciation terms.␣␣This␣practice␣is␣conditional␣
on␣the␣program:␣(1)␣contracting␣with␣a␣service␣provider␣rather␣than␣using␣municipal␣
staff;␣and␣(2)␣specifying␣that␣the␣service␣provider␣provide␣new␣collection␣equipment␣
or␣design␣and␣build␣a␣new␣MRF.␣␣The␣reason␣for␣aligning␣the␣contract␣lengths␣with␣
equipment␣depreciation␣terms␣is␣to␣ensure␣that␣the␣program␣doesn't␣fully␣pay␣for␣
equipment␣that␣may␣have␣additional␣life␣at␣the␣end␣of␣the␣contract.␣␣In␣the␣case␣of␣
MRFs,␣the␣term␣should␣be␣aligned␣with␣the␣first␣scheduled␣major␣overhaul␣of␣the␣
plant's␣equipment.␣␣A␣suitably␣long␣term␣also␣ensures␣that␣equipment␣is␣installed␣that␣
has␣a␣life␣cycle␣cost␣advantage␣that␣may␣not␣be␣realized␣by␣the␣contractor␣over␣a␣
shorter␣operating␣period.␣␣␣␣␣
When␣contracting␣for␣private␣sector␣collection␣and␣processing␣services,␣consideration␣
should␣be␣given␣to␣the␣advantages␣and␣disadvantages␣of␣separate␣versus␣combined␣
contracts␣and,␣in␣both␣cases,␣it␣is␣important␣to␣identify␣separate␣costs␣for␣collection␣
and␣processing.␣␣When␣contracting␣with␣a␣private␣sector␣MRF␣operator,␣the␣
municipality␣should␣keep␣the␣predominant␣proportion␣of␣material␣sales␣revenue.␣␣
Promotion and Education
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣163
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
An␣effective promotion and education (P&E) program␣leads␣to␣higher␣resident␣
participation␣rates,␣improved␣material␣quality,␣lower␣residue␣rates,␣and␣increased␣
customer␣satisfaction.␣␣A␣variety␣of␣P&E␣strategies␣can␣be␣employed␣by␣municipal␣
programs␣to␣achieve␣desired␣program␣goals,␣as␣described␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Furthermore,␣to␣increase␣program␣effectiveness,␣municipalities␣may␣need␣to␣
coordinate␣P&E␣activities␣with␣their␣neighbours.␣␣Multi-municipal␣P&E␣enables␣
participating␣communities␣to␣have␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣
collection␣programs␣in␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣When␣combined␣with␣the␣
availability␣of␣mass␣media␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣profile,␣a␣multi-municipal␣mass␣media␣
campaign␣can␣be␣employed␣that␣allows␣for␣consistent␣promotion␣of␣messages,␣as␣
residents␣continually␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣
Policies and Incentives
In␣order␣to␣achieve␣the␣60%␣diversion␣target␣set␣by␣the␣Province,␣programs␣in␣this␣
category␣will␣need␣to use incentives and policies that promote waste diversion.␣␣
Such␣tools␣may␣include␣solid␣waste␣bag␣limits,␣user␣pay␣program␣on␣waste,␣and/or␣
enforced␣mandatory␣recycling␣bylaws.␣␣Each␣community␣needs␣to␣evaluate␣its␣waste␣
diversion␣plans␣and␣initiatives␣to␣determine␣the␣right␣balance␣of␣economic␣and␣non-
monetary␣incentives.␣␣A␣detailed␣discussion␣of␣policies␣and␣incentives␣that,␣when␣
established␣and␣enforced,␣serve␣to␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
␣
164 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Medium Urban Southern Blue Box Program
␣
Overview
This␣Program␣Profile,␣paired␣with␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣and␣Spotlight␣
summaries,␣is␣designed␣to␣provide␣general␣guidance␣to␣municipalities␣on␣how␣to␣
design,␣manage,␣and␣operate␣their␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣under␣Best␣Practices.␣␣It␣is␣
specifically␣tailored␣to␣programs␣of␣defined␣size,␣density,␣and␣geography␣in␣order␣to␣
enhance␣applicability␣of␣Best␣Practices␣and␣increase␣the␣likelihood␣of␣their␣adoption.␣␣␣
␣
Program Characteristics
The␣following␣characteristics␣were␣used␣to␣define␣this␣Program␣Profile:␣␣
Geographical␣Region:␣Southern␣community␣
Size␣of␣Program:␣Generating␣between␣10,000␣and␣40,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣
Residential␣Density:␣Greater␣than␣70␣homes␣per␣kilometre␣of␣roads␣(over␣
80%␣urban)␣
Programs␣having␣this␣profile␣are␣urban␣cities.␣The␣challenge␣in␣this␣group␣is␣to␣achieve␣
diversion␣goals␣while␣providing␣efficient,␣cost-effective␣recycling␣services␣to␣all␣urban␣
residents,␣including␣those␣living␣in␣multi-family␣buildings.␣
Applicable Best Practices
Each␣of␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣listed␣in␣the␣table␣below␣applies␣to␣all␣Blue␣
Box␣programs.␣These␣practices␣are␣introduced␣in␣the␣text␣below,␣and␣described␣in␣
greater␣detail␣in␣the␣separate␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣summaries.␣␣␣
Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣that␣apply␣to␣every␣program␣in␣this␣profile␣are␣also␣listed␣in␣
the␣table.␣␣Several␣other␣Conditional␣Practices␣are␣best␣for␣some,␣but␣not␣all␣programs␣
in␣this␣profile.␣␣These␣practices␣and␣the␣specific␣conditions␣under␣which␣they␣apply␣
are␣discussed␣below.␣␣Leading␣practices␣are␣presented␣in␣bold␣type,␣for␣ease␣of␣
reference.␣␣Additional␣guidance␣regarding␣practices␣that␣may␣be␣best␣under␣certain␣
circumstances␣is␣also␣provided␣for␣consideration.␣␣Lastly,␣supplementary␣best␣
practices␣guidance␣for␣specific␣program␣areas␣(e.g.,␣collection,␣processing,␣depot␣and␣
multi-residential␣recycling)␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣"Spotlight"␣summaries.␣␣
FUNDAMENTAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣in␣all␣profiles␣
Development␣and␣implementation␣of␣an␣up-to-date␣plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣
an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣
Multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣to␣collection␣and␣processing␣recyclables␣␣
Establishing␣defined␣performance␣measures␣including␣diversion␣targets␣and␣
monitoring␣and␣a␣continuous␣improvement␣program␣
Optimization␣of␣operations␣in␣collections␣and␣processing␣␣
Program␣Profile
Use␣of␣Program␣Profile
This␣document␣is␣intended to␣provide␣
general␣guidance,␣not␣detailed␣
prescriptive␣recommendations,␣on␣
how␣any␣given␣program␣should␣be␣
structured.␣␣␣
The␣Project␣Team␣believes␣that␣by␣
adopting␣Best␣Practices␣outlined␣in␣
this␣document,␣recycling␣coordinators␣
will␣improve␣the␣performance␣of␣their␣
Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣However,␣the␣
degree␣of␣improvement␣will␣vary␣
across␣municipalities,␣as␣multiple␣
factors␣contribute␣to␣overall␣program␣
performance.␣Furthermore,␣more-
detailed␣guidance␣may␣be␣needed␣by␣
some␣communities␣to␣ensure␣that␣
practices␣are␣truly␣implemented␣in␣a␣
Best␣Practices␣fashion.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣165
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Training␣of␣key␣program␣staff␣in␣core␣competencies␣required␣
Following␣generally␣accepted␣principles␣for␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣
management␣
Appropriately␣planned,␣designed,␣and␣funded␣promotion␣and␣education␣program␣
Established␣and␣enforced␣policies␣that␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣␣
CONDITIONAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣fitting␣this␣profile␣
Expanded␣list␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣accepted␣
Two␣stream␣collection␣and␣processing␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣
Program Planning and Design
It␣is␣important␣to␣maintain and implement an up-to-date plan for recycling as
part of an integrated waste management system.␣␣Such␣a␣plan␣will␣ensure␣a␣
strategic␣management␣focus␣that,␣when␣combined␣with␣complementary␣waste␣
reduction,␣organics,␣reuse,␣and␣waste␣diversion␣incentives␣(bag␣limits,␣user␣pay),␣will␣
result␣in␣a␣robust␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣Additional␣elements␣of␣a␣plan␣for␣recycling␣as␣
part␣of␣an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣are␣the␣business␣and␣population␣center␣of␣their␣area.␣␣
Although␣a␣program␣within␣this␣grouping␣will␣be␣able␣to␣support␣its␣own␣MRF,␣
program␣decisions␣that␣are␣made␣will␣a␣have␣direct␣impact␣on␣the␣programs␣in␣
surrounding␣counties,␣towns␣and␣townships.␣␣A␣multi-municipal planning
approach␣will␣enable␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions␣to␣work␣together␣to␣make␣the␣most␣
efficient␣use␣of␣limited␣personnel,␣improve␣economies␣of␣scale,␣and␣improve␣market␣
leverage␣when␣contracting␣for␣services␣and␣marketing␣recovered␣materials.␣␣A␣multi-
municipal␣planning␣approach␣also␣offers␣participating␣jurisdictions␣the␣opportunity␣to␣
establish␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣collection␣programs.␣This␣will␣
create␣consistency␣among␣neighbouring␣municipalities,␣which␣facilitates␣public␣
understanding␣regarding␣what␣and␣how␣to␣recycle.␣␣A␣further␣benefit␣is␣the␣ability␣to␣
develop␣contingency␣plans␣with␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣
the␣details␣of␣a␣multi-municipal planning␣approach␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Having␣a␣plan␣is␣of␣only␣limited␣benefit␣if␣there␣are␣no␣defined␣diversion targets and
performance measures, supported by data collection and analysis␣that␣measure␣
the␣effectiveness␣of␣the␣plan␣and␣its␣implementation.␣␣Performance␣measures␣and␣
data␣to␣be␣obtained␣include␣monitoring␣of␣diversion␣amounts,␣conducting␣waste␣
audits,␣and␣conducting␣participation␣studies.␣␣It␣is␣with␣such␣program␣monitoring␣that␣
sound␣decisions␣can␣be␣made␣based␣on␣local␣program␣data,␣within␣a␣framework␣of␣a␣
continuously␣improving␣the␣program.␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣performance␣measures␣
and␣program␣monitoring␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣
Practices␣section.␣
166 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Performance␣data,␣once␣obtained␣and␣analyzed,␣will␣allow␣for␣the␣optimization of
operations.␣The␣benefits␣of␣optimization␣include␣balanced␣routes␣and␣payloads,␣
reduced␣collection␣time␣(and␣therefore␣reduced␣collection␣costs),␣and␣less␣costly␣
processing.␣Due␣to␣the␣size␣of␣programs␣in␣this␣group,␣there␣are␣opportunities␣to␣
invest␣in␣capital␣equipment␣to␣automate␣the␣recycling␣process␣and␣increase␣the␣rate␣
at␣which␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣are␣collected␣and␣processed.␣␣Specific␣opportunities␣that␣
apply␣to␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣are␣further␣discussed␣in␣the␣Collection␣and␣
Processing␣sections␣of␣this␣Program␣Profile.␣
For␣communities␣within␣this␣profile,␣programs␣designed␣to␣achieve␣60%␣diversion␣of␣
Blue␣Box␣materials␣would␣need to collect the five mandatory Blue Box materials
as well as several of the "supplementary" Blue Box materials␣that:␣␣comprise␣a␣
significant␣portion␣of␣the␣waste␣stream␣(as␣determined␣by␣waste␣audits),␣have␣reliable␣
markets,␣and␣can␣be␣practically␣recovered␣for␣recycling.␣␣␣
Collection
Curbside collection of recyclables should be used to service all available
curbside-eligible households in the community. Drop-off depots should be
utilized to collect overflow Blue Box materials and additional recyclable
materials for which curbside collection is not practical or cost-effective.␣␣
Supporting␣Best␣Practices␣related␣to␣drop-off␣depots␣are␣discussed␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
The␣urban␣nature␣of␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣means␣that␣the␣multi-family␣population␣
will␣likely␣be␣sizeable.␣Collection␣of␣multi-family␣recyclables␣needs␣to␣be␣a␣substantial␣
part␣of␣this␣program.␣On-site collection of recyclables should be used to service
all available multi-family households in the community, and service should be
integrated with curbside collection of recyclables wherever possible.␣␣Because␣
of␣the␣unique␣challenges␣of␣multi-family␣recycling,␣associated␣best␣practices␣are␣
further␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣␣␣
Providing sufficient rigid collection containers free of charge␣to␣residents␣will␣
ensure␣that␣overflow␣materials␣are␣not␣disposed.␣Selection␣of␣the␣size␣and/or␣number␣
of␣containers␣needs␣to␣take␣into␣consideration␣estimated␣set␣out␣volume␣of␣
recyclables, based␣on␣the␣frequency␣of␣collection.␣␣Most␣programs␣will␣provide␣
weekly␣or␣bi-weekly␣collection␣of␣recyclables.␣␣Collection of Blue Box materials
should be at least as frequent as waste collection.
Programs within this profile should be collecting recyclables in two streams␣
(i.e.,␣fibres␣and␣containers),␣with␣the␣possible␣exception␣of␣keeping␣glass␣separate␣as␣
a␣third␣stream.␣At␣the␣high␣tonnage␣range,␣the␣feasibility␣of␣single␣stream␣collection␣
of␣recyclables␣should␣be␣weighed␣against␣the␣increased␣processing␣required␣and␣the␣
potential␣of␣decreased␣revenue.␣␣It␣may␣be␣possible␣to␣attract␣tonnage␣from␣other␣
jurisdictions␣to␣support␣a␣single␣stream␣program.␣
Opportunities␣for␣increasing␣recyclables␣collection␣efficiencies␣and␣reducing␣costs␣
grow␣with␣increased␣commingling.␣␣Two-stream␣collection␣enables␣the␣
implementation␣of␣practices␣such␣as␣controlled compaction.␣Compaction␣needs␣to␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣167
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
be␣controlled␣so␣that␣the␣pressure␣is␣sufficient␣to␣achieve␣a␣reasonable␣amount␣of␣
volume␣reduction,␣resulting␣in␣more␣productive␣time␣spend␣on␣route,␣without␣
resulting␣in␣excessive␣glass␣breakage.␣Other␣opportunities␣for␣improving␣collection␣
efficiencies␣and␣reducing␣costs␣that␣apply␣to␣programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣include␣
the␣use of route optimization software, and providing carts or dumpsters at
multi-family complexes.␣These␣and␣other␣collection␣optimization␣practices␣are␣more␣
fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Processing
Partnership and transfer opportunities should still be explored for all programs
with this profile␣in␣order␣to␣maximize␣processing␣efficiencies.␣Two-stream
processing (fibres and containers) is most appropriate in this tonnage range.␣
The␣cost␣of␣single␣stream␣processing␣is␣greater␣than␣that␣of␣two-stream␣processing␣
at␣the␣same␣capacity,␣and␣anticipated␣savings␣in␣collection␣are␣able␣to␣offset␣these␣
processing␣costs␣only␣at␣high␣throughput␣tonnages.␣␣However␣as␣previously␣stated,␣it␣
may␣be␣possible␣to␣attract␣tonnage␣from␣other␣jurisdictions␣to␣support␣a␣single␣
stream␣program.␣
Other␣optimization␣strategies␣for␣MRFs␣are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Training
Best␣Practices␣include␣ensuring key program staff are adequately trained␣in␣the␣
core␣competencies␣required␣for␣each␣duty.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Procurement and Contract Management
Best␣Practices␣include␣following␣generally accepted principles for effective
procurement and contract management.␣␣This␣is␣discussed,␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
A␣best␣practice␣that␣applies␣to␣this␣profile␣is␣the␣alignment of service contract
lengths with equipment depreciation terms.␣␣This␣practice␣is␣conditional␣on␣the␣
program:␣(1)␣contracting␣with␣a␣service␣provider␣rather␣than␣using␣municipal␣staff;␣and␣
(2)␣specifying␣that␣the␣service␣provider␣provide␣new␣collection␣equipment␣or␣design␣
and␣build␣a␣new␣MRF.␣␣The␣reason␣for␣aligning␣the␣contract␣lengths␣with␣equipment␣
depreciation␣terms␣is␣to␣ensure␣that␣the␣program␣doesn't␣fully␣pay␣for␣equipment␣that␣
may␣have␣additional␣life␣at␣the␣end␣of␣the␣contract.␣␣In␣the␣case␣of␣MRFs,␣the␣term␣
should␣be␣aligned␣with␣the␣first␣scheduled␣major␣overhaul␣of␣the␣plant's␣equipment.␣␣
A␣suitably␣long␣term␣also␣ensures␣that␣equipment␣is␣installed␣that␣has␣a␣life␣cycle␣cost␣
advantage␣that␣may␣not␣be␣realized␣by␣the␣contractor␣over␣a␣shorter␣operating␣period.␣
When␣contracting␣for␣private␣sector␣collection␣and␣processing␣services,␣consideration␣
should␣be␣given␣to␣the␣advantages␣and␣disadvantages␣of␣separate␣versus␣combined␣
contracts,␣and,␣in␣both␣cases,␣it␣is␣important␣to␣identify␣separate␣costs␣for␣collection␣
and␣processing.␣When␣contracting␣with␣a␣private␣sector␣MRF␣operator,␣the␣
168 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
municipality␣should␣keep␣the␣predominant␣proportion␣of␣material␣sales␣revenue.␣
Additional␣items␣to␣be␣considered␣when␣contracting␣for␣these␣services␣are␣discussed␣
in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Promotion and Education
An␣effective promotion and education (P&E) program␣leads␣to␣higher␣resident␣
participation␣rates,␣improved␣material␣quality,␣lower␣residue␣rates,␣and␣increased␣
customer␣satisfaction.␣␣A␣variety␣of␣P&E␣strategies␣can␣be␣employed␣by␣municipal␣
programs␣to␣achieve␣desired␣program␣goals,␣as␣described␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Furthermore,␣to␣increase␣program␣effectiveness,␣municipalities␣may␣need␣to␣
coordinate␣P&E␣activities␣with␣their␣neighbours.␣␣Multi-municipal␣P&E␣enables␣
participating␣communities␣to␣have␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣
collection␣programs␣in␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣When␣combined␣with␣the␣
availability␣of␣mass␣media␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣profile,␣a␣multi-municipal␣mass␣media␣
campaign␣can␣be␣employed␣that␣allows␣for␣consistent␣promotion␣of␣messages,␣as␣
residents␣continually␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣
Policies and Incentives
In␣order␣to␣achieve␣the␣60%␣diversion␣target␣set␣by␣the␣Province,␣programs␣in␣this␣
category␣will␣need␣to use incentives and policies that promote waste diversion.␣␣
Such␣tools␣may␣include␣solid␣waste␣bag␣limits,␣user␣pay␣program␣for␣waste,␣and/or␣
enforced␣mandatory␣recycling␣bylaws.␣␣Each␣community␣needs␣to␣evaluate␣its␣waste␣
diversion␣plans␣and␣initiatives␣to␣determine␣the␣right␣balance␣of␣economic␣and␣non-
monetary␣incentives.␣␣A␣detailed␣discussion␣of␣policies␣and␣incentives␣that,␣when␣
established␣and␣enforced,␣serve␣to␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣169
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Large Suburban Southern Blue Box Program
␣
Overview
This␣Program␣Profile,␣paired␣with␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣and␣Spotlight␣
summaries,␣is␣designed␣to␣provide␣general␣guidance␣to␣municipalities␣on␣how␣to␣
design,␣manage,␣and␣operate␣their␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣under␣Best␣Practices.␣␣It␣is␣
specifically␣tailored␣to␣programs␣of␣defined␣size,␣density,␣and␣geography␣in␣order␣to␣
enhance␣applicability␣of␣Best␣Practices␣and␣increase␣the␣likelihood␣of␣their␣adoption.␣␣␣
␣
Program Characteristics
The␣following␣characteristics␣were␣used␣to␣define␣this␣Program␣Profile:␣␣
Geographical␣Region:␣Southern␣community␣
Size␣of␣Program:␣␣Generating␣over␣40,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣
Residential␣Density:␣Between␣10␣and␣70␣homes␣per␣km␣of␣roads␣(mixed␣
urban␣and␣rural,␣or␣suburban)␣
␣
Applicable Best Practices
Each␣of␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣listed␣in␣the␣table␣below␣applies␣to␣all␣Blue␣
Box␣programs.␣These␣practices␣are␣introduced␣in␣the␣text␣below,␣and␣described␣in␣
greater␣detail␣in␣the␣separate␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣summaries.␣␣␣
Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣that␣apply␣to␣every␣program␣in␣this␣profile␣are␣also␣listed␣in␣
the␣table.␣␣Several␣other␣Conditional␣Practices␣are␣best␣for␣some,␣but␣not␣all␣programs␣
in␣this␣profile.␣␣These␣practices␣and␣the␣specific␣conditions␣under␣which␣they␣apply␣
are␣discussed␣below.␣␣Leading␣practices␣are␣presented␣in␣bold␣type,␣for␣ease␣of␣
reference.␣␣Additional␣guidance␣regarding␣practices␣that␣may␣be␣best␣under␣certain␣
circumstances␣is␣also␣provided␣for␣consideration.␣␣Lastly,␣supplementary␣best␣
practices␣guidance␣for␣specific␣program␣areas␣(e.g.,␣collection,␣processing,␣depot␣and␣
multi-residential␣recycling)␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣"Spotlight"␣summaries.␣␣
FUNDAMENTAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣in␣all␣profiles␣
Development␣and␣implementation␣of␣an␣up-to-date␣plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣
an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣
Multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣to␣collection␣and␣processing␣recyclables␣␣
Establishing␣defined␣performance␣measures␣including␣diversion␣targets␣and␣
monitoring␣and␣a␣continuous␣improvement␣program␣
Optimization␣of␣operations␣in␣collections␣and␣processing␣␣
Training␣of␣key␣program␣staff␣in␣core␣competencies␣required␣
Program␣Profile
Use␣of␣Program␣Profile
This␣document␣is␣intended␣to␣provide␣
general␣guidance,␣not␣detailed␣
prescriptive␣recommendations,␣on␣
how␣any␣given␣program␣should␣be␣
structured.␣␣␣
The␣Project␣Team␣believes␣that␣by␣
adopting␣Best␣Practices␣outlined␣in␣
this␣document,␣recycling␣coordinators␣
will␣improve␣the␣performance␣of␣their␣
Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣However,␣the␣
degree␣of␣improvement␣will␣vary␣
across␣municipalities,␣as␣multiple␣
factors␣contribute␣to␣overall␣program␣
performance.␣Furthermore,␣more-
detailed␣guidance␣may␣be␣needed␣by␣
some␣communities␣to␣ensure␣that␣
practices␣are␣truly␣implemented␣in␣a␣
Best␣Practices␣fashion.␣
170 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Following␣generally␣accepted␣principles␣for␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣
management␣
Appropriately␣planned,␣designed,␣and␣funded␣promotion␣and␣education␣program␣
Established␣and␣enforced␣policies␣that␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣␣
CONDITIONAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣fitting␣this␣profile␣
Expanded␣list␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣accepted␣
Program Planning and Design
Programs␣having␣this␣profile␣are␣large,␣complex,␣and␣urban/regional␣in␣nature.␣The␣
challenge␣in␣this␣group␣is␣to␣achieve␣diversion␣goals␣and␣maximize␣efficient,␣cost-
effective␣recycling␣services␣to␣all␣residents.␣␣
Programs␣in␣this␣group␣are␣either␣a␣major␣regional␣population␣center␣or␣a␣rapidly␣
growing␣region␣at␣the␣edge␣of␣a␣major␣urban␣center␣that␣still␣has␣rural␣portions␣at␣its␣
outskirts.␣␣Landfill␣space␣is␣either␣exceptionally␣costly␣or␣is␣already␣lost␣to␣
development.␣␣It␣is␣important␣to␣maintain and implement an up-to-date plan for
recycling, as part of an integrated waste management system.␣␣Such␣a␣plan␣will␣
ensure␣a␣strategic␣management␣focus␣that,␣when␣combined␣with␣complementary␣
waste␣reduction,␣organics,␣reuse,␣energy␣from␣waste,␣and␣waste␣diversion␣incentives␣
(bag␣limits,␣user␣pay),␣will␣result␣in␣a␣robust␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣Additional␣elements␣
of␣a␣plan␣for␣recycling␣as␣part␣of␣an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣can␣be␣
found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Although␣a␣program␣within␣this␣grouping␣will␣be␣able␣to␣support␣its␣own␣MRF,␣all␣
such␣programs␣will␣benefit␣from␣a␣multi-municipal planning approach␣to␣collection␣
and␣processing␣of␣recyclables.␣␣This␣is␣especially␣the␣case␣for␣programs␣handling␣
close␣to␣40,000␣tonnes␣per␣year,␣who␣could␣host␣a␣regional␣MRF,␣so␣that␣aggregation␣
of␣blue␣box␣tonnage␣will␣result␣in␣larger␣MRFs␣of␣higher␣throughput,␣thereby␣lowering␣
per-tonne␣processing␣costs␣for␣all␣participating␣communities.␣␣A␣multi-municipal␣
planning␣approach␣also␣offers␣participating␣jurisdictions␣the␣opportunity␣to␣establish␣a␣
common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣collection␣programs.␣This␣will␣create␣
consistency␣among␣neighbouring␣municipalities,␣which␣facilitates␣public␣
understanding␣regarding␣what␣and␣how␣to␣recycle.␣␣This␣is␣particularly␣important,␣as␣
residents␣often␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣A␣further␣benefit␣is␣the␣
ability␣to␣develop␣contingency␣plans␣with␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣Additional␣
discussion␣of␣the␣details␣of␣a␣multi-municipal planning␣approach␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Having␣a␣plan␣is␣of␣only␣limited␣benefit␣if␣there␣are␣no␣defined␣diversion targets and
performance measures, supported by data collection and analysis␣that␣measure␣
the␣effectiveness␣of␣the␣plan␣and␣its␣implementation.␣␣Performance␣measures␣and␣
data␣to␣be␣obtained␣include␣monitoring␣of␣diversion␣amounts,␣conducting␣waste␣
audits,␣and␣conducting␣participation␣studies.␣␣It␣is␣with␣such␣program␣monitoring␣that␣
sound␣decisions␣can␣be␣made␣based␣on␣local␣program␣data,␣within␣a␣framework␣of␣a␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣171
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
continuously␣improving␣the␣program.␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣performance␣measures␣
and␣program␣monitoring␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣
Practices␣section.␣
Performance␣data,␣once␣obtained␣and␣analyzed,␣will␣allow␣for␣the␣optimization of
operations.␣The␣benefits␣of␣optimization␣include␣balanced␣routes␣and␣payloads,␣
reduced␣collection␣time␣(and␣therefore␣reduced␣collection␣costs),␣and␣less␣costly␣
processing.␣Due␣to␣the␣size␣of␣programs␣in␣this␣group,␣there␣are␣opportunities␣to␣
invest␣in␣capital␣equipment␣to␣automate␣the␣recycling␣process␣and␣increase␣the␣rate␣
at␣which␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣are␣collected␣and␣processed.␣␣Specific␣opportunities␣that␣
apply␣to␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣are␣further␣discussed␣in␣the␣Collection␣and␣
Processing␣sections␣of␣this␣Program␣Profile.␣
For␣communities␣within␣this␣profile,␣programs␣designed␣to␣achieve␣60%␣diversion␣of␣
Blue␣Box␣materials␣would␣need to collect the five mandatory Blue Box materials
as well as several of the "supplementary" Blue Box materials␣that:␣␣comprise␣a␣
significant␣portion␣of␣the␣waste␣stream␣(as␣determined␣by␣waste␣audits),␣have␣reliable␣
markets,␣and␣can␣be␣practically␣recovered␣for␣recycling.␣␣␣
For␣programs␣over␣40,000␣tonnes␣per␣year,␣single␣stream␣collection␣and␣processing␣is␣
feasible.␣␣Single␣stream␣recycling␣offers␣the␣potential␣for␣increased␣collection␣savings␣
and␣increased␣recovery␣of␣recyclables,␣but␣also␣results␣in␣increased␣processing␣costs␣
and,␣depending␣on␣the␣container␣type␣used,␣increased␣contamination.␣Despite␣the␣
recent␣growth␣in␣single␣stream␣systems,␣it␣would␣be␣a␣mistake␣to␣assume␣that␣the␣
single␣stream␣recycling␣approach␣represents␣the␣most␣economical␣alternative␣for␣all␣
communities.␣In␣some␣cases,␣other␣approaches,␣such␣as␣the␣dual-stream,␣two-bin␣
recycling␣approach,␣may␣prove␣to␣be␣more␣economical.␣␣This␣conclusion␣underscores␣
the␣importance␣of␣using␣local␣economic␣and␣market␣data␣in␣assessing␣the␣economic␣
feasibility␣of␣single␣stream␣recycling␣for␣a␣local␣community.␣Refer␣to␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlights␣for␣more␣information␣on␣Collection␣and␣
Processing␣considerations␣relating␣to␣single␣stream.␣
Collection
Curbside collection of recyclables should be used to service all available
curbside-eligible households in the community. Drop-off depots should be
utilized to collect overflow Blue Box materials and additional recyclable
materials for which curbside collection is not practical or cost-effective. Depots␣
may␣also␣be␣warranted␣in␣outlying␣villages␣in␣the␣remaining␣rural␣portions␣of␣the␣
region.␣␣Supporting␣Best␣Practices␣related␣to␣drop-off␣depots␣are␣discussed␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
The␣urban␣portions␣of␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣will␣likely␣have␣a␣sizable␣multi-family␣
population.␣Collection of multi-family recyclables needs to be a substantial part
of this program. On-site collection of recyclables should be used to service all
available multi-family households in the community, and should be integrated
with curbside collection of recyclables wherever possible␣in␣order␣to␣ensure␣
program␣success.␣␣Because␣of␣the␣unique␣challenges␣of␣multi-family␣recycling,␣
172 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
associated␣best␣practices␣are␣further␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight.␣
Providing sufficient rigid collection containers free of charge␣to␣residents␣will␣
ensure␣that␣overflow␣materials␣are␣not␣disposed.␣Selection␣of␣the␣size␣and/or␣number␣
of␣containers␣needs␣to␣take␣into␣consideration␣estimated␣set␣out␣volume␣of␣
recyclables,␣based␣on␣the␣frequency␣of␣collection.␣␣Most␣programs␣will␣provide␣
weekly␣or␣bi-weekly␣collection␣of␣recyclables.␣␣Collection of Blue Box materials
should be at least as frequent as waste collection.␣␣␣
The␣size␣of␣programs␣within␣this␣profile␣allows␣for␣the␣construction␣of␣a␣MRF␣that␣is␣
capable␣of␣processing␣recyclables␣that␣have␣been␣collected␣single␣stream.␣␣From␣a␣
processing␣perspective,␣single␣stream␣collection␣of␣recyclables␣is␣not␣preferred␣over␣
two␣stream␣collection,␣because␣the␣processing␣cost␣per␣tonne␣and␣process␣residue␣
rates␣will␣be␣higher␣at␣a␣single␣stream␣MRF␣compared␣to␣an␣equivalent␣two␣stream␣
MRF.␣␣Single␣stream␣collection␣costs,␣however,␣can␣be␣significantly␣reduced,␣
compared␣to␣two␣stream␣collection␣(assuming␣use␣of␣carts␣and␣bi-weekly␣service),␣
and␣the␣point␣at␣which␣the␣combined␣collection␣and␣processing␣cost␣favours␣single␣
stream␣is␣approximately␣40,000␣tonnes␣per␣year.␣␣
Single␣stream␣collection␣can␣benefit␣the␣remote␣portions␣of␣the␣region␣due␣to␣
reduced␣collection␣costs.␣␣Furthermore,␣because␣transfer␣of␣recyclables␣may␣be␣cost-
effective␣for␣transporting␣materials␣from␣remote␣parts␣of␣the␣region,␣handling␣Blue␣
Box␣materials␣in␣a␣single␣stream␣can␣minimize␣glass␣breakage␣due␣to␣the␣cushioning␣
properties␣of␣paper␣and␣plastic␣products␣as␣materials␣are␣tipped,␣loaded␣into␣a␣
transfer␣trailer,␣and␣tipped␣again.␣␣␣
Collecting␣materials␣single␣stream␣allows␣other␣collection␣practices␣to␣be␣
implemented␣that␣can␣significantly␣reduce␣the␣collection␣cost.␣␣One␣of␣these␣
practices␣is␣controlled compaction␣that␣allows␣collection␣to␣be␣more␣productive␣
because␣trucks␣can␣stay␣on␣route␣longer␣before␣filling.␣␣The␣compaction␣needs␣to␣be␣
controlled␣so␣that␣the␣pressure␣is␣sufficient␣to␣achieve␣a␣reasonable␣amount␣of␣
volume␣reduction,␣without␣over-compacting␣the␣materials.␣␣Over-compaction␣results␣
in␣glass␣breakage␣and␣flattening␣of␣round␣containers,␣which␣can␣cause␣the␣automated␣
systems␣in␣a␣single␣stream␣MRF␣to␣be␣less␣effective␣in␣separating␣flat␣paper␣products␣
from␣round␣containers.␣Compaction␣can␣also␣be␣used␣in␣two␣stream␣collection;␣
however,␣the␣per-household␣cost␣for␣collection␣in␣single␣stream␣systems␣is␣typically␣
less␣than␣comparable␣two␣stream␣systems␣because␣materials␣can␣be␣loaded␣into␣a␣
single␣stream␣truck␣in␣less␣time.␣
Another␣collection␣practice␣that␣is␣enabled␣by␣single␣stream␣collection␣is␣providing␣
program␣participants␣with␣carts␣for␣their␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣instead␣of␣bins.␣␣The␣
significantly␣greater␣storage␣volume␣of␣carts␣compared␣to␣bins␣means␣that␣overflow␣
Blue␣Box␣materials␣are␣typically␣not␣discarded,␣although␣some␣exceptions␣may␣occur.␣␣
The␣carts␣also␣allow␣for␣every-other-week␣collection␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials,␣with␣
reduced␣collection␣cost,␣compared␣to␣weekly␣collection.␣␣The␣use␣of␣carts␣also␣allows␣
for␣fully␣automated␣collection,␣in␣which␣a␣mechanical␣arm␣picks␣up␣and␣dumps␣the␣
cart␣without␣the␣driver␣having␣to␣get␣out␣of␣the␣truck␣for␣the␣majority␣of␣stops.␣␣This␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣173
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
can␣allow␣for␣collecting␣more␣stops␣per␣hour,␣yielding␣further␣cost␣savings.␣␣Because␣
machinery␣is␣doing␣the␣heavy␣lifting,␣a␣more␣age␣and␣gender-balanced␣workforce␣can␣
be␣used␣and␣WSIB␣claims␣are␣typically␣reduced.␣␣In␣areas␣where␣fully␣automated␣
collection␣is␣impractical␣(e.g.,␣due␣to␣obstacles␣impeding␣collection),␣semi-automated␣
collection␣of␣recyclables␣in␣carts␣may␣be␣an␣option.␣
It␣should␣be␣noted␣that␣many␣of␣the␣practices␣that␣are␣enabled␣by␣single␣stream␣
collection␣can␣be␣achieved␣by␣two␣stream␣systems␣that␣collect␣paper␣products␣and␣
containers␣on␣an␣alternating␣week␣basis,␣including␣compaction␣and␣dual␣collection.␣␣
Collecting␣on␣an␣alternating␣week␣basis␣does␣not␣mean␣that␣the␣MRF␣only␣processes␣
paper␣products␣one␣week␣and␣containers␣the␣other␣week;␣rather␣it␣means␣that␣half␣
the␣routes␣collect␣one␣material␣and␣the␣other␣half␣of␣routes␣collect␣the␣other␣material␣
on␣any␣given␣day.␣␣This␣allows␣the␣MRF␣to␣be␣optimally␣sized.␣␣Because␣solid␣waste␣
planners␣seek␣to␣optimize␣an␣entire␣integrated␣solid␣waste␣system,␣a␣two␣stream␣
Blue␣Box␣system␣may␣be␣preferred␣over␣single␣stream␣if␣total␣system␣costs␣are␣
reduced.␣␣Planners␣of␣programs␣similar␣to␣this␣profile␣should␣carefully␣develop␣their␣
business␣case␣supporting␣two␣stream␣collection␣over␣single␣stream␣collection.␣␣
Additional␣opportunities␣for␣improving␣collection␣efficiencies␣and␣reducing␣costs␣that␣
apply␣to␣programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣include␣the␣use of route optimization
software and providing carts or dumpsters at multi-family complexes.␣These␣
and␣other␣collection␣optimization␣practices␣are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣␣
Processing
Partnership and transfer opportunities should still be explored for all programs
with this profile.␣Any␣community␣with␣a␣one␣to␣two-hour␣haul␣distance␣to␣a␣MRF␣
should␣consider␣the␣use␣of␣transfer␣to␣potentially␣reduce␣system␣costs␣through␣
economies␣of␣scale␣due␣to␣increased␣throughput␣resulting␣from␣multi-municipal␣
cooperation.␣␣␣
Additionally,␣MRFs␣in␣this␣profile␣should␣investigate␣the␣suitability␣of␣processing␣
paper␣and␣plastics␣with␣optical␣sorting␣equipment,␣as␣utilization␣of␣that␣equipment␣
may␣be␣a␣Best␣Practice␣under␣certain␣conditions.␣␣Typically,␣the␣use␣of␣optical␣sorting␣
equipment␣is␣feasible␣in␣only␣the␣highest␣throughput␣facilities.␣␣In␣the␣case␣of␣optical␣
sorting␣of␣plastics,␣the␣equipment␣is␣designed␣for␣sorting␣plastic␣bottles␣only␣and␣
therefore␣is␣generally␣not␣suitable␣to␣sorting␣a␣mixed␣plastics␣stream␣that␣includes␣
tubs␣and␣lids␣and␣polystyrene.␣␣Optical␣sorting␣of␣paper␣is␣still␣somewhat␣
developmental␣and␣automated␣sorting␣of␣paper␣may␣be␣limited␣to␣only␣certain␣
facilities,␣based␣on␣how␣materials␣are␣sorted␣into␣sub-streams.␣␣Other␣optimization␣
strategies␣for␣MRFs␣are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight.␣
Training
Best␣Practices␣include␣ensuring key program staff are adequately trained␣in␣the␣
core␣competencies␣required␣for␣each␣duty.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
174 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Procurement and Contract Management
Best␣Practices␣include␣following␣generally accepted principles for effective
procurement and contract management.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
A␣best␣practice␣that␣applies␣to␣this␣profile␣is␣the␣alignment␣of␣service␣contract␣lengths␣
with␣equipment␣depreciation␣terms.␣␣This␣practice␣is␣conditional␣on␣the␣program:␣(1)␣
contracting␣with␣a␣service␣provider␣rather␣than␣using␣municipal␣staff;␣and␣(2)␣
specifying␣that␣the␣service␣provider␣provide␣new␣collection␣equipment␣or␣design␣and␣
build␣a␣new␣MRF.␣␣The␣reason␣for␣aligning␣the␣contract␣lengths␣with␣equipment␣
depreciation␣terms␣is␣to␣ensure␣that␣the␣program␣doesn't␣fully␣pay␣for␣equipment␣that␣
may␣have␣additional␣life␣at␣the␣end␣of␣the␣contract.␣␣In␣the␣case␣of␣MRFs,␣the␣term␣
should␣be␣aligned␣with␣the␣first␣scheduled␣major␣overhaul␣of␣the␣plant's␣equipment.␣␣
A␣suitably␣long␣term␣also␣ensures␣that␣equipment␣is␣installed␣that␣has␣a␣life␣cycle␣cost␣
advantage␣that␣may␣not␣be␣realized␣by␣the␣contractor␣over␣a␣shorter␣operating␣period.␣␣␣
Promotion and Education
An␣effective promotion and education (P&E) program␣leads␣to␣higher␣resident␣
participation␣rates,␣improved␣material␣quality,␣lower␣residue␣rates,␣and␣increased␣
customer␣satisfaction.␣␣A␣variety␣of␣P&E␣strategies␣can␣be␣employed␣by␣municipal␣
programs␣to␣achieve␣desired␣program␣goals,␣as␣described␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Furthermore,␣to␣increase␣program␣effectiveness,␣municipalities␣may␣need␣to␣
coordinate␣P&E␣activities␣with␣their␣neighbours.␣␣Multi-municipal␣P&E␣enables␣
participating␣communities␣to␣have␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣
collection␣programs␣in␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣When␣combined␣with␣the␣
availability␣of␣mass␣media␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣profile,␣a␣multi-municipal␣mass␣media␣
campaign␣can␣be␣employed␣that␣allows␣for␣consistent␣promotion␣of␣messages,␣as␣
residents␣continually␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣
Policies and Incentives
In␣order␣to␣achieve␣the␣60%␣diversion␣target␣set␣by␣the␣Province,␣programs␣in␣this␣
category␣will␣need␣to use incentives and policies that promote waste diversion.␣␣
Such␣tools␣may␣include␣solid␣waste␣bag␣limits,␣user␣pay␣program␣for␣waste,␣and/or␣
enforced␣mandatory␣recycling␣bylaws.␣␣Each␣community␣needs␣to␣evaluate␣its␣waste␣
diversion␣plans␣and␣initiatives␣to␣determine␣the␣right␣balance␣of␣economic␣and␣non-
monetary␣incentives.␣␣A␣detailed␣discussion␣of␣policies␣and␣incentives␣that,␣when␣
established␣and␣enforced,␣serve␣to␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣175
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Large Urban Southern Blue Box Program
␣
Overview
This␣Program␣Profile,␣paired␣with␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣and␣Spotlight␣
summaries,␣is␣designed␣to␣provide␣general␣guidance␣to␣municipalities␣on␣how␣to␣
design,␣manage,␣and␣operate␣their␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣under␣Best␣Practices.␣␣It␣is␣
specifically␣tailored␣to␣programs␣of␣defined␣size,␣density,␣and␣geography␣in␣order␣to␣
enhance␣applicability␣of␣Best␣Practices␣and␣increase␣the␣likelihood␣of␣their␣adoption.␣␣␣
␣
Program Characteristics
The␣following␣characteristics␣were␣used␣to␣define␣this␣Program␣Profile:␣␣
Geographical␣Region:␣Southern␣community␣
Size␣of␣Program:␣Generating␣over␣40,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣
Residential␣Density:␣Greater␣than␣70␣homes␣per␣kilometre␣of␣roads␣(over␣
80%␣urban)␣
Programs␣having␣this␣profile␣are␣large,␣complex,␣and␣urban/regional␣in␣nature.␣␣The␣
urban␣nature␣of␣programs␣in␣this␣group␣generally␣means␣that␣landfill␣space␣is␣limited.␣␣
These␣programs␣are␣also␣likely␣experiencing␣rapid␣population␣growth␣or␣frequent␣
relocation␣of␣residents␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions␣that␣surround␣a␣major␣
urban␣center.␣␣The␣challenge␣in␣this␣group␣is␣to␣achieve␣diversion␣goals␣and␣maximize␣
efficient,␣cost-effective␣recycling␣services␣to␣all␣residents.␣
Applicable Best Practices
Each␣of␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣listed␣in␣the␣table␣below␣applies␣to␣all␣Blue␣
Box␣programs.␣These␣practices␣are␣introduced␣in␣the␣text␣below,␣and␣described␣in␣
greater␣detail␣in␣the␣separate␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣summaries.␣␣␣
Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣that␣apply␣to␣every␣program␣in␣this␣profile␣are␣also␣listed␣in␣
the␣table.␣␣Several␣other␣Conditional␣Practices␣are␣best␣for␣some,␣but␣not␣all␣programs␣
in␣this␣profile.␣␣These␣practices␣and␣the␣specific␣conditions␣under␣which␣they␣apply␣
are␣discussed␣below.␣␣Leading␣practices␣are␣presented␣in␣bold␣type,␣for␣ease␣of␣
reference.␣␣Additional␣guidance␣regarding␣practices␣that␣may␣be␣best␣under␣certain␣
circumstances␣is␣also␣provided␣for␣consideration.␣␣Lastly,␣supplementary␣best␣
practices␣guidance␣for␣specific␣program␣areas␣(e.g.,␣collection,␣processing,␣depot␣and␣
multi-residential␣recycling)␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣"Spotlight"␣summaries.␣␣
FUNDAMENTAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣
Development␣and␣implementation␣of␣an␣up-to-date␣plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣
an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣
Multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣to␣collection␣and␣processing␣recyclables␣␣
Program␣Profile
Use␣of␣Program␣Profile
This␣document␣is␣intended␣to␣provide␣
general␣guidance,␣not␣detailed␣
prescriptive␣recommendations,␣on␣
how␣any␣given␣program␣should␣be␣
structured.␣␣␣
The␣Project␣Team␣believes␣that␣by␣
adopting␣Best␣Practices␣outlined␣in␣
this␣document,␣recycling␣coordinators␣
will␣improve␣the␣performance␣of␣their␣
Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣However,␣the␣
degree␣of␣improvement␣will␣vary␣
across␣municipalities,␣as␣multiple␣
factors␣contribute␣to␣overall␣program␣
performance.␣Furthermore,␣more-
detailed␣guidance␣may␣be␣needed␣by␣
some␣communities␣to␣ensure␣that␣
practices␣are␣truly␣implemented␣in␣a␣
Best␣Practices␣fashion.␣
176 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Establishing␣defined␣performance␣measures␣including␣diversion␣targets␣and␣
monitoring␣and␣a␣continuous␣improvement␣program␣
Optimization␣of␣operations␣in␣collections␣and␣processing␣␣
Training␣of␣key␣program␣staff␣in␣core␣competencies␣required␣
Following␣generally␣accepted␣principles␣for␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣
management␣
Appropriately␣planned,␣designed,␣and␣funded␣promotion␣and␣education␣program␣
Established␣and␣enforced␣policies␣that␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣␣
CONDITIONAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣programs␣fitting␣this␣profile␣
Expanded␣list␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣accepted␣
Program Planning and Design
It␣is␣important␣to␣maintain and implement an up-to-date plan for recycling as
part of an integrated waste management system.␣␣Such␣a␣plan␣will␣ensure␣a␣
strategic␣management␣focus␣that,␣when␣combined␣with␣complementary␣waste␣
reduction,␣organics,␣reuse,␣energy␣from␣waste,␣and␣waste␣diversion␣incentives␣(bag␣
limits,␣user␣pay),␣will␣result␣in␣a␣robust␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣Additional␣elements␣of␣a␣
plan␣for␣recycling␣as␣part␣of␣an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣can␣be␣found␣
in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Although␣a␣program␣within␣this␣grouping␣will␣be␣able␣to␣support␣its␣own␣MRF,␣all␣
such␣programs␣will␣benefit␣from␣a␣multi-municipal planning approach␣to␣collection␣
and␣processing␣of␣recyclables.␣␣This␣is␣especially␣the␣case␣for␣programs␣handling␣
close␣to␣40,000␣tonnes␣per␣year,␣who␣could␣host␣a␣regional␣MRF,␣so␣that␣aggregation␣
of␣blue␣box␣tonnage␣will␣result␣in␣larger␣MRFs␣of␣higher␣throughput,␣thereby␣lowering␣
per-tonne␣processing␣costs␣for␣all␣participating␣communities.␣␣A␣multi-municipal
planning␣approach␣also␣offers␣participating␣jurisdictions␣the␣opportunity␣to␣establish␣a␣
common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣collection␣programs.␣This␣will␣create␣
consistency␣among␣neighbouring␣municipalities,␣which␣facilitates␣public␣
understanding␣regarding␣what␣and␣how␣to␣recycle.␣␣This␣is␣particularly␣important,␣as␣
residents␣often␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣A␣further␣benefit␣is␣the␣
ability␣to␣develop␣contingency␣plans␣with␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣Additional␣
discussion␣of␣the␣details␣of␣a␣multi-municipal planning␣approach␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Having␣a␣plan␣is␣of␣only␣limited␣benefit␣if␣there␣are␣no␣defined␣diversion targets and
performance measures, supported by data collection and analysis␣that␣measure␣
the␣effectiveness␣of␣the␣plan␣and␣its␣implementation.␣␣Performance␣measures␣and␣
data␣to␣be␣obtained␣include␣monitoring␣of␣diversion␣amounts,␣conducting␣waste␣
audits,␣and␣conducting␣participation␣studies.␣␣It␣is␣with␣such␣program␣monitoring␣that␣
sound␣decisions␣can␣be␣made␣based␣on␣local␣program␣data,␣within␣a␣framework␣of␣a␣
continuously␣improving␣the␣program.␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣performance␣measures␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣177
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
and␣program␣monitoring␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣
Practices␣section.␣
Performance␣data,␣once␣obtained␣and␣analyzed,␣will␣allow␣for␣the␣optimization of
operations.␣The␣benefits␣of␣optimization␣include␣balanced␣routes␣and␣payloads,␣
reduced␣collection␣time␣(and␣therefore␣reduced␣collection␣costs),␣and␣less␣costly␣
processing.␣Due␣to␣the␣size␣of␣programs␣in␣this␣group,␣there␣are␣opportunities␣to␣
invest␣in␣capital␣equipment␣to␣automate␣the␣recycling␣process␣and␣increase␣the␣rate␣
at␣which␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣are␣collected␣and␣processed.␣␣Specific␣opportunities␣that␣
apply␣to␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣are␣further␣discussed␣in␣the␣Collection␣and␣
Processing␣sections␣of␣this␣Program␣Profile.␣
For␣communities␣within␣this␣profile,␣programs␣designed␣to␣achieve␣60%␣diversion␣of␣
Blue␣Box␣materials␣would␣need to collect the five mandatory Blue Box materials
as well as several of the "supplementary" Blue Box materials␣that:␣␣comprise␣a␣
significant␣portion␣of␣the␣waste␣stream␣(as␣determined␣by␣waste␣audits),␣have␣reliable␣
markets,␣and␣can␣be␣practically␣recovered␣for␣recycling.␣␣␣
Collection
Curbside collection of recyclables should be used to service all available
curbside-eligible households in the community. Drop-off depots should be
utilized to collect overflow Blue Box materials and additional recyclable
materials for which curbside collection is not practical or cost-effective.
Supporting␣Best␣Practices␣related␣to␣drop-off␣depots␣are␣discussed␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
The␣urban␣nature␣of␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣means␣that␣the␣multi-family␣population␣
will␣likely␣be␣sizeable.␣Collection␣of␣multi-family␣recyclables␣needs␣to␣be␣a␣substantial␣
part␣of␣this␣program.␣␣On-site collection of recyclables should be used to service
all available multi-family households in the community, and should be
integrated with curbside collection of recyclables wherever possible␣in␣order␣to␣
ensure␣program␣success.␣␣Because␣of␣the␣unique␣challenges␣of␣multi-family␣recycling,␣
associated␣best␣practices␣are␣further␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight.␣␣
Providing sufficient rigid collection containers free of charge␣to␣residents␣will␣
ensure␣that␣overflow␣materials␣are␣not␣disposed.␣Selection␣of␣the␣size␣and/or␣number␣
of␣containers␣needs␣to␣take␣into␣consideration␣estimated␣set␣out␣volume␣of␣
recyclables,␣based␣on␣the␣frequency␣of␣collection.␣␣Most␣programs␣will␣provide␣
weekly␣or␣bi-weekly␣collection␣of␣recyclables.␣␣Collection␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣
should␣be␣at␣least␣as␣frequent␣as␣waste␣collection.␣
The␣size␣of␣programs␣within␣this␣profile␣allows␣for␣the␣construction␣of␣a␣MRF␣that␣is␣
capable␣of␣processing␣recyclables␣that␣have␣been␣collected␣single␣stream.␣␣From␣a␣
processing␣perspective,␣single␣stream␣collection␣of␣recyclables␣is␣not␣preferred␣over␣
two␣stream␣collection,␣because␣the␣processing␣cost␣per␣tonne␣and␣process␣residue␣
rates␣will␣be␣higher␣at␣a␣single␣stream␣MRF␣compared␣to␣an␣equivalent␣two␣stream␣
MRF.␣␣Single␣stream␣collection␣costs,␣however,␣can␣be␣significantly␣reduced,␣
178 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
compared␣to␣two␣stream␣collection␣(assuming␣use␣of␣carts␣and␣bi-weekly␣service),␣
and␣the␣point␣at␣which␣the␣combined␣collection␣and␣processing␣cost␣favours␣single␣
stream␣is␣approximately␣40,000␣tonnes␣per␣year.␣␣
Collecting␣materials␣single␣stream␣allows␣other␣collection␣practices␣to␣be␣
implemented␣that␣can␣significantly␣reduce␣the␣collection␣cost.␣␣One␣of␣these␣
practices␣is␣controlled compaction␣that␣allows␣collection␣to␣be␣more␣productive␣
because␣trucks␣can␣stay␣on␣route␣longer␣before␣filling.␣␣The␣compaction␣needs␣to␣be␣
controlled␣so␣that␣the␣pressure␣is␣sufficient␣to␣achieve␣a␣reasonable␣amount␣of␣
volume␣reduction,␣without␣over-compacting␣the␣materials.␣␣Over-compaction␣results␣
in␣glass␣breakage␣and␣flattening␣of␣round␣containers,␣which␣can␣cause␣the␣automated␣
systems␣in␣a␣single␣stream␣MRF␣to␣be␣less␣effective␣in␣separating␣flat␣paper␣products␣
from␣round␣containers.␣Compaction␣can␣also␣be␣used␣in␣two␣stream␣collection;␣
however,␣the␣per-household␣cost␣for␣collection␣in␣single␣stream␣systems␣is␣typically␣
less␣than␣comparable␣two␣stream␣systems␣because␣materials␣can␣be␣loaded␣into␣a␣
single␣stream␣truck␣in␣less␣time.␣
A␣second␣collection␣practice␣that␣is␣enabled␣by␣single␣stream␣collection␣is␣providing␣
program␣participants␣with␣carts␣for␣their␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣instead␣of␣bins.␣␣The␣
significantly␣greater␣storage␣volume␣of␣carts␣compared␣to␣bins␣means␣that␣overflow␣
Blue␣Box␣materials␣are␣typically␣not␣discarded,␣although␣some␣exceptions␣may␣occur.␣␣
The␣carts␣also␣allow␣for␣every-other-week␣collection␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials,␣with␣
reduced␣collection␣cost,␣compared␣to␣weekly␣collection.␣␣The␣use␣of␣carts␣also␣allows␣
for␣fully␣automated␣collection,␣in␣which␣a␣mechanical␣arm␣picks␣up␣and␣dumps␣the␣
cart␣without␣the␣driver␣having␣to␣get␣out␣of␣the␣truck␣for␣the␣majority␣of␣stops.␣␣This␣
can␣allow␣for␣collecting␣more␣stops␣per␣hour,␣yielding␣further␣cost␣savings.␣␣Because␣
machinery␣is␣doing␣the␣heavy␣lifting,␣a␣more␣age␣and␣gender-balanced␣workforce␣can␣
be␣used␣and␣WSIB␣claims␣are␣typically␣reduced.␣␣In␣areas␣where␣fully␣automated␣
collection␣is␣impractical␣(e.g.,␣due␣to␣obstacles␣impeding␣collection),␣semi-automated␣
collection␣of␣recyclables␣in␣carts␣may␣be␣an␣option.␣
It␣should␣be␣noted␣that␣many␣of␣the␣practices␣that␣are␣enabled␣by␣single␣stream␣
collection␣can␣be␣achieved␣by␣two␣stream␣systems␣that␣collect␣paper␣products␣and␣
containers␣on␣an␣alternating␣week␣basis,␣including␣compaction␣and␣co-collection.␣␣
Collecting␣on␣an␣alternating␣week␣basis␣does␣not␣mean␣that␣the␣MRF␣only␣processes␣
paper␣products␣one␣week␣and␣containers␣the␣other␣week;␣rather␣it␣means␣that␣half␣
the␣routes␣collect␣one␣material␣and␣the␣other␣half␣of␣routes␣collect␣the␣other␣material␣
on␣any␣given␣day.␣␣This␣allows␣the␣MRF␣to␣be␣optimally␣sized.␣␣Because␣solid␣waste␣
planners␣seek␣to␣optimize␣an␣entire␣integrated␣solid␣waste␣system,␣a␣two␣stream␣
Blue␣Box␣system␣may␣be␣preferred␣over␣single␣stream␣if␣total␣system␣costs␣are␣
reduced.␣␣Planners␣of␣programs␣similar␣to␣this␣profile␣should␣carefully␣develop␣their␣
business␣case␣supporting␣two␣stream␣collection␣over␣single␣stream␣collection.␣␣
Additional␣opportunities␣for␣improving␣collection␣efficiencies␣and␣reducing␣costs␣that␣
apply␣to␣programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣include␣the␣use of route optimization
software and providing carts or dumpsters at multi-family complexes.␣These␣
are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣179
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Processing
Partnership and transfer opportunities should still be explored for␣all␣programs␣
with␣this␣profile.␣Any␣community␣with␣a␣one␣to␣two-hour␣haul␣distance␣to␣a␣MRF␣
should␣consider␣the␣use␣of␣transfer␣to␣potentially␣reduce␣system␣costs␣through␣
economies␣of␣scale␣due␣to␣increased␣throughput␣resulting␣from␣multi-municipal␣
cooperation.␣␣␣
Additionally,␣MRFs␣in␣this␣profile␣should␣investigate␣the␣suitability␣of␣processing␣
paper␣and␣plastics␣with␣optical␣sorting␣equipment,␣as␣utilization␣of␣that␣equipment␣
may␣be␣a␣Best␣Practice␣under␣certain␣conditions.␣␣Typically,␣the␣use␣of␣optical␣sorting␣
equipment␣is␣feasible␣in␣only␣the␣highest␣throughput␣facilities.␣␣In␣the␣case␣of␣optical␣
sorting␣of␣plastics,␣the␣equipment␣is␣designed␣for␣sorting␣plastic␣bottles␣only␣and␣may␣
not␣suitable␣to␣sorting␣a␣mixed␣plastics␣stream␣that␣includes␣tubs␣and␣lids␣and␣
polystyrene.␣␣Optical␣sorting␣of␣paper␣is␣still␣somewhat␣developmental␣and␣
automated␣sorting␣of␣paper␣may␣be␣limited␣to␣only␣certain␣facilities,␣based␣on␣how␣
materials␣are␣sorted␣into␣sub-streams.␣␣Other␣optimization␣strategies␣for␣MRFs␣are␣
more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Training
Best␣Practices␣include␣ensuring key program staff are adequately trained␣in␣the␣
core␣competencies␣required␣for␣each␣duty.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Procurement and Contract Management
Best␣Practices␣include␣following␣generally accepted principles for effective
procurement and contract management.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
A␣best␣practice␣that␣specifically␣applies␣to␣this␣profile␣is␣the␣alignment of service
contract lengths with equipment depreciation terms.␣␣This␣practice␣is␣conditional␣
on␣the␣program:␣(1)␣contracting␣with␣a␣service␣provider␣rather␣than␣using␣municipal␣
staff;␣and␣(2)␣specifying␣that␣the␣service␣provider␣provide␣new␣collection␣equipment␣
or␣design␣and␣build␣a␣new␣MRF.␣␣The␣reason␣for␣aligning␣the␣contract␣lengths␣with␣
equipment␣depreciation␣terms␣is␣to␣ensure␣that␣the␣program␣doesn't␣fully␣pay␣for␣
equipment␣that␣may␣have␣additional␣life␣at␣the␣end␣of␣the␣contract.␣␣In␣the␣case␣of␣
MRFs,␣the␣term␣should␣be␣aligned␣with␣the␣first␣scheduled␣major␣overhaul␣of␣the␣
plant's␣equipment.␣␣A␣suitably␣long␣term␣also␣ensures␣that␣equipment␣is␣installed␣that␣
has␣a␣life␣cycle␣cost␣advantage␣that␣may␣not␣be␣realized␣by␣the␣contractor␣over␣a␣
shorter␣operating␣period.␣␣␣
Promotion and Education
An␣effective promotion and education (P&E) program␣leads␣to␣higher␣resident␣
participation␣rates,␣improved␣material␣quality,␣lower␣residue␣rates,␣and␣increased␣
customer␣satisfaction.␣␣A␣variety␣of␣P&E␣strategies␣can␣be␣employed␣by␣municipal␣
180 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
programs␣to␣achieve␣desired␣program␣goals,␣as␣described␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Furthermore,␣to␣increase␣program␣effectiveness,␣municipalities␣may␣need␣to␣
coordinate␣P&E␣activities␣with␣their␣neighbours.␣␣Multi-municipal␣P&E␣enables␣
participating␣communities␣to␣have␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣
collection␣programs␣in␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣When␣combined␣with␣the␣
availability␣of␣mass␣media␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣profile,␣a␣multi-municipal␣mass␣media␣
campaign␣can␣be␣employed␣that␣allows␣for␣consistent␣promotion␣of␣messages,␣as␣
residents␣continually␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣
Policies and Incentives
In␣order␣to␣achieve␣the␣60%␣diversion␣target␣set␣by␣the␣Province,␣programs␣in␣this␣
category␣will␣need␣to use incentives and policies that promote waste diversion.␣␣
Such␣tools␣may␣include␣solid␣waste␣bag␣limits,␣user␣pay␣program␣for␣waste,␣and/or␣
enforced␣mandatory␣recycling␣bylaws.␣␣Each␣community␣needs␣to␣evaluate␣its␣waste␣
diversion␣plans␣and␣initiatives␣to␣determine␣the␣right␣balance␣of␣economic␣and␣non-
monetary␣incentives.␣␣A␣detailed␣discussion␣of␣policies␣and␣incentives␣that,␣when␣
established␣and␣enforced,␣serve␣to␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣181
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Small Rural Northern Blue Box Program
Overview
This␣Program␣Profile,␣paired␣with␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣and␣Spotlight␣
summaries,␣is␣designed␣to␣provide␣general␣guidance␣to␣municipalities␣on␣how␣to␣
design,␣manage,␣and␣operate␣their␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣under␣Best␣Practices.␣␣It␣is␣
specifically␣tailored␣to␣programs␣of␣defined␣size,␣density,␣and␣geography␣in␣order␣to␣
enhance␣applicability␣of␣Best␣Practices␣and␣increase␣the␣likelihood␣of␣their␣adoption.␣␣␣
␣
Program Characteristics
The␣following␣characteristics␣were␣used␣to␣define␣this␣Program␣Profile:␣␣
Geographical␣Region:␣Northern␣community␣
Size␣of␣Program:␣Generating␣less␣than␣10,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣
Residential␣Density:␣Less␣than␣10␣homes␣per␣kilometre␣of␣road␣(more␣than␣
80%␣rural)␣
Programs␣having␣this␣profile␣are␣rural␣in␣nature,␣with␣only␣a␣small␣portion␣of␣
households␣located␣in␣urban␣areas.␣␣They␣are␣typically␣townships,␣with␣very␣little␣
urban␣development.␣␣The␣challenge␣in␣this␣group␣is␣to␣achieve␣diversion␣goals␣and␣
provide␣efficient,␣cost-effective␣curbside␣and␣depot␣service␣to␣rural␣households.␣
Applicable Best Practices
Each␣of␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣listed␣in␣the␣table␣below␣applies␣to␣all␣Blue␣
Box␣programs.␣These␣practices␣are␣introduced␣in␣the␣text␣below,␣and␣described␣in␣
greater␣detail␣in␣the␣separate␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣summaries.␣␣␣
There␣are␣no␣Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣that␣apply␣to␣every␣program␣in␣this␣profile.␣
Several␣Conditional␣Practices␣are␣best␣for␣some,␣but␣not␣all␣programs␣in␣this␣profile.␣␣
These␣practices␣and␣the␣specific␣conditions␣under␣which␣they␣apply␣are␣discussed␣
below.␣␣Leading␣practices␣are␣presented␣in␣bold␣type,␣for␣ease␣of␣reference.␣␣
Additional␣guidance␣regarding␣practices␣that␣may␣be␣best␣under␣certain␣
circumstances␣is␣also␣provided␣for␣consideration.␣␣Lastly,␣supplementary␣best␣
practices␣guidance␣for␣specific␣program␣areas␣(e.g.,␣collection,␣processing,␣depot␣and␣
multi-residential␣recycling)␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣"Spotlight"␣summaries.␣␣
FUNDAMENTAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣
Development␣and␣implementation␣of␣an␣up-to-date␣plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣
an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣
Multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣to␣collection␣and␣processing␣recyclables␣␣
Establishing␣defined␣performance␣measures␣including␣diversion␣targets␣and␣
monitoring␣and␣a␣continuous␣improvement␣program␣
Program␣Profile
Use␣of␣Program␣Profile
This␣document␣is␣intended␣to␣provide␣
general␣guidance,␣not␣detailed␣
prescriptive␣recommendations,␣on␣
how␣any␣given␣program␣should␣be␣
structured.␣␣␣
The␣Project␣Team␣believes␣that␣by␣
adopting␣Best␣Practices␣outlined␣in␣
this␣document,␣recycling␣coordinators␣
will␣improve␣the␣performance␣of␣their␣
Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣However,␣the␣
degree␣of␣improvement␣will␣vary␣
across␣municipalities,␣as␣multiple␣
factors␣contribute␣to␣overall␣program␣
performance.␣Furthermore,␣more-
detailed␣guidance␣may␣be␣needed␣by␣
some␣communities␣to␣ensure␣that␣
practices␣are␣truly␣implemented␣in␣a␣
Best␣Practices␣fashion.␣
182 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Optimization␣of␣operations␣in␣collections␣and␣processing␣␣
Training␣of␣key␣program␣staff␣in␣core␣competencies␣required␣
Following␣generally␣accepted␣principles␣for␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣
management␣
Appropriately␣planned,␣designed,␣and␣funded␣promotion␣and␣education␣program␣
Established␣and␣enforced␣policies␣that␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣␣
Program Planning and Design
Limited␣resources,␣lack␣of␣landfill␣space,␣and␣the␣need␣to␣focus␣on␣priorities␣and␣be␣
resourceful␣are␣the␣main␣reasons␣for␣maintaining and implementing an up-to-
date plan for recycling as part of an integrated waste management system.␣␣
Such␣a␣plan␣will␣ensure␣a␣strategic␣management␣focus␣that,␣when␣combined␣with␣
complementary␣waste␣reduction,␣organics,␣reuse,␣energy␣from␣waste,␣and␣waste␣
diversion␣incentives␣(bag␣limits,␣user␣pay),␣will␣result␣in␣a␣robust␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣
Additional␣elements␣of␣a␣plan␣for␣recycling␣as␣part␣of␣an␣integrated␣waste␣
management␣system␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣
section.␣
Programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣can␣experience␣considerable␣benefits␣from␣multi-
municipal␣cooperation.␣␣A␣multi-municipal planning approach␣enables␣participating␣
jurisdictions␣the␣opportunity␣to␣evaluate␣opportunities␣to␣work␣together␣in␣making␣the␣
most␣efficient␣use␣of␣limited␣personnel␣and␣equipment␣resources,␣to␣generate␣
economies␣of␣scale,␣and␣to␣improve␣market␣leverage␣when␣contracting␣and␣moving␣
recyclable␣materials␣into␣the␣marketplace.␣In␣addition,␣communities␣can␣work␣
together␣in␣a␣region␣to␣establish␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣
collection␣programs.␣␣This␣will␣create␣consistency␣among␣neighbouring␣municipalities,␣
which␣facilitates␣public␣understanding␣regarding␣what␣and␣how␣to␣recycle.␣␣A␣further␣
benefit␣is␣the␣ability␣to␣develop␣contingency␣plans␣with␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣
Aggregation␣of␣blue␣box␣tonnage␣through␣shared␣use␣of␣processing␣facilities␣will␣
result␣in␣higher␣throughput,␣thereby␣lowering␣per-tonne␣net␣costs␣for␣all␣participating␣
communities.␣␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣the␣details␣of␣a␣multi-municipal␣planning␣
approach␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Having␣a␣plan␣is␣of␣only␣limited␣benefit␣if␣there␣are␣no␣defined␣diversion targets and
performance measures, supported by data collection and analysis␣that␣measure␣
the␣effectiveness␣of␣the␣plan␣and␣its␣implementation.␣␣Performance␣measures␣and␣
data␣to␣be␣obtained␣include␣monitoring␣of␣diversion␣amounts,␣conducting␣waste␣
audits,␣and␣conducting␣participation␣studies.␣␣It␣is␣with␣such␣program␣monitoring␣that␣
sound␣decisions␣can␣be␣made␣based␣on␣local␣program␣data,␣within␣a␣framework␣of␣a␣
continuously␣improving␣the␣program.␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣performance␣measures␣
and␣program␣monitoring␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣
Practices␣section.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣183
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Performance␣data,␣once␣obtained␣and␣analyzed,␣will␣allow␣for␣the␣optimization of
operations.␣The␣benefits␣of␣optimization␣include␣balanced␣routes␣and␣payloads,␣
reduced␣collection␣time␣(and␣therefore␣reduced␣collection␣costs),␣and␣less␣costly␣
processing.␣Specific␣opportunities␣that␣apply␣to␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣are␣further␣
discussed␣in␣the␣Collection␣and␣Processing␣sections␣of␣this␣Program␣Profile.␣
Collection
Rural␣programs␣in␣the␣North␣are␣likely␣to␣have␣high␣transportation␣costs␣associated␣
with␣getting␣recyclable␣materials␣to␣market.␣␣This,␣coupled␣with␣the␣low␣tonnage␣of␣
materials␣available␣for␣recovery,␣warrants␣focusing␣recycling␣efforts␣on␣capturing␣Blue␣
Box␣materials␣that␣are␣marketable␣and␣offer␣the␣greatest␣tonnage␣diversion␣
opportunity.␣␣␣
Use of drop-off depots for recovering the target recyclables is␣a␣Best␣Practice␣in
low-density rural␣areas,␣where␣curbside␣recycling␣is␣cost␣prohibitive.␣It␣is␣more␣
cost-effective␣to␣employ␣the␣use␣of␣depots␣in␣areas␣where␣curbside␣collection␣costs␣
exceed␣$50␣per␣household␣per␣year.␣␣␣This␣is␣almost␣always␣the␣case␣for␣rural␣
communities␣generating␣less␣than␣2000␣tonnes␣per␣year.␣(See␣the␣text␣box␣at␣the␣end␣
of␣the␣document␣for␣specific␣information␣on␣collection␣and␣processing␣best␣practices␣
for␣programs␣of␣this␣size.)␣␣␣
Curbside collection of recyclables should be provided to households where
such service can be provided for $50 per household per-year or less. Even␣
when␣curbside␣collection␣is␣provided, drop-off depots are␣the␣Best␣Practice to
collect overflow Blue Box materials and additional recyclable materials for
which curbside collection is not practical or cost-effective.␣␣Supporting␣Best␣
Practices␣related␣to␣drop-off␣depots␣are␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight.␣␣Best␣Practices␣for␣curbside␣recycling␣in␣jurisdictions␣of␣this␣profile␣type␣are␣
discussed␣in␣the␣Collection␣section␣below,␣with␣more␣information␣on␣curbside␣
collection␣provided␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Communities␣of␣this␣profile␣will␣likely␣have␣a␣minimal␣multi-family␣population.␣␣Multi-
family recyclables collection, if needed, should be incorporated into curbside
collection service routes wherever possible to minimize collection costs.␣␣
Because␣of␣the␣unique␣challenges␣of␣multi-family␣recycling,␣associated␣Best␣Practices␣
are␣further␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
To␣increase␣the␣economic␣feasibility␣of␣curbside␣recycling,␣it␣is␣a␣Best␣Practice␣to␣
employ␣measures␣that␣increase␣the␣amount␣of␣material␣collected␣per␣stop␣and␣
maximize␣collection␣efficiency.␣␣␣This␣is␣particularly␣important␣in␣areas␣of␣low-density␣
population,␣as␣it␣is␣more␣challenging␣to␣perform␣curbside␣recycling␣at␣an␣annual␣per-
household␣cost␣below␣$50.␣␣␣
For curbside programs, providing sufficient rigid collection containers free of
charge␣to␣residents␣will␣ensure␣that␣overflow␣materials␣are␣not␣disposed.␣Selection␣
of␣the␣size␣and/or␣number␣of␣containers␣needs␣to␣take␣into␣consideration␣estimated␣
set␣out␣volume␣of␣recyclables,␣based␣on␣the␣frequency␣of␣collection.␣␣Most␣programs␣
will␣provide␣weekly␣or␣bi-weekly␣collection␣of␣recyclables.␣␣Collection of Blue Box
184 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
materials should be at least as frequent as waste collection when curbside
recycling service is provided.
The␣number␣of␣streams␣collected␣will␣be␣dictated␣by␣the␣processing␣options␣available␣
to␣the␣program,␣as␣discussed␣in␣this␣and␣the␣following␣section.␣␣Single␣stream␣
collection␣is␣an␣option␣that␣should␣only␣be␣considered␣by␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣that␣
are␣within␣about␣a␣two␣hour␣transfer␣distance␣of␣a␣single␣stream␣MRF␣(e.g.,␣Greater␣
Sudbury,␣Winnipeg).␣␣Collecting␣materials␣single␣stream␣allows␣other␣collection␣
practices␣to␣be␣implemented␣that␣can␣significantly␣reduce␣the␣collection␣cost.␣␣One␣of␣
these␣practices␣is␣controlled compaction␣that␣allows␣collection␣to␣be␣more␣
productive␣because␣trucks␣can␣stay␣on␣route␣longer␣before␣filling.␣␣The␣compaction␣
needs␣to␣be␣controlled,␣so␣that␣the␣pressure␣is␣sufficient␣to␣achieve␣a␣reasonable␣
amount␣of␣volume␣reduction,␣without␣over-compacting␣the␣materials.␣␣Over-
compaction␣results␣in␣glass␣breakage␣and␣flattening␣of␣round␣containers,␣which␣can␣
cause␣the␣automated␣systems␣in␣a␣single␣stream␣MRF␣to␣be␣less␣effective␣in␣
separating␣flat␣paper␣products␣from␣round␣containers.␣
Programs␣that␣are␣within␣about␣a␣two-hour␣transfer␣distance␣of␣a␣two-stream␣MRF␣
should␣consider␣collecting␣materials␣as␣two␣streams␣so␣that␣collection␣costs␣can␣be␣
reduced.␣␣As␣with␣single␣stream␣collection,␣compaction␣can␣also␣be␣used␣in␣two␣
stream␣collection.␣␣Co-collection␣of␣waste␣and␣recyclables␣can␣also␣be␣adapted␣to␣two␣
stream␣programs␣when␣homes␣are␣provided␣with␣an␣alternating␣collection␣schedule␣
of␣Blue␣Box␣materials,␣where␣waste␣and␣fibres␣are␣collected␣one␣week,␣and␣waste␣
and␣containers␣are␣collected␣the␣next␣week.␣
Additional␣opportunities␣for␣improving␣collection␣efficiencies␣and␣reducing␣costs␣that␣
apply␣to␣programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣include:␣the␣use of increased commingling,
where applicable; and reducing non-productive operator time.␣␣These␣and␣other␣
Best␣Practices␣are␣expanded␣upon␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Processing
Facilities␣that␣process␣less␣than␣10,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣are␣not␣as␣cost-effective␣as␣
larger␣facilities,␣and␣all␣programs␣with␣this␣profile␣should␣explore partnership
opportunities to maximize the tonnes processed by existing MRFs,␣as␣they␣are␣
well␣below␣that␣threshold.␣␣
Programs␣that␣are␣remote␣may␣have␣to␣process␣their␣own␣Blue␣Box␣materials.␣␣
Processing␣costs␣can␣be␣managed␣by␣limiting␣the␣categories␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣
collected␣and␣sorting␣most␣materials␣at␣the␣curb.␣␣Processing␣equipment␣can␣
therefore␣be␣low-cost␣and␣limited␣to␣a␣rudimentary␣sorting␣line␣(if␣required),␣materials␣
handling␣equipment,␣and␣an␣inexpensive␣baler.␣␣Because␣the␣baler␣will␣not␣be␣robust,␣
PET␣plastic␣bottles␣will␣not␣be␣able␣to␣be␣baled␣to␣a␣sufficient␣density␣to␣avoid␣
additional␣freight␣costs␣or␣penalties.␣␣Therefore,␣a␣Best␣Practice␣is␣to␣purchase␣and␣
use␣densifying␣equipment,␣such␣as␣a␣perforator,␣or␣baler␣fluffer␣to␣perforate␣PET␣
bottles,␣rather␣than␣remove␣caps␣by␣hand.␣␣Other␣optimization␣strategies␣for␣MRFs␣
are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣185
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Training
Best␣Practices␣include␣ensuring key program staff are adequately trained␣in␣the␣
core␣competencies␣required␣for␣each␣duty.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Procurement and Contract Management
Best␣Practices␣include␣following␣generally accepted principles for effective
procurement and contract management.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Promotion and Education
An␣effective promotion and education (P&E) program␣leads␣to␣higher␣resident␣
participation␣rates,␣improved␣material␣quality,␣lower␣residue␣rates,␣and␣increased␣
customer␣satisfaction.␣␣A␣variety␣of␣P&E␣strategies␣can␣be␣employed␣by␣municipal␣
programs␣to␣achieve␣desired␣program␣goals,␣as␣described␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Furthermore,␣to␣increase␣program␣effectiveness,␣municipalities␣may␣need␣to␣
coordinate␣P&E␣activities␣with␣their␣neighbours.␣␣Multi-municipal␣P&E␣enables␣
participating␣communities␣to␣have␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣
collection␣programs␣in␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣When␣combined␣with␣the␣
availability␣of␣mass␣media␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣profile,␣a␣multi-municipal␣mass␣media␣
campaign␣can␣be␣employed␣that␣allows␣for␣consistent␣promotion␣of␣messages,␣as␣
residents␣continually␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣
Policies and Incentives
In␣order␣to␣achieve␣the␣60%␣diversion␣target␣set␣by␣the␣Province,␣programs␣in␣this␣
category␣will␣need␣to use incentives and policies that promote waste diversion.␣␣
Such␣tools␣may␣include␣solid␣waste␣bag␣limits,␣user␣pay␣program␣for␣waste,␣and/or␣
enforced␣mandatory␣recycling␣bylaws.␣␣Each␣community␣needs␣to␣evaluate␣its␣waste␣
diversion␣plans␣and␣initiatives␣to␣determine␣the␣right␣balance␣of␣economic␣and␣non-
monetary␣incentives.␣␣A␣detailed␣discussion␣of␣policies␣and␣incentives␣that,␣when␣
established␣and␣enforced,␣serve␣to␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
␣
Spotlight: Rural Communities with less than 10 homes per km of roads (80% Rural) where curbside collection is
cost prohibitive
Collection
For␣some␣rural␣communities␣in␣Ontario,␣curbside␣recycling␣service␣is␣cost␣prohibitive,␣meaning␣exceeding␣or␣likely␣to␣exceed␣$50␣
per␣household␣per␣year␣and␣often␣logistically␣impractical␣given␣the␣limited␣resources␣of␣communities␣of␣that␣size.␣␣The␣best␣
practice␣for␣collection␣of␣recyclables␣in␣these␣small␣communities␣is␣use of drop-off depots to collect Blue Box materials.␣
186 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Whenever possible (meaning if there is a suitable MRF within a reasonable haul distance), collection should be
conducted with the greatest degree of commingling in order to result in significant savings in transfer costs.␣␣
Furthermore,␣controlled compaction␣can␣be␣used␣to␣maximize␣payloads.␣␣Compaction␣at␣a␣depot␣can␣take␣place␣in␣the␣form␣of␣a␣
roll-off␣compactor␣unit␣where␣power␣and␣a␣ramp␣is␣available␣or␣with␣the␣use␣of␣front␣end␣containers␣and␣its␣associated␣collection␣
vehicle␣to␣collect␣one␣or␣more␣streams␣compacted.␣␣The␣compaction␣needs␣to␣be␣controlled␣so␣that␣the␣pressure␣is␣sufficient␣to␣
achieve␣a␣reasonable␣amount␣of␣volume␣reduction,␣without␣over-compacting␣the␣materials.␣␣␣
Supporting␣Best␣Practices␣related␣to␣establishment␣and␣operation␣of␣drop-off␣depots␣are␣discussed␣further␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Processing
Partnership and transfer opportunities should be explored for such small rural programs.␣Operating␣a␣material␣recovery␣
facility␣in␣this␣volume␣range␣is␣not␣feasible.␣␣Whenever␣possible,␣programs␣handling␣less␣than␣2,000␣tonnes␣should␣use a larger
MRF available in neighbouring jurisdictions.␣␣␣
In␣the␣absence␣of␣a␣neighbouring␣MRF,␣the␣program's␣next␣best␣option␣is␣to␣transfer␣and␣ship␣to␣a␣more␣distant␣MRF.␣␣Any␣
community␣with␣more␣than␣a␣one␣hour␣haul␣distance␣to␣a␣MRF␣should␣consider␣the␣use␣of␣transfer␣facilities␣to␣potentially␣reduce␣
system␣costs.␣␣Preferences␣should␣be␣given␣to␣MRFs␣that␣can␣handle␣single␣stream␣materials␣to␣minimize␣transfer␣costs.␣
Supporting␣Best␣Practices␣related␣to␣transfer␣of␣recyclable␣materials␣are␣discussed␣further␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣187
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Small Suburban Northern Blue Box Program
Overview
This␣Program␣Profile,␣paired␣with␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣and␣Spotlight␣
summaries,␣is␣designed␣to␣provide␣general␣guidance␣to␣municipalities␣on␣how␣to␣
design,␣manage,␣and␣operate␣their␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣under␣Best␣Practices.␣␣It␣is␣
specifically␣tailored␣to␣programs␣of␣defined␣size,␣density,␣and␣geography␣in␣order␣to␣
enhance␣applicability␣of␣Best␣Practices␣and␣increase␣the␣likelihood␣of␣their␣adoption.␣␣␣␣␣
␣
Program Characteristics
The␣following␣characteristics␣were␣used␣to␣define␣this␣Program␣Profile:␣␣
Geographical␣Region:␣Northern␣community␣
Size␣of␣Program:␣Generating␣less␣than␣10,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣
Residential␣Density:␣Between␣10␣and␣70␣homes␣per␣kilometre␣of␣roads␣
(mixed␣urban␣and␣rural,␣or␣suburban)␣
Programs␣having␣this␣profile␣may␣have␣a␣mix␣of␣rural␣and␣urban␣areas,␣with␣a␣
reasonable␣portion␣of␣households␣located␣in␣urban␣settings␣(between␣20%␣and␣80%).␣␣
They␣are␣typically␣small␣or␣medium␣towns.␣␣The␣challenge␣in␣this␣group␣is␣to␣achieve␣
diversion␣goals␣and␣provide␣efficient,␣cost␣effective␣recycling␣services␣to␣both␣rural␣
and␣urban␣households.␣␣
Applicable Best Practices
Each␣of␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣listed␣in␣the␣table␣below␣applies␣to␣all␣Blue␣
Box␣programs.␣These␣practices␣are␣introduced␣in␣the␣text␣below,␣and␣described␣in␣
greater␣detail␣in␣the␣separate␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣summaries.␣␣␣
There␣are␣no␣Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣that␣apply␣to␣every␣program␣in␣this␣profile.␣␣
Conditional␣Practices␣are␣best␣for␣some,␣but␣not␣all␣programs␣in␣this␣profile.␣␣These␣
practices␣and␣the␣specific␣conditions␣under␣which␣they␣apply␣are␣discussed␣below.␣␣
Leading␣practices␣are␣presented␣in␣bold␣type,␣for␣ease␣of␣reference.␣␣Additional␣
guidance␣regarding␣practices␣that␣may␣be␣best␣under␣certain␣circumstances␣is␣also␣
provided␣for␣consideration.␣␣Lastly,␣supplementary␣best␣practices␣guidance␣for␣
specific␣program␣areas␣(e.g.,␣collection,␣processing,␣depot␣and␣multi-residential␣
recycling)␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣"Spotlight"␣summaries.␣␣
FUNDAMENTAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣
Development␣and␣implementation␣of␣an␣up-to-date␣plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣
an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣
Multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣to␣collection␣and␣processing␣recyclables␣␣
Program␣Profile
Use␣of␣Program␣Profile
This␣document␣is␣intended␣to␣provide␣
general␣guidance,␣not␣detailed␣
prescriptive␣recommendations,␣on␣
how␣any␣given␣program␣should␣be␣
structured.␣␣␣
The␣Project␣Team␣believes␣that␣by␣
adopting␣Best␣Practices␣outlined␣in␣
this␣document,␣recycling␣coordinators␣
will␣improve␣the␣performance␣of␣their␣
Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣However,␣the␣
degree␣of␣improvement␣will␣vary␣
across␣municipalities,␣as␣multiple␣
factors␣contribute␣to␣overall␣program␣
performance.␣Furthermore,␣more-
detailed␣guidance␣may␣be␣needed␣by␣
some␣communities␣to␣ensure␣that␣
practices␣are␣truly␣implemented␣in␣a␣
Best␣Practices␣fashion.␣
188 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Establishing␣defined␣performance␣measures␣including␣diversion␣targets␣and␣
monitoring␣and␣a␣continuous␣improvement␣program␣
Optimization␣of␣operations␣in␣collections␣and␣processing␣␣
Training␣of␣key␣program␣staff␣in␣core␣competencies␣required␣
Following␣generally␣accepted␣principles␣for␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣
management␣
Appropriately␣planned,␣designed,␣and␣funded␣promotion␣and␣education␣program␣
Established␣and␣enforced␣policies␣that␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣␣
Program Planning and Design
Limited␣resources␣and␣the␣need␣to␣focus␣on␣priorities␣and␣be␣resourceful␣are␣main␣
reasons␣to␣maintain and implement an up-to-date plan for recycling as part of
an integrated waste management system.␣␣Such␣a␣plan␣will␣ensure␣a␣strategic␣
management␣focus␣that,␣when␣combined␣with␣complementary␣waste␣reduction,␣
organics,␣reuse,␣energy␣from␣waste,␣and␣waste␣diversion␣incentives␣(bag␣limits,␣user␣
pay),␣will␣result␣in␣a␣robust␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣Additional␣elements␣of␣a␣plan␣for␣
recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣can␣experience␣considerable␣benefits␣from␣multi-
municipal␣cooperation.␣␣A␣multi-municipal planning approach␣will␣enable␣
participating␣jurisdictions␣to␣evaluate␣opportunities␣to␣work␣together␣in␣making␣the␣
most␣efficient␣use␣of␣limited␣personnel␣and␣equipment␣resources,␣to␣generate␣
economies␣of␣scale,␣and␣to␣improve␣market␣leverage␣when␣contracting␣and␣moving␣
recyclable␣materials␣into␣the␣marketplace.␣In␣addition,␣communities␣can␣collaborate␣to␣
establish␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣collection␣programs.␣␣This␣will␣
create␣consistency␣among␣neighbouring␣municipalities,␣which␣facilitates␣public␣
understanding␣regarding␣what␣and␣how␣to␣recycle.␣␣This␣is␣particularly␣important,␣as␣
residents␣often␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣A␣further␣benefit␣is␣the␣
ability␣to␣develop␣contingency␣plans␣with␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣This␣community␣
group␣also␣offers␣considerable␣potential␣for␣multi-municipal␣cooperation␣beyond␣
planning␣for␣collection,␣processing,␣and␣marketing.␣␣Aggregation␣of␣blue␣box␣tonnage␣
will␣result␣in␣higher␣throughput,␣thereby␣lowering␣per-tonne␣net␣costs␣for␣all␣
participating␣communities.␣␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣the␣details␣of␣a␣multi-municipal␣
planning␣approach␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣
section.␣
Having␣a␣plan␣is␣of␣only␣limited␣benefit␣if␣there␣are␣no␣defined␣diversion targets and
performance measures, supported by data collection and analysis␣that␣measure␣
the␣effectiveness␣of␣the␣plan␣and␣its␣implementation.␣␣Performance␣measures␣and␣
data␣to␣be␣obtained␣include␣monitoring␣of␣diversion␣amounts,␣conducting␣waste␣
audits,␣and␣conducting␣participation␣studies.␣␣It␣is␣with␣such␣program␣monitoring␣that␣
sound␣decisions␣can␣be␣made␣based␣on␣local␣program␣data,␣within␣a␣framework␣of␣a␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣189
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
continuously␣improving␣the␣program.␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣performance␣measures␣
and␣program␣monitoring␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣
Practices␣section.␣
Performance␣data,␣once␣obtained␣and␣analyzed,␣will␣allow␣for␣the␣optimization of
operations.␣The␣benefits␣of␣optimization␣include␣balanced␣routes␣and␣payloads,␣
reduced␣collection␣time␣(and␣therefore␣reduced␣collection␣costs),␣and␣less␣costly␣
processing.␣Specific␣opportunities␣that␣apply␣to␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣are␣further␣
discussed␣in␣the␣Collection␣and␣Processing␣sections␣of␣this␣Program␣Profile.␣
Collection
Programs␣in␣the␣North␣are␣likely␣to␣have␣high␣transportation␣costs␣associated␣with␣
getting␣recyclable␣materials␣to␣market.␣␣This,␣coupled␣with␣the␣low␣tonnage␣of␣
materials␣available␣for␣recovery,␣warrants␣focusing␣recycling␣efforts␣on␣capturing␣Blue␣
Box␣materials␣that␣are␣marketable␣and␣offer␣the␣greatest␣tonnage␣diversion␣
opportunity.␣␣␣
Use of drop-off depots for recovering recyclables is␣a␣Best␣Practice in low-
density rural areas,␣where␣curbside␣recycling␣is␣often␣cost␣prohibitive.␣It␣is␣more␣
cost-effective␣to␣employ␣the␣use␣of␣depots␣in␣areas␣where␣curbside␣collection␣costs␣
exceed␣$50␣per-household␣per-year.␣Curbside collection of recyclables should be
provided to households in more urbanized areas,␣where␣such␣service␣can␣be␣
provided␣for␣$50␣per␣household␣per-year␣or␣less.␣␣Even␣when␣curbside␣collection␣is␣
provided,␣drop-off␣depots␣are␣the␣Best␣Practice␣to␣collect␣overflow␣Blue␣Box␣
materials␣and␣additional␣recyclables␣for␣which␣curbside␣collection␣is␣not␣practical␣or␣
cost-effective.␣␣Supporting␣Best␣Practices␣related␣to␣drop-off␣depots␣are␣discussed␣in␣
the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣␣␣Best␣Practices␣for␣curbside␣recycling␣in␣
jurisdictions␣of␣this␣profile␣type␣are␣discussed␣in␣the␣Collection␣section␣below.␣
Additional␣information␣on␣curbside␣collection␣of␣a␣more␣general␣nature␣is␣provided␣in␣
the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Communities␣of␣this␣profile␣will␣likely␣have␣a␣small␣number␣of␣multi-family␣homes.␣␣
Recyclables collection should be provided to multi-family homes, and␣the
collection should be incorporated into curbside collection service routes,
wherever possible,␣to␣minimize␣collection␣costs.␣␣Because␣of␣the␣unique␣challenges␣
of␣multi-family␣recycling,␣associated␣best␣practices␣are␣further␣discussed␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
To␣improve␣the␣economics␣of␣curbside␣recycling␣collection,␣it␣is␣a␣Best␣Practice␣to␣
employ␣measures␣that␣increase␣the␣amount␣of␣material␣collected␣per␣stop␣and␣
maximize␣collection␣efficiency.␣␣␣This␣is␣particularly␣important␣in␣areas␣of␣low-density␣
population,␣as␣it␣is␣challenging␣to␣perform␣curbside␣recycling␣at␣an␣annual␣per-
household␣cost␣below␣$50.␣␣
Providing sufficient rigid collection containers free of charge␣to␣residents␣will␣
ensure␣that␣overflow␣materials␣are␣not␣disposed.␣Selection␣of␣the␣size␣and/or␣number␣
of␣containers␣needs␣to␣take␣into␣consideration␣estimated␣set␣out␣volume␣of␣
recyclables,␣based␣on␣the␣frequency␣of␣collection.␣␣Most␣programs␣will␣provide␣
190 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
weekly␣or␣bi-weekly␣collection␣of␣recyclables.␣␣Collection␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣
should␣be␣at␣least␣as␣frequent␣as␣waste␣collection.␣
The␣number␣of␣streams␣in␣which␣recyclables␣are␣collected␣will␣be␣dictated␣by␣the␣
processing␣options␣available␣to␣the␣program␣as␣discussed␣in␣this␣and␣the␣following␣
section.␣␣Single␣stream␣collection␣is␣an␣option␣that␣should␣only␣be␣considered␣by␣
programs␣of␣this␣profile␣that␣are␣within␣about␣a␣two␣hour␣transfer␣distance␣of␣a␣single␣
stream␣MRF␣(e.g.,␣Greater␣Sudbury,␣Winnipeg).␣␣Collecting␣materials␣single␣stream␣
allows␣other␣collection␣practices␣to␣be␣implemented␣that␣can␣significantly␣reduce␣the␣
collection␣cost.␣␣One␣of␣these␣practices␣is␣controlled compaction␣that␣allows␣
collection␣to␣be␣more␣productive␣because␣trucks␣can␣stay␣on␣route␣longer␣before␣
filling.␣␣The␣compaction␣needs␣to␣be␣controlled␣so␣that␣the␣pressure␣is␣sufficient␣to␣
achieve␣a␣reasonable␣amount␣of␣volume␣reduction,␣without␣over-compacting␣the␣
materials.␣␣Over-compaction␣results␣in␣glass␣breakage␣and␣flattening␣of␣round␣
containers,␣which␣can␣cause␣the␣automated␣systems␣in␣a␣single␣stream␣MRF␣to␣be␣
less␣effective␣in␣separating␣flat␣paper␣products␣from␣round␣containers.␣␣
Programs␣that␣are␣within␣about␣a␣two-hour␣transfer␣distance␣of␣a␣two-stream␣MRF␣
should␣consider␣collecting␣materials␣in␣two␣streams␣as␣collection␣costs␣can␣be␣
reduced.␣␣As␣with␣single␣stream␣collection,␣compaction␣can␣also␣be␣used␣in␣two␣
stream␣collection.␣␣Co-collection␣of␣waste␣and␣recyclables␣can␣also␣be␣adapted␣to␣two␣
stream␣programs␣when␣homes␣are␣provided␣with␣an␣alternating␣collection␣schedule␣
of␣Blue␣Box␣materials,␣where␣waste␣and␣fibres␣are␣collected␣one␣week,␣and␣waste␣
and␣containers␣are␣collected␣the␣next␣week.␣
Opportunities␣for␣improving␣collection␣efficiencies␣and␣reducing␣costs␣that␣apply␣to␣
programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣include:␣the␣use of increased commingling␣where␣
applicable␣and␣reducing non-productive operator time.␣␣␣These␣and␣other␣Best␣
Practices␣are␣expanded␣upon␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Processing
Facilities␣that␣process␣less␣than␣10,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣are␣not␣as␣cost-effective␣as␣
larger␣facilities,␣and␣all␣programs␣with␣this␣profile␣should␣explore␣partnership␣
opportunities␣to␣maximize␣the␣tonnes␣processed␣by␣existing␣MRFs,␣as␣they␣are␣well␣
below␣that␣threshold.␣␣
Programs␣that␣are␣remote␣may␣have␣to␣process␣their␣own␣Blue␣Box␣materials.␣␣
Processing␣costs␣can␣be␣managed␣by␣limiting␣the␣categories␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣
collected␣and␣sorting␣most␣materials␣at␣the␣curb.␣␣Processing␣equipment␣can␣
therefore␣be␣low-cost␣and␣limited␣to␣a␣rudimentary␣sorting␣line␣(if␣required),␣materials␣
handling␣equipment,␣and␣an␣inexpensive␣baler.␣Because␣the␣baler␣will␣not␣be␣robust,␣
PET␣plastic␣bottles␣will␣not␣be␣able␣to␣be␣baled␣to␣a␣sufficient␣density␣to␣avoid␣
additional␣freight␣costs␣or␣penalties.␣␣Therefore,␣a␣Best␣Practice␣is␣to␣purchase␣and␣
use␣densifying␣equipment,␣such␣as␣a␣perforator␣or␣baler␣fluffer␣to␣perforate␣PET␣
bottles,␣rather␣than␣remove␣caps␣by␣hand.␣␣Other␣optimization␣strategies␣for␣MRFs␣
are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣191
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Training
Best␣Practices␣include␣ensuring key program staff are adequately trained␣in␣the␣
core␣competencies␣required␣for␣each␣duty.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Procurement and Contract Management
Best␣Practices␣include␣following␣generally accepted principles for effective
procurement and contract management.␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Promotion and Education
An␣effective promotion and education (P&E) program␣leads␣to␣higher␣resident␣
participation␣rates,␣improved␣material␣quality,␣lower␣residue␣rates,␣and␣increased␣
customer␣satisfaction.␣␣A␣variety␣of␣P&E␣strategies␣can␣be␣employed␣by␣municipal␣
programs␣to␣achieve␣desired␣program␣goals,␣as␣described␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Furthermore,␣to␣increase␣program␣effectiveness,␣municipalities␣may␣need␣to␣
coordinate␣P&E␣activities␣with␣their␣neighbours.␣␣Multi-municipal␣P&E␣enables␣
participating␣communities␣to␣have␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣
collection␣programs␣in␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣When␣combined␣with␣the␣
availability␣of␣mass␣media␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣profile,␣a␣multi-municipal␣mass␣media␣
campaign␣can␣be␣employed␣that␣allows␣for␣consistent␣promotion␣of␣messages,␣as␣
residents␣continually␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣
Policies and Incentives
In␣order␣to␣achieve␣the␣60%␣diversion␣target␣set␣by␣the␣Province,␣programs␣in␣this␣
category␣will␣need␣to use incentives and policies that promote waste diversion.␣␣
Such␣tools␣may␣include␣solid␣waste␣bag␣limits,␣user␣pay␣program␣for␣waste,␣and/or␣
enforced␣mandatory␣recycling␣bylaws.␣␣Each␣community␣needs␣to␣evaluate␣its␣waste␣
diversion␣plans␣and␣initiatives␣to␣determine␣the␣right␣balance␣of␣economic␣and␣non-
monetary␣incentives.␣␣A␣detailed␣discussion␣of␣policies␣and␣incentives␣that,␣when␣
established␣and␣enforced,␣serve␣to␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
192 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Small Urban Northern Blue Box Program
␣
Overview
This␣Program␣Profile,␣paired␣with␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣and␣Spotlight␣
summaries,␣is␣designed␣to␣provide␣general␣guidance␣to␣municipalities␣on␣how␣to␣
design,␣manage,␣and␣operate␣their␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣under␣Best␣Practices.␣␣It␣is␣
specifically␣tailored␣to␣programs␣of␣defined␣size,␣density,␣and␣geography␣in␣order␣to␣
enhance␣applicability␣of␣Best␣Practices␣and␣increase␣the␣likelihood␣of␣their␣adoption.␣␣␣
␣
Program Characteristics
The␣following␣characteristics␣were␣used␣to␣define␣this␣Program␣Profile:␣␣
Geographical␣Region:␣Northern␣community␣
Size␣of␣Program:␣Generating␣less␣than␣10,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣
Residential␣Density:␣More␣than␣70␣homes␣per␣km␣of␣roads␣(80%␣Urban)␣
Programs␣within␣this␣profile␣are␣urban␣cities.␣␣The␣challenge␣in␣this␣group␣is␣to␣
maximize␣recovery,␣while␣providing␣efficient,␣cost-effective␣Blue␣Box␣service␣to␣all␣
households,␣including␣those␣residing␣in␣multi-family␣units.␣
Applicable Best Practices
Each␣of␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣listed␣in␣the␣table␣below␣applies␣to␣all␣Blue␣
Box␣programs.␣These␣practices␣are␣introduced␣in␣the␣text␣below,␣and␣described␣in␣
greater␣detail␣in␣the␣separate␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣summaries.␣␣␣
There␣are␣no␣Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣that␣apply␣to␣every␣program␣in␣this␣profile.␣␣
Several␣Conditional␣Practices␣are␣best␣for␣some,␣but␣not␣all␣programs␣in␣this␣profile.␣␣
These␣practices␣and␣the␣specific␣conditions␣under␣which␣they␣apply␣are␣discussed␣
below.␣␣Leading␣practices␣are␣presented␣in␣bold␣type,␣for␣ease␣of␣reference.␣␣
Additional␣guidance␣regarding␣practices␣that␣may␣be␣best␣under␣certain␣
circumstances␣is␣also␣provided␣for␣consideration.␣␣Lastly,␣supplementary␣best␣
practices␣guidance␣for␣specific␣program␣areas␣(e.g.,␣collection,␣processing,␣depot␣and␣
multi-residential␣recycling)␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣"Spotlight"␣summaries.␣␣
FUNDAMENTAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣
Development␣and␣implementation␣of␣an␣up-to-date␣plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣
an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣
Multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣to␣collection␣and␣processing␣recyclables␣␣
Establishing␣defined␣performance␣measures␣including␣diversion␣targets␣and␣
monitoring␣and␣a␣continuous␣improvement␣program␣
Optimization␣of␣operations␣in␣collections␣and␣processing␣␣
Program␣Profile
Use␣of␣Program␣Profile
This␣document␣is␣intended␣to␣provide␣
general␣guidance,␣not␣detailed␣
prescriptive␣recommendations,␣on␣
how␣any␣given␣program␣should␣be␣
structured.␣␣␣
The␣Project␣Team␣believes␣that␣by␣
adopting␣Best␣Practices␣outlined␣in␣
this␣document,␣recycling␣coordinators␣
will␣improve␣the␣performance␣of␣their␣
Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣However,␣the␣
degree␣of␣improvement␣will␣vary␣
across␣municipalities,␣as␣multiple␣
factors␣contribute␣to␣overall␣program␣
performance.␣Furthermore,␣more-
detailed␣guidance␣may␣be␣needed␣by␣
some␣communities␣to␣ensure␣that␣
practices␣are␣truly␣implemented␣in␣a␣
Best␣Practices␣fashion.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣193
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Training␣of␣key␣program␣staff␣in␣core␣competencies␣required␣
Following␣generally␣accepted␣principles␣for␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣
management␣
Appropriately␣planned,␣designed,␣and␣funded␣promotion␣and␣education␣program␣
Established␣and␣enforced␣policies␣that␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣␣
Program Planning and Design
Limited␣resources␣and␣the␣need␣to␣focus␣on␣priorities␣and␣be␣resourceful␣are␣the␣
main␣reasons␣to␣maintain and implement an up-to-date plan for recycling as
part of an integrated waste management system.␣␣Such␣a␣plan␣will␣ensure␣a␣
strategic␣management␣focus␣that,␣when␣combined␣with␣complementary␣waste␣
reduction,␣organics,␣reuse,␣energy␣from␣waste,␣and␣waste␣diversion␣incentives␣(bag␣
limits,␣user␣pay),␣will␣result␣in␣a␣robust␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣Additional␣elements␣of␣a␣
plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system,␣can␣be␣found␣
in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
In␣many␣cases,␣programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣are␣likely␣to␣be␣business␣and␣
population␣centres␣of␣their␣area.␣␣Therefore,␣program␣decisions␣will␣have␣a␣direct␣
impact␣on␣the␣programs␣in␣surrounding␣towns␣and␣townships.␣␣A␣multi-municipal
planning approach␣enables␣participating␣jurisdictions␣the␣opportunity␣to␣evaluate␣
opportunities␣to␣work␣together␣to␣make␣most␣efficient␣use␣of␣limited␣personnel,␣
improve␣economies␣of␣scale,␣and␣improve␣market␣leverage␣when␣contracting␣for␣
services␣and␣marketing␣recovered␣materials.␣In␣addition,␣communities␣in␣a␣region␣can␣
collaborate␣to␣establish␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣collection␣
programs.␣␣This␣will␣create␣consistency␣among␣neighbouring␣municipalities,␣which␣
facilitates␣public␣understanding␣regarding␣what␣and␣how␣to␣recycle.␣␣Aggregation␣of␣
blue␣box␣tonnage␣through␣shared␣use␣of␣one␣MRF␣will␣allow␣for␣the␣use␣of␣more␣
effective␣and␣efficient␣processing␣equipment,␣and␣will␣result␣in␣higher␣throughput,␣
thereby␣lowering␣per-tonne␣net␣costs␣for␣all␣participating␣communities.␣␣Additional␣
discussion␣of␣the␣details␣of␣a␣multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Having␣a␣plan␣is␣of␣only␣limited␣benefit␣if␣there␣are␣no␣defined␣diversion targets and
performance measures, supported by data collection and analysis␣that␣measure␣
the␣effectiveness␣of␣the␣plan␣and␣its␣implementation.␣␣Performance␣measures␣and␣
data␣to␣be␣obtained␣include␣monitoring␣of␣diversion␣amounts,␣conducting␣waste␣
audits,␣and␣conducting␣participation␣studies.␣␣It␣is␣with␣such␣program␣monitoring␣that␣
sound␣decisions␣can␣be␣made␣based␣on␣local␣program␣data,␣within␣a␣framework␣of␣a␣
continuously␣improving␣the␣program.␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣performance␣measures␣
and␣program␣monitoring␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣
Practices␣section.␣
Performance␣data,␣once␣obtained␣and␣analyzed,␣will␣allow␣for␣the␣optimization of
operations.␣The␣benefits␣of␣optimization␣include␣balanced␣routes␣and␣payloads,␣
reduced␣collection␣time␣(and␣therefore␣reduced␣collection␣costs),␣and␣less␣costly␣
194 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
processing.␣Specific␣opportunities␣that␣apply␣to␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣are␣further␣
discussed␣in␣the␣Collection␣and␣Processing␣sections␣of␣this␣Program␣Profile.␣
Collection
Programs␣in␣the␣North␣are␣likely␣to␣have␣high␣transportation␣costs␣associated␣with␣
getting␣recyclable␣materials␣to␣market.␣␣This,␣coupled␣with␣the␣low␣tonnage␣of␣
materials␣available␣for␣recovery,␣warrants␣focusing␣recycling␣efforts␣on␣capturing␣Blue␣
Box␣materials␣that␣are␣marketable␣and␣offer␣the␣greatest␣tonnage␣diversion␣
opportunity.␣␣␣
Given␣the␣high␣density␣of␣housing␣in␣communities␣having␣this␣profile curbside
collection is the best practice means of providing recycling service. Drop-off
depots should be utilized to collect overflow Blue Box materials and additional
types of recyclables, for which curbside collection is not practical or cost-
effective.␣␣Supporting␣Best␣Practices␣related␣to␣drop-off␣depots␣are␣discussed␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣␣␣␣
Communities␣of␣this␣profile␣will␣likely␣have␣a␣sizable␣number␣of␣multi-family␣homes.␣␣
Recyclables␣collection␣needs␣to␣be␣provided␣to␣multi-family␣homes␣to␣achieve␣the␣
province's␣goal␣of␣60␣percent␣diversion␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials.␣Recyclables
collection should be provided to multi-family homes, and␣the collection should
be incorporated into curbside collection service routes, wherever possible,␣to␣
minimize␣collection␣costs.␣␣␣Because␣of␣the␣unique␣challenges␣of␣multi-family␣
recycling,␣associated␣best␣practices␣are␣further␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣
Practice␣Spotlight.␣
To␣minimize␣curbside␣recycling␣collection␣costs,␣it␣is␣a␣Best␣Practice␣to␣employ
measures that increase the amount of material collected per stop and
maximize collection efficiency.␣␣Providing sufficient rigid collection containers
free of charge␣to␣residents␣will␣ensure␣that␣overflow␣materials␣are␣not␣disposed.␣
Selection␣of␣the␣size␣and/or␣number␣of␣containers␣needs␣to␣take␣into␣consideration␣
estimated␣set␣out␣volume␣of␣recyclables,␣based␣on␣the␣frequency␣of␣collection.␣␣Most␣
programs␣will␣provide␣weekly␣or␣bi-weekly␣collection␣of␣recyclables.␣␣Collection of
Blue Box materials should be at least as frequent as waste collection.␣
The␣number␣of␣streams␣in␣which␣recyclables␣should␣be␣collected␣is␣discussed␣in␣this␣
and␣the␣following␣section.␣␣Single␣stream␣collection␣requires␣significant␣capital␣
investments␣in␣processing␣equipment.␣␣Programs␣of␣this␣profile␣do␣not␣recover␣
sufficient␣tonnes␣to␣allow␣for␣such␣large␣capital␣investments,␣and,␣therefore,␣single␣
stream␣collection␣is␣not␣a␣Best␣Practice␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣profile.␣␣An␣exception␣to␣
this␣is␣programs␣that␣are␣within␣about␣a␣two-hour␣transfer␣distance␣of␣a␣single␣stream␣
MRF␣(e.g.,␣Greater␣Sudbury,␣Winnipeg).␣␣For␣those␣programs,␣collecting␣materials␣
single␣stream␣allows␣other␣collection␣practices␣to␣be␣implemented␣that␣can␣
significantly␣reduce␣the␣collection␣cost.␣␣One␣of␣these␣practices␣is␣controlled
compaction␣that␣allows␣collection␣to␣be␣more␣productive␣because␣trucks␣can␣stay␣on␣
route␣longer␣before␣filling.␣␣The␣compaction␣needs␣to␣be␣controlled␣so␣that␣the␣
pressure␣is␣sufficient␣to␣achieve␣a␣reasonable␣amount␣of␣volume␣reduction,␣without␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣195
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
over-compacting␣the␣materials.␣␣Over-compaction␣results␣in␣glass␣breakage␣and␣
flattening␣of␣round␣containers,␣which␣can␣cause␣the␣automated␣systems␣in␣a␣single␣
stream␣MRF␣to␣be␣less␣effective␣in␣separating␣flat␣paper␣products␣from␣round␣
containers.␣␣
Programs␣that␣are␣not␣near␣Greater␣Sudbury␣should␣consider␣collecting␣materials␣in␣
two␣streams␣if␣the␣combined␣regional␣tonnage␣would␣be␣approximately␣10,000␣
tonnes␣per␣year␣(enabling␣construction␣of␣a␣regional␣two-stream␣MRF).␣␣Collecting␣
materials␣two-stream␣allows␣collection␣costs␣to␣be␣reduced␣compared␣to␣curbside␣
sorting␣of␣materials.␣␣As␣with␣single␣stream␣collection,␣compaction␣can␣also␣be␣used␣
in␣two␣stream␣collection.␣␣Co␣collection␣of␣waste␣and␣recyclables␣can␣also␣be␣adapted␣
to␣two␣stream␣programs␣when␣homes␣are␣provided␣with␣an␣alternating␣collection␣
schedule␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials,␣where␣waste␣and␣fibres␣are␣collected␣one␣week,␣and␣
waste␣and␣containers␣are␣collected␣the␣next␣week.␣
If␣it␣is␣not␣feasible␣to␣construct␣a␣regional␣two-stream␣MRF,␣the␣preferred␣collection␣
method␣would␣be␣to␣sort␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣at␣the␣curb.␣
Additional␣opportunities␣for␣improving␣collection␣efficiencies␣and␣reducing␣costs␣that␣
apply␣to␣programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣include:␣the␣use of increased commingling,␣
where␣applicable␣and␣reducing non-productive operator time.␣␣These␣and␣other␣
Best␣Practices␣are␣expanded␣upon␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣␣
Processing
Facilities␣that␣process␣less␣than␣10,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣are␣not␣as␣cost-effective␣as␣
larger␣facilities␣and␣all␣programs␣with␣this␣profile␣should␣explore partnership
opportunities to maximize the tonnes processed by existing MRFs,␣as␣they␣are␣
well␣below␣that␣threshold.␣␣
Programs␣that␣are␣remote␣may␣have␣to␣process␣their␣own␣Blue␣Box␣materials.␣␣
Processing␣costs␣can␣be␣managed␣by␣limiting␣the␣categories␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣
collected␣and␣sorting␣most␣materials␣at␣the␣curb.␣␣Processing␣equipment␣can␣
therefore␣be␣low-cost␣and␣limited␣to␣a␣rudimentary␣sorting␣line␣(if␣required),␣materials␣
handling␣equipment,␣and␣an␣inexpensive␣baler.␣␣Because␣the␣baler␣will␣not␣be␣robust,␣
PET␣plastic␣bottles␣will␣not␣be␣able␣to␣be␣baled␣to␣a␣sufficient␣density␣to␣avoid␣
additional␣freight␣costs␣or␣penalties.␣␣Therefore,␣a␣Best␣Practice␣is␣to␣purchase␣and␣
use␣densifying␣equipment,␣such␣as␣a␣perforator,␣or␣baler␣fluffer␣to␣perforate␣PET␣
bottles,␣rather␣than␣remove␣caps␣by␣hand.␣␣Other␣optimization␣strategies␣for␣MRFs␣
are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Training
Best␣Practices␣include␣ensuring key program staff are adequately trained␣in␣the␣
core␣competencies␣required␣for␣each␣duty.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
196 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Procurement and Contract Management
Best␣Practices␣include␣following␣generally accepted principles for effective
procurement and contract management.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Promotion and Education
An␣effective promotion and education (P&E) program␣leads␣to␣higher␣resident␣
participation␣rates,␣improved␣material␣quality,␣lower␣residue␣rates,␣and␣increased␣
customer␣satisfaction.␣␣A␣variety␣of␣P&E␣strategies␣can␣be␣employed␣by␣municipal␣
programs␣to␣achieve␣desired␣program␣goals,␣as␣described␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Furthermore,␣to␣increase␣program␣effectiveness,␣municipalities␣may␣need␣to␣
coordinate␣P&E␣activities␣with␣their␣neighbours.␣␣Multi-municipal␣P&E␣enables␣
participating␣communities␣to␣have␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣
collection␣programs␣in␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣When␣combined␣with␣the␣
availability␣of␣mass␣media␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣profile,␣a␣multi-municipal␣mass␣media␣
campaign␣can␣be␣employed␣that␣allows␣for␣consistent␣promotion␣of␣messages,␣as␣
residents␣continually␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣
Policies and Incentives
In␣order␣to␣achieve␣the␣60%␣diversion␣target␣set␣by␣the␣Province,␣programs␣in␣this␣
category␣will␣need␣to use incentives and policies that promote waste diversion.␣␣
Such␣tools␣may␣include␣solid␣waste␣bag␣limits,␣user␣pay␣program␣for␣waste,␣and/or␣
enforced␣mandatory␣recycling␣bylaws.␣␣Each␣community␣needs␣to␣evaluate␣its␣waste␣
diversion␣plans␣and␣initiatives␣to␣determine␣the␣right␣balance␣of␣economic␣and␣non-
monetary␣incentives.␣␣A␣detailed␣discussion␣of␣policies␣and␣incentives␣that,␣when␣
established␣and␣enforced,␣serve␣to␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣197
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Medium Suburban Northern Blue Box Program
Overview
This␣Program␣Profile,␣paired␣with␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣and␣Spotlight␣
summaries,␣is␣designed␣to␣provide␣general␣guidance␣to␣municipalities␣on␣how␣to␣
design,␣manage,␣and␣operate␣their␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣under␣Best␣Practices.␣␣It␣is␣
specifically␣tailored␣to␣programs␣of␣defined␣size,␣density,␣and␣geography␣in␣order␣to␣
enhance␣applicability␣of␣Best␣Practices␣and␣increase␣the␣likelihood␣of␣their␣adoption.␣␣␣
␣
Program Characteristics
The␣following␣characteristics␣were␣used␣to␣define␣this␣Program␣Profile:␣␣
Geographical␣Region:␣Northern␣community␣
Size␣of␣Program:␣Generating␣between␣10,000␣and␣40,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣
Residential␣Density:␣Between␣10␣and␣70␣homes␣per␣kilometre␣of␣roads␣
(mixed␣urban␣and␣rural,␣or␣suburban)␣
Programs␣having␣this␣profile␣are␣major␣regional␣population␣centers␣that␣have␣a␣mix␣of␣
urban,␣suburban,␣and␣rural␣homes.␣␣The␣diversity␣of␣housing␣densities␣and␣distribution␣
of␣households␣over␣a␣large␣land␣area␣make␣it␣make␣it␣difficult␣to␣provide␣Blue␣Box␣
recycling␣to␣all␣residents␣in␣a␣standardized␣and␣cost␣effective␣manner.␣␣The␣challenge␣
in␣this␣group␣is␣to␣achieve␣diversion␣goals␣and␣maximize␣efficient,␣cost-effective␣
recycling␣services␣to␣all␣residents,␣including␣those␣living␣in␣multi-family␣units.␣
Applicable Best Practices
Each␣of␣the␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣listed␣in␣the␣table␣below␣applies␣to␣all␣Blue␣
Box␣programs.␣These␣practices␣are␣introduced␣in␣the␣text␣below,␣and␣described␣in␣
greater␣detail␣in␣the␣separate␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practice␣summaries.␣␣␣
Conditional␣Best␣Practices␣that␣apply␣to␣every␣program␣in␣this␣profile␣are␣also␣listed␣in␣
the␣table.␣␣Several␣other␣Conditional␣Practices␣are␣best␣for␣some,␣but␣not␣all␣programs␣
in␣this␣profile.␣␣These␣practices␣and␣the␣specific␣conditions␣under␣which␣they␣apply␣
are␣discussed␣below.␣␣Leading␣practices␣are␣presented␣in␣bold␣type,␣for␣ease␣of␣
reference.␣␣Additional␣guidance␣regarding␣practices␣that␣may␣be␣best␣under␣certain␣
circumstances␣is␣also␣provided␣for␣consideration.␣␣Lastly,␣supplementary␣best␣
practices␣guidance␣for␣specific␣program␣areas␣(e.g.,␣collection,␣processing,␣depot␣and␣
multi-residential␣recycling)␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣"Spotlight"␣summaries.␣␣
FUNDAMENTAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣all␣programs␣
Development␣and␣implementation␣of␣an␣up-to-date␣plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣
an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣
Multi-municipal␣planning␣approach␣to␣collection␣and␣processing␣recyclables␣␣
Program␣Profile
Use␣of␣Program␣Profile
This␣document␣is␣intended␣to␣provide␣
general␣guidance,␣not␣detailed␣
prescriptive␣recommendations,␣on␣
how␣any␣given␣program␣should␣be␣
structured.␣␣␣
The␣Project␣Team␣believes␣that␣by␣
adopting␣Best␣Practices␣outlined␣in␣
this␣document,␣recycling␣coordinators␣
will␣improve␣the␣performance␣of␣their␣
Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣However,␣the␣
degree␣of␣improvement␣will␣vary␣
across␣municipalities,␣as␣multiple␣
factors␣contribute␣to␣overall␣program␣
performance.␣Furthermore,␣more-
detailed␣guidance␣may␣be␣needed␣by␣
some␣communities␣to␣ensure␣that␣
practices␣are␣truly␣implemented␣in␣a␣
Best␣Practices␣fashion.␣
198 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Establishing␣defined␣performance␣measures␣including␣diversion␣targets␣and␣
monitoring␣and␣a␣continuous␣improvement␣program␣
Optimization␣of␣operations␣in␣collections␣and␣processing␣␣
Training␣of␣key␣program␣staff␣in␣core␣competencies␣required␣
Following␣generally␣accepted␣principles␣for␣effective␣procurement␣and␣contract␣
management␣
Appropriately␣planned,␣designed,␣and␣funded␣promotion␣and␣education␣program␣
Established␣and␣enforced␣policies␣that␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣␣
CONDITIONAL␣BEST␣PRACTICES␣-␣applicable␣to␣programs␣fitting␣this␣profile␣
Two␣stream␣collection␣and␣processing␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣
Program Planning and Design
Limited␣resources␣and␣the␣need␣to␣focus␣on␣priorities␣and␣be␣resourceful␣are␣the␣
main␣reasons␣to␣maintain and implement an up-to-date plan for recycling as
part of an integrated waste management system.␣␣Such␣a␣plan␣will␣ensure␣a␣
strategic␣management␣focus␣that,␣when␣combined␣with␣complementary␣waste␣
reduction,␣organics,␣reuse,␣energy␣from␣waste,␣and␣waste␣diversion␣incentives␣(bag␣
limits,␣user␣pay),␣will␣result␣in␣a␣robust␣Blue␣Box␣program.␣␣Additional␣elements␣of␣a␣
plan␣for␣recycling,␣as␣part␣of␣an␣integrated␣waste␣management␣system␣can␣be␣found␣
in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣are␣likely␣to␣be␣business␣and␣population␣centre␣of␣
their␣area.␣␣Therefore,␣program␣decisions␣will␣have␣a␣direct␣impact␣on␣the␣programs␣in␣
surrounding␣towns␣and␣townships.␣␣A␣multi-municipal planning approach␣will␣
allow␣surrounding␣jurisdictions␣to␣work␣together␣to␣make␣the␣most␣efficient␣use␣of␣
limited␣personnel,␣improve␣economies␣of␣scale,␣and␣improve␣market␣leverage␣when␣
contracting␣for␣services␣and␣marketing␣recovered␣materials.␣␣In␣addition,␣
communities␣in␣a␣region␣can␣collaborate␣to␣establish␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣
materials␣and␣similar␣collection␣programs.␣␣This␣will␣create␣consistency␣among␣
neighbouring␣municipalities,␣which␣facilitates␣public␣understanding␣regarding␣what␣
and␣how␣to␣recycle.␣␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣the␣details␣of␣a␣multi-municipal␣planning␣
approach␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Having␣a␣plan␣is␣of␣only␣limited␣benefit␣if␣there␣are␣no␣defined␣diversion targets and
performance measures, supported by data collection and analysis␣that␣measure␣
the␣effectiveness␣of␣the␣plan␣and␣its␣implementation.␣␣Performance␣measures␣and␣
data␣to␣be␣obtained␣include␣monitoring␣of␣diversion␣amounts,␣conducting␣waste␣
audits,␣and␣conducting␣participation␣studies.␣␣It␣is␣with␣such␣program␣monitoring␣that␣
sound␣decisions␣can␣be␣made␣based␣on␣local␣program␣data,␣within␣a␣framework␣of␣a␣
continuously␣improving␣the␣program.␣Additional␣discussion␣of␣performance␣measures␣
and␣program␣monitoring␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣
Practices␣section.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣199
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Performance␣data,␣once␣obtained␣and␣analyzed,␣will␣allow␣for␣the␣optimization of
operations.␣The␣benefits␣of␣optimization␣include␣balanced␣routes␣and␣payloads,␣
reduced␣collection␣time␣(and␣therefore␣reduced␣collection␣costs),␣and␣less␣costly␣
processing.␣Specific␣opportunities␣that␣apply␣to␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣are␣further␣
discussed␣in␣the␣Collection␣and␣Processing␣sections␣of␣this␣Program␣Profile.␣
Collection
Curbside collection of recyclables should be used to service all available
curbside-eligible households in the community, supported by drop-off depots
to provide access to recycling for residents in areas where density may not
support curbside and/or to collect additional recyclable materials that are not
collected curbside.␣␣It␣is␣more␣cost-effective␣to␣employ␣the␣use␣of␣depots␣in␣areas␣
where␣curbside␣collection␣costs␣exceed␣$50␣per␣household␣per␣year.␣Supporting␣Best␣
Practices␣related␣to␣drop-off␣depots␣are␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣
Spotlight.␣
The␣urban␣portions␣of␣programs␣of␣this␣profile␣will␣likely␣have␣a␣sizable␣multi-family␣
population.␣Multi-residential recyclables collection should be integrated with
curbside collection service wherever possible.␣␣Because␣of␣the␣unique␣challenges␣
of␣multi-family␣recycling,␣associated␣Best␣Practices␣are␣further␣discussed␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
.Providing sufficient rigid collection containers free of charge␣to␣residents␣will␣
ensure␣that␣overflow␣materials␣are␣not␣disposed.␣Selection␣of␣the␣size␣and/or␣number␣
of␣containers␣needs␣to␣take␣into␣consideration␣estimated␣set␣out␣volume␣of␣
recyclables,␣based␣on␣the␣frequency␣of␣collection.␣␣Most␣programs␣will␣provide␣
weekly␣or␣bi-weekly␣collection␣of␣recyclables.␣␣Collection of Blue Box materials
should be at least as frequent as waste collection.
Programs␣within␣this␣profile␣should␣collect recyclables in two streams␣(i.e.,␣fibres␣
and␣containers),␣with␣the␣possible␣exception␣of␣keeping␣glass␣separate␣as␣a␣third␣
stream.␣␣Single-stream␣recycling␣is␣likely␣not␣warranted␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣profile,␣
unless␣a␣regional␣MRF␣is␣to␣be␣constructed␣that␣would␣process␣tonnages␣near␣or␣
above␣40,000␣tonnes␣per␣year␣(otherwise␣capital␣costs␣could␣negatively␣impact␣
combined␣collection␣and␣processing␣cost-effectiveness).␣␣
Although␣a␣highly-capitalized␣single␣stream␣MRF␣normally␣requires␣a␣greater␣tonnage␣
than␣is␣represented␣by␣this␣profile,␣single␣stream␣processing␣can␣be␣feasible␣if␣sorting␣
is␣primarily␣manual␣and/or␣if␣single-stream␣collection␣provides␣significant␣cost␣savings␣
over␣two␣stream␣collection␣(e.g.,␣using␣carts␣and␣transitioning␣to␣bi-weekly␣service).␣␣
From␣a␣processing␣perspective,␣single␣stream␣collection␣of␣recyclables␣is␣not␣
preferred␣over␣two␣stream␣collection,␣because␣the␣processing␣cost␣per␣tonne␣and␣
process␣residue␣rates␣will␣be␣higher␣at␣a␣single␣stream␣MRF␣compared␣to␣an␣
equivalent␣two-stream␣MRF.␣␣␣
Collecting␣materials␣single␣stream␣allows␣other␣collection␣practices␣to␣be␣
implemented␣that␣can␣significantly␣reduce␣the␣collection␣cost.␣One␣of␣these␣practices␣
is␣controlled compaction␣that␣allows␣collection␣to␣be␣more␣productive␣because␣
200 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
trucks␣can␣stay␣on␣route␣longer␣before␣filling.␣␣The␣compaction␣needs␣to␣be␣controlled␣
so␣that␣the␣pressure␣is␣sufficient␣to␣achieve␣a␣reasonable␣amount␣of␣volume␣
reduction,␣without␣over-compacting␣the␣materials.␣␣Over-compaction␣results␣in␣glass␣
breakage␣and␣flattening␣of␣round␣containers,␣which␣can␣cause␣the␣automated␣
systems␣in␣a␣single␣stream␣MRF␣to␣be␣less␣effective␣in␣separating␣flat␣paper␣products␣
from␣round␣containers.␣Compaction␣can␣also␣be␣used␣in␣two␣stream␣collection;␣
however,␣the␣per-household␣cost␣for␣collection␣in␣single␣stream␣systems␣is␣typically␣
less␣than␣comparable␣two␣stream␣systems␣because␣materials␣can␣be␣loaded␣into␣a␣
single␣stream␣truck␣in␣less␣time.␣
A␣second␣collection␣practice␣that␣is␣enabled␣by␣single␣stream␣collection␣is␣providing␣
program␣participants␣with␣carts␣for␣their␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣instead␣of␣bins.␣␣The␣
significantly␣greater␣storage␣volume␣of␣carts␣compared␣to␣bins␣means␣that␣overflow␣
Blue␣Box␣materials␣are␣typically␣not␣discarded,␣although␣some␣exceptions␣may␣occur.␣␣
The␣carts␣also␣allow␣for␣every-other-week␣collection␣of␣Blue␣Box␣materials,␣with␣
reduced␣collection␣cost␣compared␣to␣weekly␣collection.␣␣The␣use␣of␣carts␣also␣allows␣
for␣fully␣automated␣collection,␣in␣which␣a␣mechanical␣arm␣picks␣up␣and␣dumps␣the␣
cart␣without␣the␣driver␣having␣to␣get␣out␣of␣the␣truck␣for␣the␣majority␣of␣stops.␣␣This␣
can␣allow␣for␣collecting␣more␣stops␣per␣hour,␣yielding␣further␣cost␣savings.␣␣Because␣
machinery␣is␣doing␣the␣heavy␣lifting,␣a␣more␣age␣and␣gender-balanced␣workforce␣can␣
be␣used␣and␣WSIB␣claims␣are␣typically␣reduced.␣␣In␣areas␣where␣fully␣automated␣
collection␣is␣impractical␣(e.g.,␣due␣to␣obstacles␣impeding␣collection),␣semi-automated␣
collection␣of␣recyclables␣in␣carts␣may␣be␣an␣option.␣
It␣should␣be␣noted␣that␣many␣of␣the␣practices␣that␣are␣enabled␣by␣single␣stream␣
collection␣can␣be␣achieved␣by␣two␣stream␣systems␣that␣collect␣paper␣products␣and␣
containers␣on␣an␣alternating␣week␣basis,␣including␣compaction␣and␣co-collection.␣␣
Collecting␣on␣an␣alternating␣week␣basis␣does␣not␣mean␣that␣the␣MRF␣only␣processes␣
paper␣products␣one␣week␣and␣containers␣the␣other␣week;␣rather␣it␣means␣that␣half␣
the␣routes␣collect␣one␣material␣and␣the␣other␣half␣of␣routes␣collect␣the␣other␣material␣
on␣any␣given␣day.␣␣This␣allows␣the␣MRF␣to␣be␣optimally␣sized.␣␣Because␣solid␣waste␣
planners␣seek␣to␣optimize␣an␣entire␣integrated␣solid␣waste␣system,␣a␣single␣stream␣
Blue␣Box␣system␣may␣be␣preferred␣over␣two␣stream␣if␣total␣system␣costs␣are␣
reduced.␣␣Planners␣of␣programs␣similar␣to␣this␣profile␣should␣carefully␣develop␣their␣
business␣case␣to␣evaluate␣which␣system␣best␣meets␣overall␣integrated␣system␣
objectives.␣␣
Opportunities␣for␣improving␣collection␣efficiencies␣and␣reducing␣costs␣that␣apply␣to␣
programs␣matching␣this␣profile␣include␣the␣use of route optimization software and
providing carts or dumpsters at multi-family complexes.␣These␣and␣other␣
collection␣optimization␣practices␣are␣more␣fully␣discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣
Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Processing
Partnership and transfer opportunities should be seriously explored␣for␣all␣
programs␣with␣this␣profile␣in␣order␣to␣maximize␣processing␣efficiencies␣and␣allow␣
surrounding␣jurisdictions␣the␣benefits␣of␣delivering␣materials␣to␣the␣program's␣MRF.␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣201
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Two-stream processing␣(fibres␣and␣containers)␣is␣most␣appropriate␣in␣this␣tonnage␣
range.␣The␣size␣of␣programs␣within␣this␣profile␣allows␣for␣the␣construction␣of␣a␣MRF␣
that␣is␣dedicated␣to␣the␣program␣and␣is␣capable␣of␣processing␣recyclables␣that␣have␣
been␣collected␣in␣two␣streams:␣containers␣and␣fibres.␣␣The␣cost␣of␣single␣stream␣
processing␣is␣greater␣than␣that␣of␣two-stream␣processing␣at␣the␣same␣capacity,␣and␣
anticipated␣savings␣in␣collection␣are␣able␣to␣offset␣these␣processing␣costs␣only␣at␣high␣
throughput␣tonnages.␣␣Other␣optimization␣strategies␣for␣MRFs␣are␣more␣fully␣
discussed␣in␣the␣corresponding␣Best␣Practice␣Spotlight.␣
Training
Best␣Practices␣include␣ensuring key program staff are adequately trained␣in␣the␣
core␣competencies␣required␣for␣each␣duty.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Procurement and Contract Management
Best␣Practices␣include␣following␣generally accepted principles for effective
procurement and contract management.␣␣This␣is␣discussed␣in␣detail␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
A␣Best␣Practice␣that␣specifically␣applies␣to␣this␣profile␣is␣the␣alignment of service
contract lengths with equipment depreciation terms.␣␣This␣practice␣is␣conditional␣
on␣the␣program:␣(1)␣contracting␣with␣a␣service␣provider␣rather␣than␣using␣municipal␣
staff;␣and␣(2)␣specifying␣that␣the␣service␣provider␣provide␣new␣collection␣equipment␣
or␣design␣and␣build␣a␣new␣MRF.␣␣The␣reason␣for␣aligning␣the␣contract␣lengths␣with␣
equipment␣depreciation␣terms␣is␣to␣ensure␣that␣the␣program␣doesn't␣fully␣pay␣for␣
equipment␣that␣may␣have␣additional␣life␣at␣the␣end␣of␣the␣contract.␣␣In␣the␣case␣of␣
MRFs,␣the␣term␣should␣be␣aligned␣with␣the␣first␣scheduled␣major␣overhaul␣of␣the␣
plant's␣equipment.␣␣A␣suitably␣long␣term␣also␣ensures␣that␣equipment␣is␣installed␣that␣
has␣a␣life␣cycle␣cost␣advantage␣that␣may␣not␣be␣realized␣by␣the␣contractor␣over␣a␣
shorter␣operating␣period.␣␣␣
Promotion and Education
An␣effective promotion and education (P&E) program␣leads␣to␣higher␣resident␣
participation␣rates,␣improved␣material␣quality,␣lower␣residue␣rates,␣and␣increased␣
customer␣satisfaction.␣␣A␣variety␣of␣P&E␣strategies␣can␣be␣employed␣by␣municipal␣
programs␣to␣achieve␣desired␣program␣goals,␣as␣described␣in␣the␣corresponding␣
Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
Furthermore,␣to␣increase␣program␣effectiveness,␣municipalities␣may␣need␣to␣
coordinate␣P&E␣activities␣with␣their␣neighbours.␣␣Multi-municipal␣P&E␣enables␣
participating␣communities␣to␣have␣a␣common␣list␣of␣target␣materials␣and␣similar␣
collection␣programs␣in␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣␣When␣combined␣with␣the␣
availability␣of␣mass␣media␣for␣programs␣of␣this␣profile,␣a␣multi-municipal␣mass␣media␣
campaign␣can␣be␣employed␣that␣allows␣for␣consistent␣promotion␣of␣messages,␣as␣
residents␣continually␣relocate␣between␣neighbouring␣jurisdictions.␣
202 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Policies and Incentives
In␣order␣to␣achieve␣the␣60%␣diversion␣target␣set␣by␣the␣Province,␣programs␣in␣this␣
category␣will␣need␣to use incentives and policies that promote waste diversion.␣␣
Such␣tools␣may␣include␣solid␣waste␣bag␣limits,␣user␣pay␣program␣for␣waste,␣and/or␣
enforced␣mandatory␣recycling␣bylaws.␣␣Each␣community␣needs␣to␣evaluate␣its␣waste␣
diversion␣plans␣and␣initiatives␣to␣determine␣the␣right␣balance␣of␣economic␣and␣non-
monetary␣incentives.␣␣A␣detailed␣discussion␣of␣policies␣and␣incentives␣that,␣when␣
established␣and␣enforced,␣serve␣to␣induce␣waste␣diversion␣can␣be␣found␣in␣the␣
corresponding␣Fundamental␣Best␣Practices␣section.␣
␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣203
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Diffusion␣of␣Best␣Practices␣
This section outlines suggested next steps and the use
of E&E Fund in promoting and diffusing Best Practices
province-wide.
Next␣Steps␣for␣Best␣Practice␣Diffusion␣
To␣help␣continue␣the␣adoption␣and␣diffusion␣of␣Best␣Practices,␣the␣Team␣developed␣a␣
number␣of␣suggestions␣related␣to␣the␣implementation␣and␣continuous␣improvement␣
of␣practices␣outlined␣in␣this␣document␣and␣individual␣community␣reports.␣␣
Implementation Plan
For␣municipalities that received a customized report␣with␣opportunities␣for␣
improvement,␣follow␣up␣activities␣need␣to␣be␣conducted␣in␣order␣to␣track␣progress␣
and␣facilitate␣implementation␣of␣Best␣Practices.␣␣First,␣a␣debrief␣with␣program␣staff␣
may␣be␣necessary␣to␣understand␣whether:␣
Timelines␣are␣reasonable␣
Opportunities␣are␣prioritized␣correctly␣
Sufficient␣implementation␣resources␣exist␣
This␣follow␣up␣process␣needs␣to␣take␣place␣over␣the␣first␣six␣months␣after␣the␣receipt␣
of␣the␣opportunities␣for␣improvement␣report.␣␣A␣post-report␣survey␣may␣also␣be␣
helpful␣in␣gauging␣the␣receptivity␣of␣the␣municipality␣to␣the␣contents␣of␣the␣report.␣␣
Then,␣an␣ongoing␣dialogue␣process␣may␣be␣required␣to␣help␣identify␣barriers␣to␣
implementation,␣resolve␣issues,␣and␣provide␣feedback␣on␣direction␣and␣progress.␣␣
For␣those␣municipalities that didn't receive an individual report,␣the␣results␣of␣
this␣project␣need␣to␣be␣conveyed␣in␣a␣clear␣and␣accessible␣way.␣␣This␣may␣entail␣the␣
creation␣of␣interactive␣tools,␣such␣as␣a␣Decision␣Tree␣and␣Program␣Profiles,␣on␣the␣
Internet␣(e.g.,␣Knowledge␣Network,␣WDO␣website,␣Stewardship␣Ontario␣website).␣␣
Posting␣of␣background␣documents,␣gathered␣by␣the␣project␣team,␣may␣also␣be␣
helpful␣in␣informing␣municipalities␣of␣the␣content␣that␣led␣to␣formulation␣of␣Best␣
Practices.␣␣A␣guide␣on␣the␣use␣of␣these␣tools␣would␣be␣required.␣
For␣smaller resource-constrained communities,␣a␣Best␣Practices␣toolkit␣may␣need␣
to␣be␣created␣to␣assist␣in␣understanding,␣embracing,␣and␣implementing␣Best␣
Practices.␣␣This␣toolkit␣would␣contain:␣
A␣Best␣Practices␣Checklist,␣with␣detailed␣descriptions␣of␣Best␣Practices␣and␣
direction␣on␣how␣to␣implement␣them␣␣
Templates␣for␣key␣program␣documents,␣such␣as␣the␣Master␣Plan␣
204 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Examples␣of␣good␣practices␣in␣action,␣including␣material␣audit␣documents,␣
continuous␣improvement␣processes,␣effective␣procurement␣materials,␣etc.␣
Opportunities␣for␣Improvement␣reports␣from␣similar␣communities,␣if␣programs␣
elect␣to␣make␣them␣available␣for␣sharing␣
Regional␣workshops␣on␣Best␣Practices,␣explaining␣the␣results␣of␣this␣project␣and␣the␣
applicability␣to␣programs,␣may␣help␣all␣Ontario␣communities.␣␣
The␣audience for␣this␣document␣and␣other␣work␣products␣of␣this␣project␣is␣diverse.␣␣
Due␣to␣the␣vast␣array␣of␣stakeholders,␣the␣expectations␣of␣and␣perspectives␣on␣this␣
report␣may␣differ␣drastically␣among␣different␣audiences.␣␣The␣following␣stakeholders␣
need␣to␣be␣considered␣in␣developing␣communication␣materials:␣
Senior,␣mid-level,␣and␣junior␣municipal␣program␣staff␣
Municipal␣elected␣officials␣
Stewards␣
Ministry␣of␣the␣Environment␣
Private␣Contractors␣
Residents␣
Media␣outlets␣
The␣messaging␣surrounding␣the␣distribution␣of␣work␣products␣of␣this␣project␣may␣
need␣to␣differ,␣depending␣on␣the␣audience␣receiving␣them.␣␣Similarly␣to␣the␣way␣Volvo␣
instantly␣connotes␣"safety",␣the␣positioning␣of␣this␣and␣other␣documents␣needs␣to␣be␣
defined,␣and␣may␣be␣altered␣for␣different␣stakeholders.␣␣Positioning␣may␣highlight␣the␣
following␣elements:␣␣
Environmental␣Focus␣
Program␣Optimization␣
Industry␣Insight␣
Waste␣Diversion␣
Cost␣Reduction␣
Continuous␣Improvement␣
Helpful␣Guidance␣
These␣change␣management␣techniques␣may␣need␣to␣be␣augmented␣by␣developing␣a␣
clear␣relationship␣between␣the␣adoption␣of␣Best␣Practices␣and␣funding␣received␣by␣
the␣program.␣␣Team's␣observations␣indicate␣that␣funding␣is␣a␣powerful␣driver␣of␣
change␣in␣the␣industry;␣therefore,␣diffusion␣of␣Best␣Practices␣may,␣to␣a␣large␣degree,␣
depend␣on␣the␣municipalities'␣understanding␣that␣funding␣will␣be␣affected␣(positively␣
or␣negatively)␣by␣the␣progress␣made␣in␣implementing␣Best␣Practices.␣␣
Continuous Improvement Mechanisms
To␣help␣sustain␣the␣momentum␣of␣Best␣Practice␣implementation␣and␣use,␣
municipalities␣need␣to␣employ␣Continuous␣Improvement␣processes␣in␣their␣recycling␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣205
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
programs.␣␣A␣culture␣of␣Continuous␣Improvement␣will␣help␣programs␣reach␣their␣
operational,␣financial,␣and␣diversion␣goals␣faster␣and␣more␣cost-effectively.␣␣
Leveraging␣existing␣Continuous␣Improvement␣programs␣from␣their␣own␣municipality␣
or␣from␣programs␣that␣have␣effective␣Continuous␣Improvement␣processes␣will␣likely␣
yield␣good␣results.␣␣
Opportunities␣for␣critically␣assessing␣program␣structure␣and␣performance␣arise␣quite␣
frequently.␣␣These␣include␣annual␣events␣or␣significant␣milestones,␣such␣as:␣
Contract␣renewal␣and␣tendering␣
Program␣budgeting␣
Datacall␣submission␣
Program␣audits␣-␣financial␣and␣operational␣
In␣evaluating␣program␣performance␣and␣considering␣changes,␣municipalities␣need␣to␣
ask␣the␣following␣questions:␣
Have␣program␣cost␣gone␣up␣or␣down?␣
Have␣diversion␣rates␣changed?␣
What␣other␣changes␣took␣place?␣
What␣are␣the␣causes␣of␣these␣changes?␣
What␣new␣Best␣Practices␣have␣been␣identified␣and␣published␣
Are␣current␣Best␣Practices␣still␣relevant?␣
What␣are␣the␣new␣technologies␣entering␣the␣industry?␣
Has␣the␣Program␣Profile␣(as␣defined␣by␣the␣Decision␣Tree)␣changed␣due␣to␣tonnage␣
and␣density␣changes?␣
Has␣political␣will␣or␣direction␣changed,␣and␣how␣will␣the␣program␣be␣influenced?␣
What␣changes␣my␣neighbours␣have␣made?␣
Does␣the␣program␣have␣sufficient␣skills␣and␣resources␣to␣continue␣achieving␣set␣
targets?␣␣
Are␣program␣targets␣still␣relevant?␣
Continuous␣Improvement␣also␣entails␣the␣search␣for␣new␣Best␣Practices.␣␣The␣Team␣
estimates␣that␣the␣implementation␣of␣Best␣Practices␣detailed␣in␣this␣report␣may␣take␣
up␣to␣three␣to␣five␣years␣on␣an␣industry-wide␣basis.␣␣During␣that␣time,␣ongoing␣
monitoring␣and␣evaluation␣of␣Best␣Practice␣diffusion␣may␣be␣necessary.␣␣After␣three␣
to␣five␣years,␣a␣review␣of␣changes␣in␣industry␣and␣changes␣in␣practices␣employed␣by␣
municipal␣programs␣may␣be␣required␣in␣order␣to␣identify␣new␣Best␣Practices␣in␣
Ontario␣Blue␣Box␣Recycling.␣
206 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
E&E␣Fund␣Options␣for␣Diffusing␣Best␣Practices␣
Approach to Identify E&E Fund Options
The␣Project␣Team␣reviewed␣the␣existing␣E&E␣Fund␣program␣structure␣and␣history,␣
and␣queried␣the␣full␣project␣team␣to␣obtain␣their␣input␣on␣how␣to␣best␣use␣E&E␣funds␣
to␣diffuse␣Best␣Practices.␣␣In␣addition,␣a␣workshop␣with␣municipal␣leaders␣in␣recycling␣
was␣held␣to␣gather␣feedback␣on␣project␣deliverables␣and␣discuss␣potential␣uses␣of␣the␣
E&E␣fund.␣␣During␣each␣work␣session,␣funding␣needs␣were␣identified,␣followed␣by␣a␣
discussion␣on␣actions␣to␣be␣taken␣in␣addressing␣the␣identified␣needs.␣␣Findings␣with␣
respect␣to␣program␣needs␣and␣specific␣ideas␣on␣the␣use␣of␣E&E␣funds␣resulting␣from␣
these␣workshops␣are␣presented␣below.␣
Program Needs
The␣following␣is␣a␣summary␣of␣needs␣identified␣in␣the␣two␣sessions:␣
Training␣-␣province-wide␣training␣existed␣in␣the␣past,␣but␣it␣is␣no␣longer␣offered␣
Coordination␣between␣programs␣␣-␣there␣appears␣to␣a␣lack␣of␣an␣overarching␣vision␣
across␣the␣province␣for␣program␣coordination␣
Northern␣support␣-␣networking␣and␣communications␣are␣crucial␣to␣improving␣
program␣performance␣and␣multi-municipal␣collaboration␣
Standardization␣of␣programs␣-␣current␣improvement␣efforts␣appear␣to␣be␣focused␣
on␣tweaking␣existing␣programs␣as␣opposed␣to␣aiming␣to␣standardize␣programs␣to␣
a␣common␣set␣of␣materials,␣processes,␣and␣policies␣␣␣
Leadership␣-␣greater␣leadership␣may␣motivate␣and␣sustain␣change␣
Additional␣resources␣-␣some␣programs␣may␣lack␣staff␣or␣funding␣to␣implement␣
Best␣Practices␣
Marketing␣knowledge␣and␣expertise␣-␣information␣on␣marketing␣prices,␣contacts,␣
companies␣appears␣to␣be␣fragmented␣
Sharing␣of␣information␣among␣programs␣Province-wide␣-␣industry␣and␣program␣
specific␣information␣appears␣to␣be␣scattered␣and␣isolated␣
Additional␣Datacall␣training␣-␣some␣program␣coordinators␣may␣not␣have␣the␣
adequate␣degree␣of␣knowledge␣to␣accurately␣complete␣the␣WDO␣Datacall␣
E&E Fund Options
Based␣on␣the␣identified␣needs,␣the␣Team␣formulated␣a␣number␣of␣options␣on␣how␣to␣
use␣E&E␣Fund␣resources.␣␣These␣are␣ideas␣on␣potential␣projects␣and␣activities;␣further␣
evaluations␣should␣be␣conducted␣to␣assess␣the␣practicality␣and␣cost-effectiveness␣of␣
these␣projects/activities.␣Options␣are␣presented␣below,␣in␣no␣particular␣order:␣
1
Training workshops on Best Practices
Training␣workshops␣on␣the␣results␣of␣this␣project␣and␣adoption␣of␣Best␣Practices␣
could␣be␣held␣at␣various␣locations␣across␣the␣Province.␣␣A␣certification␣program␣could␣
be␣created␣for␣recycling␣coordinators␣to␣ensure␣programs␣are␣operated␣by␣skilled␣and␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣207
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
knowledgeable␣staff.␣␣WDO␣Datacall␣training␣could␣be␣integrated␣into␣these␣sessions␣
or␣could␣be␣provided␣for␣in␣separate␣workshops.␣␣
2
Northern support resource
Northern␣municipalities␣may␣benefit␣from␣a␣dedicated␣recycling␣specialist␣who␣would␣
provide␣guidance␣and␣support␣to␣local␣programs.␣
3
Workshops by program profile to promote results of this project
Training␣sessions␣oriented␣around␣Best␣Practices␣Program␣Profiles␣could␣be␣held␣in␣
various␣regions,␣to␣communicate␣specific␣and␣relevant␣information␣to␣programs␣
matching␣a␣given␣profile.␣␣Municipal␣and␣steward␣team␣members␣could␣help␣facilitate␣
these␣sessions,␣aimed␣at␣program␣coordinators,␣politicians,␣and␣private␣contractors,␣
among␣others.␣␣Development␣of␣an␣electronic,␣web-based␣version␣of␣the␣Decision␣
Tree␣and␣resource␣library␣will␣help␣guide␣municipalities␣to␣their␣respective␣profile.␣
4
Development of a tool to gather, maintain, and share recyclable materials
and marketing information
A␣database␣containing␣information␣on␣commodities,␣market␣prices,␣and␣buyers␣could␣
be␣developed␣to␣enable␣municipalities␣to␣maximize␣their␣revenues.␣␣This␣would␣
provide␣transparency␣and␣efficiency␣to␣an␣otherwise␣segmented␣and␣siloed␣industry.␣␣
Information␣on␣marginal,␣non-mainstream␣products␣may␣be␣of␣greatest␣value␣to␣
program␣operators.␣
5
Overcoming Supply/Market Barriers
E&E␣resources␣could␣be␣used␣to␣analyze␣the␣supply␣and␣demand␣of␣various␣
commodities,␣identify␣barriers␣to␣enhancing␣the␣end␣use␣of␣commodities,␣and␣
develop␣strategies␣to␣overcome␣the␣identified␣barriers.␣␣Regional,␣provincial,␣and␣
macroeconomic␣issues␣will␣need␣to␣be␣considered␣as␣part␣of␣the␣barriers␣
identification,␣assessment␣and␣strategy␣development␣process.␣
6
Centralized Province-wide procurement portal
A␣web-based␣procurement␣portal␣could␣be␣created␣to␣list␣upcoming␣and␣current␣
tenders␣and␣RFPs␣issued␣by␣municipal␣programs.␣The␣portal␣could␣include␣service␣
levels␣and␣clauses,␣winning␣bids␣and␣non-winning␣bids,␣and␣actual␣public␣contracts,␣if␣
available.␣␣The␣portal␣would␣be␣aimed␣at␣increasing␣competition␣and␣making␣the␣
market␣more␣transparent␣and␣efficient.␣␣
7
Standardized P&E content
A␣fully␣accessible␣repository␣of␣standardized␣Promotion␣and␣Education␣materials␣
could␣be␣developed␣for␣use␣by␣program␣operators.␣␣The␣collection␣of␣P&E␣materials␣
could␣include:␣
Graphics␣and␣Images␣
Wording␣
208 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Formats␣
Messaging␣
Branding␣
In␣addition,␣a␣centralized␣P&E␣campaigns␣could␣be␣launched␣to␣supplement␣P&E␣
performed␣at␣the␣local␣level.␣
8
Centralized route optimization
WDO␣could␣procure␣route␣optimization␣software␣centrally,␣for␣shared␣use␣of␣multiple␣
municipalities.␣␣A␣centralized␣approach␣may␣reduce␣costs␣associated␣with␣procuring␣
the␣software␣solution␣by␣individual␣municipalities.␣␣
9
Regional resources for Southern Ontario municipalities
Adoption␣of␣Best␣Practices␣by␣Southern␣Ontario␣municipalities␣may␣be␣facilitated␣by␣
employing␣full␣or␣part-time␣regional␣resources.␣␣These␣individuals␣will␣have␣a␣broader␣
perspective␣on␣a␣number␣of␣neighbouring␣municipal␣programs,␣allowing␣for␣synergies␣
to␣be␣obtained␣though␣service␣standardization␣and␣joint␣processing,␣marketing,␣and␣
P&E␣efforts.␣␣
10 Ongoing program run by a centralized information management entity
Development␣of␣a␣centralized␣information␣management␣entity␣would␣ensure␣that␣
information␣on␣Blue␣Box␣recycling␣in␣Ontario␣is␣relevant,␣updated,␣and␣easily␣
accessed.␣␣Information␣could␣include␣industry␣benchmarks,␣studies,␣links,␣contacts,␣
and␣other␣helpful␣resources.␣␣␣
E&E Fund Strategy Recommendations
Subsequent␣to␣the␣team␣and␣municipal␣stakeholder␣workshops,␣and␣in␣response␣to␣
MIPC␣feedback,␣the␣Project␣Team␣supplemented␣the␣above␣findings␣with␣the␣
following␣additional␣ideas␣and␣recommendations.␣␣␣
The␣stated␣purpose␣of␣the␣E&E␣Fund␣is␣to␣reduce␣the␣cost␣of␣Blue␣Box␣programs␣
(enhance␣program␣efficiency)␣and␣increase␣the␣tonnes␣recovered␣(enhance␣program␣
effectiveness).␣␣More␣specifically,␣the␣consulting␣team␣recommends␣that␣E&E␣funds␣
be␣utilized␣to␣induce␣improvements␣in␣net␣system␣efficiency␣and␣increasing␣cost-
effective␣Blue␣Box␣materials␣diversion.␣␣Funding␣should␣be␣allocated/␣applied␣in␣areas␣
where␣the␣greatest␣opportunity␣to␣boost␣recovery␣and␣lower␣costs␣exists.␣␣However,␣
in␣support␣of␣the␣Blue␣Box␣Program␣Plan,␣it␣is␣also␣important␣to␣provide␣information␣
and␣assistance␣to␣aid␣smaller␣Ontario␣communities␣in␣complying␣with␣the␣Waste␣
Diversion␣Act␣and␣meeting␣Blue␣Box␣program␣tonnage␣diversion␣goals.␣Furthermore,␣
there␣is␣benefit␣in␣having␣a␣balance␣of␣proactive␣and␣reactively-determined␣projects,␣
to␣foster␣innovation␣and␣continuous␣improvement.␣
Given␣the␣limited␣nature␣of␣E&E␣funding,␣care␣should␣be␣taken␣to␣use␣the␣available␣
funds␣strategically.␣␣Provided␣below␣are␣specific␣recommendations␣of␣this␣nature:␣
Focus␣funds␣on␣overcoming␣primary␣barriers␣or␣constraints␣impeding␣materials␣
recovery␣and␣recycling␣or␣contributing␣to␣higher␣program␣costs,␣where␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣209
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
intervention␣in␣the␣marketplace␣is␣deemed␣both␣appropriate␣and␣able␣to␣produce␣
measurable␣results.␣␣This␣will,␣of␣course,␣require␣determination␣of␣the␣key␣
barriers␣and␣constraints␣and␣what␣is␣an␣appropriate␣market␣intervention␣strategy.␣
Avoid␣funding␣activities␣that␣would␣occur␣without␣use␣of␣any␣E&E␣dollars.␣
Seek␣opportunities␣that␣are␣cross-commodity␣in␣nature,␣thereby␣boosting␣recovery␣
and␣lowering␣system␣costs␣for␣multiple␣commodities,␣as␣opposed␣to␣only␣
specific␣commodities.␣
Seek␣opportunities␣that␣have␣Province-wide␣or␣regional␣benefits,␣as␣opposed␣to␣
those␣that␣only␣benefit␣individual␣jurisdictions.␣
Choose␣the␣least-cost␣method␣of␣overcoming␣the␣targeted␣barrier␣or␣constraint.␣
Often␣this␣entails␣provision␣of␣technical␣or␣facilitation␣assistance,␣as␣direct␣
allocation␣of␣money␣is␣typically␣the␣most␣expensive␣option.␣
Use␣E&E␣funds␣to␣serve␣as␣a␣catalyst␣to␣spur␣further␣investment␣by␣other␣parties.␣
This␣is␣particularly␣important␣when␣cash␣is␣to␣be␣allocated␣directly.␣
Use␣E&E␣funds␣as␣a␣continuous␣improvement␣tool␣assisting␣in␣the␣evaluation␣of␣
technologies␣and␣processes␣that␣have␣the␣potential␣for␣overall␣system␣
improvements.␣␣This␣may␣include␣partial␣capital␣funding␣for␣specific␣technologies␣
with␣more␣of␣the␣funds␣allocated␣towards␣the␣research/demonstration␣portion.␣␣
With␣respect␣to␣this␣use␣of␣funding,␣it␣␣will␣be␣important␣to␣discern␣between␣
R&D␣related␣to␣new␣technology␣(not␣recommended)␣versus␣
testing/demonstrating␣new␣applications␣of␣existing␣proven␣technology␣(a␣more␣
appropriate␣use␣of␣E&E␣funds).␣␣For␣example,␣E&E␣funding␣could␣be␣used␣to␣
research␣and/or␣test␣the␣applicability␣of␣using␣optical␣sorting␣equipment␣to␣handle␣
different␣plastics␣mixes.␣␣This␣technology␣is␣proven␣with␣respect␣to␣handling␣
bottles,␣but␣information␣is␣currently␣lacking␣regarding␣its␣effectiveness␣in␣
handling␣a␣wider␣variety␣of␣plastic␣packaging.␣␣
The␣consulting␣team␣sees␣merit␣in␣the␣use␣of␣E&E␣funds␣for␣MRF␣rationalization␣
purposes.␣␣Individual␣local␣governments␣are␣generally␣not␣inclined␣to␣spend␣local␣
dollars␣to␣build␣more␣costly␣infrastructure␣so␣that␣regional␣benefits␣can␣be␣
achieved.␣␣In␣addition,␣programs␣are␣reluctant␣to␣become␣dependent␣on␣the␣use␣
of␣facilities␣that␣are␣owned␣and␣operated␣by␣other␣jurisdictions.␣␣Given␣this,␣
intervention␣in␣the␣marketplace␣to␣spur␣regional␣processing␣capacity␣
development␣and/or␣enhancement␣(without␣duplicating␣existing␣infrastructure␣
and␣␣in␣ways␣that␣would␣generate␣measurable␣results)␣␣could␣be␣beneficial␣and␣
appropriate,␣assuming␣sufficient␣funding␣were␣available.␣␣The␣consulting␣team␣
was␣unable␣to␣determine␣what␣amount␣of␣funding␣that␣would␣be␣appropriate␣and␣
effective␣in␣implementing␣the␣above,␣under␣the␣scope␣of␣this␣project␣
Again,␣a␣strategic␣approach␣to␣using␣E&E␣funds␣entails␣the␣use␣of␣appropriate,␣least-
cost␣mechanisms␣to␣overcome␣the␣key␣barriers␣and␣constraints␣limiting␣Blue␣Box␣
program␣effectiveness␣and␣efficiency.␣␣Many␣mechanisms,␣such␣as␣procurement␣
assistance␣and␣training,␣do␣not␣involve␣direct␣provision␣of␣funding.␣␣␣
210 Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Appendix␣A:␣Visited␣Municipal␣
Programs␣
PROGRAM TITLE
MUNICIPAL
GROUP
Applicable Decision Tree Profile
HAMILTON,␣CITY␣OF␣
Large␣Urban␣
Suburban␣Medium␣South␣
LONDON,␣CITY␣OF␣
Large␣Urban␣
City␣Medium␣South␣
PEEL,␣REGIONAL␣MUNICIPALITY␣OF␣
Large␣Urban␣
Suburban␣Large␣South␣
TORONTO,␣CITY␣OF␣
Large␣Urban␣
City␣Large␣South␣
YORK,␣REGIONAL␣MUNICIPALITY␣OF␣
Large␣Urban␣
Suburban␣Large␣South␣
DURHAM,␣REGIONAL␣MUNICIPALITY␣OF␣
Urban␣Regional␣
Suburban␣Large␣South␣
ESSEX-WINDSOR␣SOLID␣WASTE␣AUTHORITY␣
Urban␣Regional␣
Suburban␣Medium␣South␣
HALTON,␣REGIONAL␣MUNICIPALITY␣OF␣
Urban␣Regional␣
Suburban␣Medium␣South␣
NIAGARA,␣REGIONAL␣MUNICIPALITY␣OF␣
Urban␣Regional␣
Suburban␣Medium␣South␣
OTTAWA,␣CITY␣OF␣
Urban␣Regional␣
Suburban␣Large␣South␣
WATERLOO,␣REGIONAL␣MUNICIPALITY␣OF␣
Urban␣Regional␣
Suburban␣Medium␣South␣
PETERBOROUGH,␣CITY␣OF␣
Medium␣Urban␣
City␣Small␣South␣
THUNDER␣BAY,␣CITY␣OF␣
Medium␣Urban␣
City␣Small␣North␣
CORNWALL,␣CITY␣OF␣
Small␣Urban␣
City␣Small␣South␣
ORILLIA,␣CITY␣OF␣
Small␣Urban␣
City␣Small␣South␣
BLUEWATER␣RECYCLING␣ASSOCIATION␣
Rural␣Regional␣
Rural␣Medium␣South␣
CHATHAM-KENT,␣MUNICIPALITY␣OF␣
Rural␣Regional␣
Suburban␣Small␣South␣
KINGSTON,␣CITY␣OF␣
Rural␣Regional␣
Suburban␣Medium␣South␣
MUSKOKA,␣␣DISTRICT␣MUNICIPALITY␣OF␣
Rural␣Regional␣
Suburban␣Small␣South␣
NORTHUMBERLAND,␣COUNTY␣OF␣
Rural␣Regional␣
Rural␣Small␣South␣
PETERBOROUGH,␣COUNTY␣OF␣
Rural␣Regional␣
Suburban␣Small␣South␣
QUINTE␣WASTE␣SOLUTIONS␣
Rural␣Regional␣
Suburban␣Medium␣South␣
SIMCOE,␣COUNTY␣OF␣
Rural␣Regional␣
Suburban␣Medium␣South␣
WELLINGTON,␣COUNTY␣OF␣
Rural␣Regional␣
Suburban␣Small␣South␣
OTTAWA␣VALLEY␣WASTE␣RECOVERY␣CENTRE␣
Rural␣Collection␣-␣
South␣
Rural␣Small␣South␣
RUSSELL,␣TOWNSHIP␣OF␣
Rural␣Collection␣-␣
South␣
Suburban␣Small␣South␣
SOUTHGATE,␣TOWNSHIP␣OF␣
Rural␣Collection␣-␣
South␣
Rural␣Small␣South␣
KIRKLAND␣LAKE,␣TOWN␣OF␣
Rural␣Collection␣-␣
North␣
Suburban␣Small␣North␣
TIMMINS,␣CITY␣OF␣
Rural␣Collection␣-␣
North␣
City␣Small␣North␣
AMARANTH,␣TOWNSHIP␣OF␣
Rural␣Depot␣-␣South␣
Rural␣Depot␣
CARLING,␣TOWNSHIP␣OF␣
Rural␣Depot␣-␣North␣
Rural␣Depot␣
COCHRANE␣TEMISKAMING␣WASTE␣
MANAGEMENT␣BOARD␣
Rural␣Depot␣-␣North␣
Rural␣Depot␣
Blue␣Box␣Program␣Enhancement␣and␣Best␣Practices␣Assessment␣Project ␣211
Final Report
KPMG␣and␣the␣KPMG␣logo␣are␣registered␣trademarks␣of␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣
©␣2007␣KPMG␣LLP,␣a␣Canadian␣limited␣liability␣partnership␣and␣a␣member␣firm␣of␣the␣KPMG␣network␣of␣independent␣
member␣firms␣affiliated␣with␣KPMG␣International,␣a␣Swiss␣cooperative.␣All␣rights␣reserved.␣Printed␣in␣Canada.␣␣
Appendix␣B:␣Table␣of␣Contents␣
of␣a␣Sample␣Program␣Report␣
␣
Executive Summary
Current State of Your Blue Box Program␣
␣
Program␣Description␣
␣
Data␣Call␣Information␣and␣Quantitative␣Analysis␣
␣
Observations␣and␣Qualitative␣Analysis␣
␣
Process␣Map␣-␣Collection␣
␣
Process␣Map␣-␣Processing␣
␣
Future State
Applicable␣Best␣Practices␣
␣
Opportunities␣for␣Improvement␣
␣
Implementation Roadmap
Implementation␣Timelines␣
␣
Implementation␣Requirements␣
␣
Appendix
Current␣Collection␣Area␣
␣
MRF␣Centralization␣
␣
Total␣Content:␣15-25␣pages␣
General Resource Assessment
for Community-Owned Biogas in the Kawartha Region
May 2011
R
E
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
E
B
I
O
G
A
S
Empowering Ontario to Develop Community-owned Biogas Systems
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c on n ec t @ r e g e ne r a t e bi o g as .co m
This study has been developed to identify the farms most suitable for the development of
community-owned biogas plants in Peterborough County and the City of Kawartha Lakes,
together comprising the Kawartha region. A study of Peterborough County was initially
commissioned by the Peterborough Green Energy Co-op in 2010; this report is an expan-
sion of the original study.
Goal of the Study
The goal of this study is to uncover the source and quantity of organic waste production
around the region, which would allow for the development of biogas plants at individual
farms, or clusters of farms working together.
Each of these farms would combine their manure and silage with off-farm waste streams
like food waste, fats, oils and greases, and yard waste to make up to 499 kilowatt (kW) of
generating capacity - allowing them to meet their energy needs independently through
on-farm generation of heat and power, or the sale of electricity to the provincial grid
through Ontario's Feed-in Tariff (FIT) program.
Overview
Ideal projects are located on farms and fall under the Nutrient Management Act,
avoiding the lengthier and more costly processes of a Renewable Energy Approval (REA)
for power generation, or a Certificate of Approval for waste management sites.
Preliminary research identified 12 locations with potential to host a community-owned
biogas plant. These are the 'low-hanging fruit': each has enough manure production on-
site or within a 5 km radius to host a 100 kW, 249 kW or 499 kW plant, and most are lo-
cated in close enough proximity to an appropriate electrical distribution line to make the
connection costs feasible.
It should be noted that while this is a fairly comprehensive survey of farms in the area, it is
not exhaustive. There are more dairy and chicken operations in the region than are shown
in the maps provided, and from these maps only select sites are discussed. Farm sizes are
approximate estimates, based on discussions with members of the local community. More
precise information for various sites can be collected as individual projects are pursued.
This General Resource Assessment (GRA) is the first step toward the development of mul-
tiple farm and community-owned biogas plants, generating power for on-farm use and/or
sale to the grid.
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c o n n e c t @ r e g en er a t e b i o g a s.c o m
2
Description of the Region
Peterborough County is very large geographically; however, not all its land is suitable
for agriculture, and most farms are located in Cavan-Monaghan, Douro-Dummer, Otonabee-
South Monaghan, and Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield. The total population of the County is
currently 133,000, and is expected to grow to 149,000 by 2031, according to the province's
'Places to Grow' projections.
Two different local distribution companies serve the region- Peterborough Utilities Corpo-
ration serves the city of Peterborough, Asphodel-Norwood and Lakefield, while Hydro One
serves all other areas.
Residential organics collection was piloted in Bridgenorth in 2006, and there is interest in
expanding the program, pending the outcome of a current waste management master
planning process. The County also has collection containers for organics at 3 waste sites
(Buckhorn, 6th Line Havelock, and Hall's Glen) - with approximately 100 tonnes per year
collected from the Bridgenorth curbside program and the 3 transfer sites. The County esti-
mates that approximately 30% of the total waste produced by private residences is organ-
ics, with a householder participation rate estimated at 30%. Based on these rates, ap-
proximately 2,000 tonnes annually could be available for biogas plants, if organics were
collected across the County.
The City of Kawartha Lakes is a single-tier municipality replacing the former Victoria
County and its lower-tier municipalities, amalgamated in 2000. The current population is
approximately 75,000 with growth to 96,000 projected by 2031. The municipality is pri-
marily rural, with the agriculture and the agri-food sectors being major contributors to the
City's economy. Beef and dairy farming predominate, as well as mixed livestock farming.
Hay is the largest single crop grown.
Kawartha Lakes council has stated a commitment to the principle of "environment first"
and support for renewable energy and green technologies through such measures as the
Green Hub Community Improvement Plan.
The collection of residential organics has been piloted in the municipality of Fenelon Falls,
commencing in 2006 with 200 households, and expanding through 2011. The program has
had good citizen response and diversion rates, but will end this year with the closure of the
current composting site. The municipality estimates organics at 33.5% of the waste stream;
assuming a householder participation rate similar to that of Peterborough County, ap-
proximately 1,100 tonnes annually could be available from City-wide organics collection.
Across the region, dairy farming is the most economically important agricultural
sector, as measured by cash receipts for main commodities in 2009 - dairy was the highest
at $38 million, followed by cattle and calves at $21 million. Poultry was fourth (after soy-
beans) with cash receipts of $14 million out of a total of $162 million for all commodities.
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c o n n e c t @ r e g en er a t e b i o g a s.c o m
3
Biogas Resources
Focusing on livestock operations, the most applicable to biogas production are dairy, poul-
try, and hog farms - this is due to the ease of manure collection. As of the 2006 census of
agriculture, there were a total of 218 of these farms in Peterborough County and the
City of Kawartha Lakes combined; 151 dairy, 54 poultry and 17 hog farms.
Peterborough and Kawartha Lakes do not host any of Ontario's largest dairy producers;
most of the dairy producers are small to medium operations (25-70 milking cows) and the
average size across the region is 55. The number of very large dairy producers (those
with greater than 300 nutrient units1 of manure to manage, roughly equivalent to 200
head) is less than a dozen.
For smaller farms, creating clusters of manure and crop silage producers is an attractive
option for biogas production. There are currently about 500 producers of suitable crops
around the region, some of which are also dairy operations.
The Biogas Process
Biogas plants are systems that use a bacteriological process called anaerobic digestion to
convert organic waste into biogas. Biogas is a clean energy source that may be converted to
electricity and heat or piped into the natural gas grid.
Waste (in this case manure, silage and food waste) is fed into an oxygen-free vessel where
it is stirred and heated for 10-40 days, producing a mixture of methane (60%) and carbon
dioxide (40%) - biogas. The gas is either used onsite or piped elsewhere. The digestate is
either stored in a lagoon for land application, or dewatered and turned into other products
like fertilizer and animal bedding. The process is continuous and only requires that the
waste keep coming and that the ingredients be generally consistent.
By converting waste into energy, biogas plants reduce odours and pathogens, produce
a high-quality fertilizer (which has been shown to produce better yields than commercial
fertilizer2) and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while also producing power 24
hours a day, 7 days a week.
Biogas production also has the greatest impact on the food production cycle - it creates
additional revenue streams for farmers, and creates an organic fertilizer free of weed
seeds, reducing the need for herbicides. Its added advantages of safely returning nutri-
ents to the soil and managing organic waste in an environmentally beneficial manner sets
biogas apart from other renewable energy sources.
Profitable on-farm anaerobic digestion can offer practical and sustainable solutions for nu-
1 OMAFRA measurement. 2 Holstein heifers = 1 nutrient unit (NU). 0.7 milking cows = 1 NU.
6 finishing hogs = 1 NU. 150 chicken layers = 1 NU.
2 'Methane Recovery from Animal Manures: The Current Opportunities Casebook'. Lusk,
Philip. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Lab (DOE/NREL), 1998.
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c o n n e c t @ r e g en er a t e b i o g a s.c o m
4
trient management. While it is not a lone solution for all manure management issues, it
can be a valuable tool for meeting nutrient management requirements while also generat-
ing revenue.
Anaerobic digestion is a mature and proven technology that is providing solutions to en-
ergy supply and environmental concerns. Worldwide, Germany is the market leader with
over 6,000 on-farm anaerobic digesters generating more than 2,300 MW of clean power.
Potential Feedstock Sources
Biogas feedstocks can include any organic waste stream, but each has its own pros and
cons. For example, the simplest one to use is livestock manure because it is produced
at a regular, continuous pace and is consistent in make-up. However, using only
manure for a grid--connected power generation project is for the most part not
economically feasible at the current time, due to its low energy value. Other agricultural
waste like silage and off-farm sources like food scraps and 'FOG' (fats, oils and greases),
which have a much higher energy value per tonne, are generally needed if a FIT contract is
to be pursued.
Source: OMAFRA
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c o n n e c t @ r e g en er a t e b i o g a s.c o m
5
- Dairy manure - balanced carbon/nitrogen ratio, low energy value, simple manure
collection process
- Chicken manure - high levels of nitrogen require additional carbon-rich feedstock
(crop silage, wood waste, paper, etc.), highest energy value among manures, simple
manure collection process
- Horse manure - balanced carbon/nitrogen ratio, very low energy value
- Food scraps (known as Source Separated Organics or SSO) - high energy value, re-
quires sorting, less consistency
- Fats, oils and greases (FOG) - very high energy value, requires pasteurization before
adding to the digester, readily available now, but potential long term supply issues
- Crop silage - above average energy value, carbon-rich, requires shredding, seasonal
availability
- Yard waste - similar to Crop Silage, with lower energy value
- Wastewater biosolids/septage - steady supply, low energy value, requires addi-
tional treatment
- Bakery waste - high energy value, limited availability
- Abattoir waste - high energy value, requires additional treatment, limited number
of abattoirs province-wide due to strict regulations
In order to comply with the Nutrient Management Act, on-farm biogas systems must
be taking in a maximum of 25% off-farm waste, and half of the 75% agricultural
waste must be manure. This means the availability and use of crop silage from corn and
grasses is an essential part of making many projects viable.
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c o n n e c t @ r e g en er a t e b i o g a s.c o m
6
Community-owned Biogas
As is often the case in these situations, not many individuals are so enthusiastic to bear all
the risk themselves, but are still enthusiastic about the technology and the environmental
benefits. Community-owned biogas is about sharing the risk and the returns with friends
and neighbours through a co-operative or limited partnership (LP) ownership structure.
All of the identified projects could be developed by the individual farmers themselves or by
the numerous commercial developers who are now operating in the Ontario market. How-
ever, if the farmer or the community do it on their own, they are eligible to receive a bonus
0.4¢ per kilowatt hour (kWh) called a 'community adder'. Commercial projects are not eli-
gible to receive this adder.
Some of the benefits of community power include:
- Shared risks and returns
- An extra 0.4¢/kWh community adder
- Eligibility for development grants from the Community Energy Partnership Program
(up to $75,000) and the Green Municipal Fund* (up to $350,000)
- Eligibility for low interest loans from the Green Municipal Fund* and Infrastruc-
ture Ontario*
- Greater community control over scale and nature of operations
- Lower land lease costs (3% vs. 6% of revenue)
- Improved understanding in the community leads to faster permitting process
* Funds only eligible to municipalities, municipally owned corporations and partnerships with municipalities.
This model has been proven with other technologies around Ontario, most notably wind
and solar, and farmers have expressed interest in sharing waste and risk, providing
stronger support for the potential of community-owned biogas.
The targeted financial structure will be 60% debt, 40% equity. In each case, grants will
fund the early development costs and the equity will be provided by the farmer, his
neighbours and/or a community financing group. Farm Credit Canada, the Green Municipal
Fund, Infrastructure Ontario, or local credit unions and commercial banks can provide the
debt.
Although it requires more effort, there are distinct benefits to partnering with the munici-
pality - primarily low interest rates, a strong credit rating and eligibility for some of the
grant funding noted above. The municipality gets an ownership stake and a long-term cash
flow, while the other equity holders obtain higher returns. This arrangement is also posi-
tive for the local economy as more funds stay within the region than if borrowing from a
commercial bank. Borrowing from a local credit union is also positive for the local econ-
omy.
There is another option for small and medium-sized operators, or those located at lar-
ger distances from the electrical grid, to develop a biogas project at a smaller scale. This
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c o n n e c t @ r e g en er a t e b i o g a s.c o m
7
micro-digester supplies gas to meet on-farm energy needs, but does not generate electricity
for sale to the grid. The benefits in this case are greater energy independence, and avoided
heating and power costs. The capital costs are recouped through energy savings.
Financial Projections
At current prices offered and the regulatory structure of the market, the most feasible pro-
jects are either 249 kW or 499 kW.
Generator Size (kW)
FIT Rate
(¢/kWh)
Grid
Capacity Exempt
100
19.9
1-phase or 3-phase
Yes
249
18.5
3-phase
Yes
499
16
3-phase
Yes*
*only capacity exempt on line voltages larger than 15kV
100 kW
249 kW
499 kW
On-farm micro-
digester
Power Sales
$165,000
$390,000
$650,000
n/a
Tipping fees
$26,000
$45,000
$102,000
n/a
Energy savings
$28,000
Operating Expenses
$65,000
$130,000
$230,000
$3,000
Lease Paid to Farmer
$5,000
$12,000
$20,000
n/a
Net Income
$120,000
$290,000
$500,000
$25,000
Capital Cost
$850,000
$1,650,000
$2,500,000
$200,000
Simple Payback
7 years
5.6 years
5 years
8 years
The above estimates are based on a generator availability of 90%. Lease payments to the
farmer for a community-owned plant are estimated at 3% of annual revenue.
Projections for electrical generation projects do not include revenues from the sale of car-
bon credits and fertilizer. For these projects, the Ontario Power Authority keeps the carbon
credits as part of the FIT contract, and it's assumed that all digestate would be returned
proportionately to the manure producers. The projections also do not include heat savings,
which could potentially be realized and would increase returns on investment.
Projections for the on-farm micro-digester include monthly savings, as these are the main
driver of payback time. In this scenario, the farmer would be able to keep any carbon cred-
its, which may potentially increase in value over time.
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c o n n e c t @ r e g en er a t e b i o g a s.c o m
8
Plant Size Projections
The following are examples of plant sizes that could be built with various feedstocks, using
conversion factors from OMAFRA.
To produce enough biogas to power a 100 kW engine, one would need:
- 1,100 tonnes of dairy manure (approximately 45 cows), 1,100 tonnes of corn or
grass silage, 750 tonnes of food waste/FOG
- 850 tonnes of chicken manure (app. 28,500 broilers), 850 tonnes of crop silage, 550
tonnes of food waste/FOG
... A 249 kW engine:
- 2,500 tonnes of dairy manure (app. 100 cows), 2,500 tonnes of corn or grass silage
and 1,650 tonnes of food waste/FOG
- 2,200 tonnes of chicken manure (app. 74,000 broilers), 2,200 tonnes of corn or
grass silage and 1,350 tonnes of food waste/FOG
... A 499 kW engine:
- 5,000 tonnes of dairy manure (app. 200 cows), 5,000 tonnes of corn or grass silage
and 3,300 tonnes of food waste/FOG
- 2,500 tonnes of dairy manure (app. 100 cows), 2,500 tonnes of chicken manure
(app. 85,000 broilers), 5,000 tonnes of corn or grass silage and 2,750 tonnes of food
waste/FOG
- 4,500 tonnes of chicken manure (app. 150,000 broilers), 4,500 tonnes of corn or
grass silage, 3,000 tonnes of food waste/FOG
...An on-farm micro-digester to reduce reliance on external energy supply:
- 2,500 tonnes of dairy manure (app. 100 cows), no additional inputs required.
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c o n n e c t @ r e g en er a t e b i o g a s.c o m
9
Potential Projects
This section outlines farms or clusters of farms that may potentially be good candidates for a
biogas plant. The first image shows an overview of the rural areas of Peterborough County and
the Kawartha Lakes. Images following show, at a larger scale, the areas within which potential
sites are located. Only a few of the potential sites have been highlighted and described here.
The place markers are colour coded in the following manner:
Purple = dairy farm, greater than 100 head
Pink = dairy farm, 60-100 head
Light Blue = dairy farm, 40-60 head
Yellow = dairy farm, less than 40 head
Red, no dot = poultry farm
Green, no dot = hog farm
Green, with dot = other
White = dairy farm, size unknown
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c o n n e c t @ r e g en er a t e b i o g a s.c o m
1 0
- Three Roads Farm, Mathers Corners. A large poultry operation with a couple of other
chicken farms within 5 km along Duncans Line. This site is located along an 8.3 kV 3-
phase distribution line, limiting potential generating capacity to 249 kW. A 44 kV line is
located 2.4 kilometers away, which would increase the potential generating capacity to
499 kW. In addition, the three chicken barns would make use of waste heat from the gen-
erator in the winter, saving the farm money and fossil fuel use.
o From this farm's manure alone, combined with corn or grass silage and FOG,
499 kW could be produced. In this case, connecting to the higher voltage
lines would cost $432,000, so it may not be economically feasible to pay to
connect. Further investigation is needed, but a minimum of 249 kW can be
produced.
- Sunwold Farms, Indian River. A hog farm with greater than 300 nutrient units (at
6 finishing hogs per NU, this translates to approximately 1800 hogs). This site is lo-
cated along a single-phase distribution line, limiting its potential capacity to 100 kW.
A 44 kV 3-phase distribution line, suitable for 499 kW of generating capacity, is 750
m away.
o From this farm's manure alone, combined with corn or grass silage and FOG,
at least 315 kW can be produced. Additional waste will be needed from
farms within a 5 km radius, but in this case it may be worthwhile to pursue
the larger 499 kW project and pay approximately $135,000 to connect.
o
The farm could also forego connecting to the electrical grid, and instead in-
stall an on-farm micro-digester to offset the farm's gas needs (for chilling
units or local heating needs), thereby reducing monthly energy costs.
Three Roads
Sunwold
Kawartha Downs
Erdine
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c o n n e c t @ r e g en er a t e b i o g a s.c o m
1 1
- Kawartha Downs Raceway, Fraserville. The racetrack has its own permanent sta-
bles (50-60 horses) and hosts more horses on race nights (up to 150); there are
numerous small stables in close proximity, and food service onsite. Kawartha Downs
has access to 44 kV 3-phase distribution lines, suitable for 499 kW of generating ca-
pacity. Horse manure, however, is not very energy rich, so collecting manure from
farms within a 5 km radius is a must at this site. There is also the potential to pursue
a greater mix of off-farm waste streams at this site and pursue permitting and ap-
proval through the Ministry of Environment instead of the Nutrient Management
Act.
- Erdine Farm, Hastings. This large dairy farm of approximately 150 head is located
on a 3-phase 44 kV line, the largest capacity line. There is another large (over 150
head) dairy farm within a distance of less than a kilometre.
o Manure from this farm plus silage and FOG could support a plant of up to
375 kW. Clustering with the neighbouring farm could increase potential
generation capacity to over 500 kW, and the farm is well located along a 3-
phase line with sufficient capacity for this size.
RH Millen
McFadden
Holsteins
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c o n n e c t @ r e g en er a t e b i o g a s.c o m
1 2
- RH Millen, Ennismore. A dairy farm with greater than 300 nutrient units (ap-
proximately 200 cows, calves and heifers). This site is located along a single-phase
distribution line, limiting its potential capacity to 100 kW. An 8.3 kV 3-phase line is
located 100 m away from the farm, and a 44 kV 3-phase line is 1,500 m away, which
would increase the potential generating capacity to 249 or 499 kW, respectively.
o From this farm's manure alone, combined with corn or grass silage and FOG,
up to 500 kW can be produced. At 1.5 km away, the cost to connect a 499
kW plant would be approximately $270,000, so it may still be worthwhile to
pursue the project and pay to connect.
o Alternatively, this farm could pursue an on-farm micro-digester for heating
and chilling demand, without grid connection.
- McFadden Holsteins, Lakefield. A large dairy operation with approximately 110
cows. This site is located along an 8.32 kV 3-phase distribution line, limiting its po-
tential generating capacity to 249 kW.
o From this farm's manure alone, combined with corn or grass silage and FOG,
at least 249 kW can be produced. Additional waste would be needed from
farms within a 5 km radius to reach 499 kW.
o Alternatively, this farm could pursue an on-farm micro-digester for heating
and chilling demand, without grid connection.
- Thabor Farms and Clarkridge Farms, Woodville. These two dairy farms are lo-
cated in close proximity to each other along County Road 46 and both house over
100 milking head of cattle. There are a number of other farms within a 5 km radius,
Thabor,
Clarkridge
Vosbrae
Glandine
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c o n n e c t @ r e g en er a t e b i o g a s.c o m
1 3
which could also supply manure and/or silage feedstock to a digester at either of the
farms. Neighbouring dairy farms include Timberly Lane (45-50 head), McKev (30
head), Matias (65 head) and Clarkvalley (45-50 head). A 3-phase 8.32 kV distribu-
tion line runs along this road, suitable for generating capacity of 249 kW. A 3-phase
44 kV distribution line runs along Glenarm Rd., a distance of just under 2 km from
the two farms.
o
Manure from either farm alone could supply a plant of up to 249 kW, if com-
bined with silage and organic waste. Digestion of manure from both farms to-
gether would allow for a plant of 499 kW with inclusion of silage and FOG, or if
manure from the neighbouring farms mentioned above were included. The ad-
ditional cost to connect to the 44 kV line necessary for a 499 kW plant would be
approximately $360,000.
o
Alternatively, either farm could pursue an on-farm micro-digester for heating
and chilling demand, without grid connection.
- Vosbrae Farms, Oakwood. This medium-sized dairy farm of 65-75 head is located
on a single-phase 8.32 kV distribution line, at a distance of 1.7 km from a 44 kV 3-
phase line. There are at least 3 dairy farms within a 5-km radius, including Schahill
farm (45-50 head), Jlawnt, and Gibbsview. The Manintveld poultry farm, with 2
large chicken barns may also be close enough to supply chicken manure.
o The farm's own manure plus silage and FOG could support a plant of 145 kW,
while clustering with neighbouring farms could support up to 400 kW of
generation capacity. However the farm's location on a single-phase line caps
potential generation at 100 kW.
o Alternatively, this farm could pursue an on-farm micro-digester for heating
and chilling demand, without grid connection.
- Glandine Farms, Little Britain. This large dairy farm, and others along Little Brit-
ain Road, have a good manure resource in livestock numbers, although electrical
connections are not optimal. Most of the distribution lines in the immediate vicinity
are single-phase lines, limiting potential generation capacity to 100 kW. Glandine
Farms is located on an 8.32 kV single-phase line. The nearest 3-phase line is 2.5 km
away.
o This farm's resources could potentially support a 260 kW plant, however its
distance from 3-phase distribution lines makes a 100 kW installation the
only feasible option for grid connection.
o Alternatively, this farm could pursue an on-farm micro-digester for heating
and chilling demand, without grid connection.
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c o n n e c t @ r e g en er a t e b i o g a s.c o m
1 4
- Thursthill Farms, Lindsay. This diary farm of over 100 milking head of cattle is lo-
cated along a 3-phase 12.5 kV distribution line. The nearest 44 kV line is along
Dunsford Road, 3.9 km to the north. There are at least three other dairy farms
within a 5 km radius that could also supply manure to this project.
o Manure from this farm alone plus silage and FOG could support a 249 kW
plant. Clustering with neighbouring farms could increase potential genera-
tion capacity, but the cost of connecting to a 44 kV 3-phase distribution line 4
km away would be prohibitive (in excess of $700,000).
o Alternatively, this farm could pursue an on-farm micro-digester for heating
and chilling demand, without grid connection.
- Smith Dairy Farm, Omemee. This large dairy farm of 100-120 head is located
along a 3-phase 44 kV line, with a medium-sized dairy operation within 3 km (Ken-
Mar Farms).
o Manure from this farm alone plus silage and FOG could support a 249 kW
plant. Clustering with neighbouring farms could increase potential genera-
tion capacity to up to 450 kW, and the farm is well located along a 3-phase
line with sufficient capacity for this size.
o Alternatively, this farm could pursue an on-farm micro-digester for heating
and chilling demand, without grid connection.
Thursthill
Ken-Mar
Smith
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c o n n e c t @ r e g en er a t e b i o g a s.c o m
1 5
Next Steps
The next step is to contact the farms listed above and gauge their interest in biogas and,
more specifically, community-owned biogas. An excellent way to do this would be to host
a community information session and personally invite each of the above farms, as
well as advertising the event throughout the County. This would give us the opportunity to
present the idea to potential hosts and other farmers operating in close proximity (who
could contribute additional manure and silage), as well as to meet potential investors
who may be interested in investing in the Kawartha Region's energy and food future
- with biogas.
Once specific projects are identified, applications will be made to the Community Energy
Partnership Program to help fund development costs, including the business plan, technical
feasibility studies, feedstock testing, legal costs and contracting, project management and
financing. Note: this is specific to projects intending to apply to the FIT program.
About ReGenerate
ReGenerate Biogas Inc. was founded by Daniel Bida, in order to pursue a solution to both
the energy and environmental crises society is facing. ReGenerate provides communities
around Ontario with the tools and assistance they need to own and operate their own bio-
gas systems. This enables the production of renewable energy, reduced greenhouse gas
emissions, and revenue for farmers.
ReGenerate works with farmers and co-operatives to: assess project feasibility; obtain
funding via grants and low-interest loans; procure technology; secure off-farm feedstock
supplies; apply for permits and FIT contract; and manage the project's development.
This report was co-authored by Daniel Bida, CFA and Marty Climenhaga, PhD.
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c o n n e c t @ r e g en er a t e b i o g a s.c o m
1 6
Resources
-
Community Energy Partnership Program (CEPP).
www.communityenergyprogram.ca was launched in June 2010 to provide early
stage funding to community power projects of up to $200,000 per project. Eligible
projects:
o Have an installed capacity greater than 10 kW and less than or equal to 10
MW;
o Use wind, solar photovoltaic, biomass, biogas, landfill gas or waterpower;
o Are located in Ontario;
o Are economically viable and the subject of a future Feed In Tariff contract;
o Are not funded by any other OPA funding program; and
o Are developed by a "Community"
Up to $75,000 is available to community-owned biogas projects less than 500 kW.
- Feed-in Tariff (FIT). http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/ was launched in October
2009 offering favourable rates for renewable energy projects operating in the Prov-
ince of Ontario, as per the Green Energy Act passed in May of 2009. The program is
administered by the Ontario Power Authority and has thus far awarded 32 contracts
to biogas projects (14 on-farm) for a total of 23 MW (3 MW on-farm) of generating
capacity. All of these projects must now receive permits and approvals from the
newly established Renewable Energy Facilitation Office or the Ontario Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
- Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA).
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/ge_bib/biogas.htm is an excellent
resource for any information needed about biogas in Ontario. It is written at a very
accessible level, and continues to be updated with the latest information and stud-
ies. OMAFRA awarded 45 $35,000 feasibility grants and 23 $400,000 construction
grants to farmers investing in biogas over the last couple of years and has been inte-
gral in getting the biogas industry off the ground in Ontario.
- Renewable Energy Facilitation Office (REFO).
www.mei.gov.on.ca/en/energy/renewable/index.php?page=refo_office A newly
created office meant to help renewable energy projects navigate the different de-
partments of the Ontario government that are needed to get approval for many re-
newable energy projects, including off-farm biogas.
- Green Municipal Fund (GMF). http://gmf.fcm.ca/Home/ Administered by the Fed-
eration of Canadian Municipalities, the GMF was created to fund clean energy and
efficiency projects completed by municipalities, municipally run organizations or
partnerships involving a municipality. A $350,000 grant is available for pre-project
costs and up to 80% of the capital costs are available in the form of low-interest
loans.
4 2 H e i n t z m a n S t ., T o ro n to , ON - t e l e p h o n e : 4 1 6. 7 6 7. 9 7 3 1 - c o n n e c t @ r e g en er a t e b i o g a s.c o m
1 7
- Infrastructure Ontario (IO).
www.infrastructureontario.ca/en/loan/municipal_corporations/index.asp A lend-
ing program through the Ontario government directed at municipalities for a multi-
tude of infrastructure related projects, including renewable energy.
- City of Kawartha Lakes Green Hub Community Investment Plan.
http://www.advantagekawarthalakes.ca/en/ouruniqueadvantage/greenhubcomm
unityimprovementplan.asp The plan is intended to encourage investment with a fo-
cus on green technologies and services. It is primarily focused on urban regenera-
tion, but also includes a Green Innovation Grant Program with renewable energy as
one focus area, with grants of up to $5,000 for project development work such as
feasibility studies. The plan targets specific urban areas but also includes the rural
hamlets of Little Britain and Woodville.
- Hydro One. www.hydroone.com/Generators/Pages/Feed-InTariff.aspx The owner
and operator of most of Ontario's transmission and distribution networks, any pro-
ject outside of the area where Peterborough Utilities Corp operates will need to
work with Hydro One to get connected. Many people have lamented the wait times
waiting to get connected by Hydro One, increasing the attractiveness of projects
where additional wires are not needed. Queue exemption also helps community-
owned biogas over larger projects to connect faster.
Acknowledgements
This report was put together from information made available by the following organiza-
tions:
- The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)
- Hydro One
- Greater Peterborough Area Economic Development Centre (GPA EDC)
- The City of Kawartha Lakes
- Kawartha Choice
- Trent University
- Green Tractors Omemee
In addition, the authors of this report would like to thank Peter Rodriguez, Peter Doris,
Grant Conrad, Jeremy Thurston, Stephen Hill, Beth Evans, and Renato Romanin for their
assistance and invaluable advice in its preparation. The Peterborough Green Energy Coop
provided the impetus for the initial study.
Electronic copies available upon request
About 40 million mattresses and box springs are sold in the United States each
year, while the City of Hartford alone collects approximately 18,000 mattresses
annually. With per unit disposal fees ranging from $10-$30, Hartford faced
mattress disposal costs of more than $400,000 in 2011.1
Why the high cost? Most mattresses are currently disposed of in landfills or
incinerators where their bulk makes them difficult to handle and expensive to
manage. Mattresses do not easily compress in landfills, and their springs get
trapped in equipment at Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facilities. Such difficulties have
translated into high per-unit disposal fees, which municipalities must absorb.
Motivated to reduce the high cost of mattress disposal, the City of Hartford
Department of Public Works, with support from Mayor Pedro E. Segarra and the
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), sought
help from the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) in developing a legislative
product stewardship solution that would increase mattress recycling and
decrease costs to the City. While mattresses are one of the most costly waste
streams for Connecticut municipalities, electronics and paint products waste
streams posed similar difficulties in the past. In both cases, the enactment of
statewide extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislative initiatives2, under
which product manufacturers assume disposal costs, relieved local municipalities
of significant financial burdens. Both programs have realized waste reduction and
cost savings and therefore, the City chose an EPR legislative model as a feasible
solution for its mattress disposal problem.
With the support of various nationwide sponsors, PSI launched a national
Mattress Stewardship Initiative in April 2011, including representatives from the
mattress industry, state and local government agencies, recyclers, and other key
stakeholders. Through this initiative, PSI developed a national model for EPR
legislation, under which mattress manufacturers would be responsible for the
cost of mattress disposal. States across the country could then use this model to
develop state-specific legislation for mattress disposal and collection.
The City of Hartford quickly recognized the impact current mattress collection
and disposal practices would have on Connecticut-specific future legislation; the
City, therefore, conducted a comprehensive case study to analyze the mattress
collection and disposal process as performed by the City's bulky waste collection
crew. Marilynn Cruz-Aponte, Assistant to the Director of the City's Public Works
Department, and Lauryn Wendus, PSI Student Intern, led the study and gathered
key information on the quantity and condition of mattresses throughout the
disposal process as outlined in the following pages.
HARTFORD'S HIGH COST OF
MATTRESS DISPOSAL
A comprehensive case study of Hartford, CT
The City of Hartford
Department of Public
Works is responsible for
and is committed to
maintaining the city's
physical infrastructure
and providing quality
services to the citizens of
Hartford.
Marilynn Cruz-Aponte
City of Hartford,
Assistant to the Director
of Public Works
Marilynn.Cruz-
[email protected]
Lauryn Wendus
PSI Intern
[email protected]
1.
While this study was being written, the City of Hartford made an operational decision to select an
alternative disposal approach that is estimated to reduce annual mattress disposal costs by up to 60%.
2.
Connecticut passed Public Act No. 07-189 on electronics disposal in July 2007. Connecticut Public Act
No. 11-24 on paint disposal was passed in June 2011.
2
Hartford's High Cost of Mattress Disposal
Prepared by the City of Hartford, Department of Public Works
October 28, 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this study was to assess how Hartford's mattress collection and disposal processes may affect:
1.
Hartford's current mattress disposal costs.
2.
Future legislative initiatives on mattress disposal protocol.
Specifically, this case study focused primarily on the following issues surrounding current practices:
Quantity of mattresses collected
Quality of mattresses collected
Comparison to practices in surrounding municipalities
On the quantity of mattresses collected, this study examined a sample of mattresses collected over a three week period, from
August 1, 2011-August 18, 2011. During this timeframe, 950 mattresses were collected from curbside pickup, with an additional
93 mattresses collected from residents at the city's transfer station. Using data collected during this period, it is estimated that
mattresses made up over half of Hartford's bulky waste loads, by weight. Furthermore, it is estimated that Hartford should ex-
pect to collect about 18,000 mattresses annually.
Illegal dumping significantly increases the number of mattresses the City of Hartford must collect each year. Residents from sur-
rounding towns aiming to avoid disposal fees may illegally dump mattresses in Hartford's parks, vacant lots, and on city streets.
Illegal dumping by seven-and-over family apartment complexes, for which the City is not required to provide waste pickup, is a
particular problem. A significant portion of Hartford's population is highly transient, and landlords of large apartment complexes
do not want the burden of mattress disposal costs when residents leave behind mattresses and other bulky waste during a move
or eviction.
An on-site observation of bulky waste pickup was performed to examine the quality of mattresses collected. Upon collection,
many mattresses were extremely worn, wet, and dirty. Hartford's bulky waste collection process provides weekly pickup to a
given district, so mattresses could remain on city curbs for up to six days before collection. This means that mattresses may be
subject to external conditions, such as rain, snow, and traffic debris before pickup, and may not qualify for recycling options.
Connecticut's new mattress de-manufacturing recycling facility in Bridgeport, for instance, cannot accept mattresses that have
been excessively wet or soiled because recyclable cotton and foam material are likely to be contaminated with mold or other
matter that could threaten consumer safety. The facility also has difficulty handling mattresses that have lost their original form,
as current recycling processes are mostly manual. Since Hartford's mattress collection process is not manual, and instead uses
a large operator claw that contorts and crushes mattresses upon pickup, it is unlikely that many of Hartford's mattresses will
hold up to current recycling eligibility standards.
To analyze Hartford's collection practices in comparison to practices in surrounding municipalities, this study evaluated results
of surveys distributed to surrounding towns. There was a noticeable lack of statewide uniformity in mattress collection and dis-
posal processes. Many towns mandated that residents deliver their mattresses to the town's transfer station for disposal or ar-
range for pickup by a private hauler. This requirement, although perhaps ideal from a municipal collection standpoint, is not
feasible for a city such as Hartford where many residents either own economy-sized cars or rely on public transportation.
Other Connecticut municipalities also varied in the use of resident disposal fees and storage methods. Statewide disposal fee
discrepancies contribute to illegal dumping in municipalities with no fees. Storage methods among towns varied between open
and closed containers; most towns leave their mattresses in open containers, subject to external weather conditions, which jeop-
ardizes mattresses' recyclability. Such variations, as well as the difficulties associated with mattress collection and disposal
practices as noted by many Connecticut municipalities, suggest the need for a uniform solution.
The high quantity of mattresses collected, declining quality of mattresses collected and stored, and inconsistent statewide mat-
tress collection practices and fees are collectively contributing to Hartford's high mattress disposal costs. While municipalities
are responsible for the collection of public waste streams, they should not be forced to handle unlimited quantities of a poten-
tially unrecyclable and expensive waste stream. Under an extended-producer-responsibility legislative model, manufacturers
would share responsibility and assume related disposal costs to ease the burden on Connecticut municipalities. While develop-
ing this model, however, Connecticut must cautiously consider the impact collection methods and end-of-life product quality will
have on recycling eligibility and future disposal costs.
3
Hartford's High Cost of Mattress Disposal
Prepared by the City of Hartford, Department of Public Works
October 28, 2011
DEFINITIONS
The following terms are used commonly throughout the study and their meanings as related to the study are defined
below:
Bulky Waste & Recycling Center - Located at 180 Leibert Road in Hartford, Conn., this is the City's permitted
bulky waste transfer station facility. This facility will be referred to as "Hartford's transfer station" or "transfer
station".
Bulky Waste - Examples of Hartford's bulky waste stream include box springs and mattresses, upholstered fur-
niture, lumber, wood, branches, rugs, and carpets. The City of Hartford has the following resident guidelines for
the pickup of bulky waste as cited on its website: All wood and branches must be bundled and tied with
strings; rugs and carpets must be folded and tied with strings. Residents may also use the drop-off containers
at Hartford's transfer station for scrap metal and bulky waste only; garbage will not be accepted at the landfill.
Mattresses - The term "mattress" refers to mattresses and/or box springs of all sizes, including twin, full,
queen, and king. A futon is also considered a "mattress" and is counted as one unit. A mattress/box spring set
is counted as two "mattresses" for the purposes of this study. A box spring by itself is counted as one unit.
Trip -The term "trip" refers to the delivery of one truck load of bulky waste or completion of the driver's share
of the route. Under either circumstance, the driver is required to dispose of all waste in his/her truck at the
transfer station, thereby completing one trip.
Load-One (truck) "load" of bulky waste is considered complete at the time a driver delivers the waste to the
transfer station.
Mattress Stop- A "mattress stop" refers to a pickup location within the bulky waste collection route where at
least one mattress is included in the bulky waste sample.
STUDY OVERVIEW
The study is composed of five sections:
1. Bulky Waste Driver Surveys. Daily surveys were distributed to bulky waste collection drivers from August 1,
2011 - August 18, 2011.3 The goal of the surveys was to collect data on the quantity and location of mattress
pickups along the bulky collection route.
2. Transfer Station Gatekeeper Surveys. Daily surveys were distributed to the gatekeeper at the city's transfer
station from August 1, 2011 - August 18, 20113. The goal of the surveys was to collect data on the quantity of
mattresses that residents delivered to the transfer station.
3. Bulky Waste On-site Observation. An on-site observation was performed on the bulky waste collection route
on July 27, 2011 to understand Hartford's curbside collection process.
4. Outreach to Surrounding Municipalities. Surveys were distributed to surrounding municipalities to gather in-
formation on each town's respective mattress collection and disposal process. The following towns responded
to the survey: Cromwell, East Granby, Ellington, Glastonbury, Granby, Meriden, West Hartford, Wethersfield,
and Windsor Locks.
5. Pilot Recycling Program. Information was obtained from Winston Averill, a Connecticut Regional Recycling
Coordinator, who is proposing to run a pilot mattress recycling program in 12 southeastern Connecticut towns.
3. The study timeframe does not include dates at the end of the month. While there may be a correlation between the
number of disposed mattresses and housing transiency/rent cycles, this relationship does not fall within the scope of this
study.
4
Hartford's High Cost of Mattress Disposal
Prepared by the City of Hartford, Department of Public Works
October 28, 2011
DRIVER SURVEY DATA
Over an approximate three-week period, the bulky waste collection crew collected 950 mat-
tresses. The majority was collected via curbside collection, while a small percentage was
collected from parks, vacant lots, and other sources. See Exhibit A below for a detailed
breakdown of mattress origins.
Exhibit A
Exhibit A. Of the 950 total mattresses collected, 96% were from curbside col-
lection4. Of the remaining mattresses, 2% were collected from parks, with
the remaining 2% combined from vacant lots and other sources.
4. The total number of mattresses from curbside collection may include illegal dumping of mattresses at 7+ family apartment com-
plexes. Drivers did not differentiate these pickups from curbside pickups at 1-6 family residences.
Based on the 950 total mattresses collected, the following statistics were also derived from
driver survey data:
Average of 1.94 mattresses collected per mattress stop
Average of 12.94 mattresses collected per truck load
Mattresses made up approximately 51% of bulky waste
loads by weight.
See Appendix A for a derivation of the above calculations.
Judging from the data above, Hartford's bulky waste collection crew is inundated with mat-
tresses on a regular basis. Assuming the collection statistics are a representative sample of
typical mattress collection, Hartford should expect to collect about 16,500 mattresses per
year from curbside collection.
5
Hartford's High Cost of Mattress Disposal
Prepared by the City of Hartford, Department of Public Works
October 28, 2011
GATEKEEPER SURVEY DATA
Over the study period, the transfer station's gatekeeper noted 26 residents disposing of mattresses,
with an average of 3.57 mattresses/resident. The gatekeeper recorded 93 total mattresses dis-
posed of by residents. Resident mattresses disposed of directly at the transfer station are likely to
be eligible for recycling if stored in a closed container, as they are not typically deformed by collec-
tion or exposed to weather elements for long periods of time. Mattresses delivered by residents
came from a variety of sources. See Exhibit B for a breakdown of the number of mattresses by resi-
dent type.
Exhibit B
Exhibit B. Landlords delivered 55% of the mattresses to the transfer station. South
Park Inn was responsible for 25% of mattresses, followed by Hartford Housing Au-
thority at 12% and other resident businesses and organizations at 8%. No individual
residents disposed of mattresses at the transfer station during the three-week pe-
riod.
The following information was also derived from gatekeeper survey data:
Resident Type
Average Number of Mattresses
Delivered/Visit
Landlord
2.68
South Park Inn
11.50
Hartford Housing Authority
3.67
Other Business/Organization
4.00
See Appendix B for a derivation of the above calculations.
Lack of transfer station use for mattress disposal by individual residents is owed primarily to free,
citywide curbside collection. In addition, Hartford residents are also limited by transportation. Many
residents do not own vehicles and/or rely solely on public transportation, or own small vehicles not
suitable for transporting large and bulky mattresses.
6
Hartford's High Cost of Mattress Disposal
Prepared by the City of Hartford, Department of Public Works
October 28, 2011
ON-SITE OBSERVATION
An on-site observation of the mattress collection process was performed on Wednesday July 27, 2011. A City car fol-
lowed one of two bulky waste collection trucks to observe the mattress collection process by Department of Public
Works employees. Observations were made on the following attributes:
1. COLLECTION SCHEDULE. The City of Hartford collects bulky waste every week, Monday-Friday, servicing a
different city district each day. There are approximately 25,000 stops in total, and the routes are distributed so
to serve 5,000-6,000 customers per day. Currently, there is no mandatory on-call system for bulky waste col-
lection, so drivers must cover the entire route in search of curbside bulky waste. On each of the five collection
days, two trucks, with one employee per truck, cover bulky waste pickup for a particular district. Each truck's
employee is dually responsible for both driving the truck and facilitating the physical collection of bulky waste.
Again, it is important to note that there is no information available to drivers regarding the quantity of waste or
pickup location prior to collection. Therefore, employees must coordinate with each other to inspect for bulky
waste on each street within the day's covered district. Drivers coordinate with each other while beginning
pickup on opposite ends of a particular route, and communicate their status to the opposite driver as they pro-
gress through their half of the route. Ideally, both drivers will complete pickup for an equal number of stops,
although uneven distribution of waste throughout the route often makes this goal unrealistic.
2. COLLECTION MECHANICS. Collection is not manual. All bulky waste is collected with open trucks featuring
an operator "claw" that facilitates the movement of waste from ground level into the truck. The operating me-
chanics for the claw are located on the outside of the bulky waste truck. Therefore, the employee must exit
the truck at each collection point to operate the claw.
Drivers collect waste until the truck is full. Upon each full load, the employee must drive to the transfer station
to dispose of all waste collected. After disposal, the employee returns to his or her route to finish collecting
waste. According to an interview with bulky waste drivers, the quantity of waste varies by day; Monday, Thurs-
day, and Friday are the heaviest collection days. On a heavy collection day, it may take a driver up to three
trips to the transfer station to collect all of the waste on his or her portion of the route. Light to moderate col-
lection days typically produce one to two loads of waste per truck.
Although the operator claw reduces manual labor, it does not preserve the integrity of the items being col-
lected. As can be seen in Figure 1 below, the claw deforms mattresses - folding, twisting, and crushing them
upon collection.
Figure 1
Figure 1-A. A single mattress is
handled by the operator claw
and creased at the center
where the claw arms grasp the
mattress.
Figure 1-B. Mattresses
are crushed by the weight
of the operator claw once
placed into the collection
container.
Figure 1-C. A group of mattresses
are mangled by the operator claw.
Splintered wood can be seen in
the middle of the pile as mat-
tresses are transported.
7
Hartford's High Cost of Mattress Disposal
Prepared by the City of Hartford, Department of Public Works
October 28, 2011
ON-SITE OBSERVATION (CONTINUED)
3. MATTRESS ORIGINS. The majority of mattresses were collected on the curb in front of single
and multi-family dwellings for which the city is responsible. However, there were three incidents
during which mattress pickup was performed at large, seven-and-over family apartment com-
plexes where private collection services are mandated. Instances of illegal dumping add to the
total cost of mattress disposal for the City of Hartford, and contribute to the large quantity of
mattresses found on Hartford's streets.
4. MATTRESS QUANTITY. Judging by visual observation, mattresses were the most commonly
seen item during bulky waste pickup followed by sofas and electronics. It was approximated that
roughly ¾ of each load was composed of mattresses.
Over the course of 1 hr, 45 minutes on the first trip, the truck was followed for 14 stops, nine of
which included mattresses. Each mattress stop included between two and five mattresses placed
for collection, with an average of three mattresses per mattress stop. A total of 28 mattresses
were counted over the 14 stops, with an additional eight mattresses likely to be collected before
the truck completed its first trip and disposed of a full truck load at the transfer station.
Over the course of approximately 2 hr, 30 minutes on the second trip, the truck was followed for
the remainder of its route -- a total of 27 stops. Fourteen stops contained mattresses, and there
were between one and four mattresses per mattress stop. See Exhibit C for data on the quantity
of mattresses found and collected along the bulky waste collection route.
Exhibit C
Total Stops
Followed
Stops with
Mattresses
Total
Mattresses
Collected
Percent of
Stops with
Mattresses
Average Number of
Mattresses per
Mattress Stop
Trip 1
14
9
28
64%
3.11
Trip 2
27
14
30
52%
2.14
On both trips, over half of the stops included mattresses, with an average of two to three mat-
tresses per mattress stop. A total of 58 mattresses was collected for both trips, and assuming the
second truck experienced similar results, we could expect that over 100 total mattresses were
collected throughout the day.
See Appendix C for a derivation of the above calculations.
8
Hartford's High Cost of Mattress Disposal
Prepared by the City of Hartford, Department of Public Works
October 28, 2011
ON-SITE OBSERVATION (CONTINUED)
5. MATTRESS QUALITY. Many of the mattresses were extremely worn at the time of pickup, and a
number also appeared wet. Because collection for a particular district is only performed once per
week, there is no way to tell exactly how long mattresses have been on curbs and subject to various
weather conditions (as seen in Figure 2 below).
Figure 2
The mattresses in the above image appear excessively worn and dirty. Their placement on the side of
the road leaves them subject to debris from nearby traveling vehicles in addition to external weather
conditions. In the winter, mattresses can be hidden and buried underneath snow piles for weeks be-
fore collection crews are able to pick them up. Subject to such circumstances, mattresses are unlikely
to qualify for many recycling options. Bradford Mitchell, Mattress Recycling Project Manager at Park
City Green in Bridgeport, states that mattresses cannot qualify for recycling if they are unduly wet or
soiled.
Mattresses that are excessively wet or soiled cannot be recycled because recyclable cotton and foam
material could be contaminated by mold and other matter. While light dust or dirt does not pose a
serious threat, any extensive water or soil damage that is likely to have seeped through the mattress
may render it unrecyclable.
It is also important for mattresses to maintain their original form if they are to be recycled, as Park
City Green's current mattress recycling practices use manual deconstruction. Deformed mattresses
that have been crushed by the weight of Hartford's bulky waste operator claw make manual decon-
struction processes more difficult, and consequently more expensive for the recycling facility. As mat-
tress recycling facilities progress, processes may evolve to better accommodate mattresses that have
been significantly altered in form, but there is no guarantee of such modifications by recycling facili-
ties at this time.
Therefore, due to the impact that current collection processes have on mattress quality, Hartford's
operational method of collection may need to be altered if mattress recycling is mandated in the
future.
Figure 2. Mattresses placed haphazardly on the side
of the street among parked cars.
9
Hartford's High Cost of Mattress Disposal
Prepared by the City of Hartford, Department of Public Works
October 28, 2011
ON-SITE OBSERVATION (CONTINUED)
6. SURROUNDING CONDITIONS. The on-site observation was performed under ideal conditions.
The weather was 85 degrees and sunny, and traffic was light to normal throughout the majority
of the route. The following items were noted as potential obstacles that directly affected the
mattress collection process:
1. PLACEMENT OF MATTRESS ON CURB. Throughout the observation, mattresses appeared
on curbs and streets in a number of ways. Some mattresses were piled horizontally on
curbs, while others were placed vertically leaning on trash containers or surrounding other
bulky waste. See Figure 3 for a detailed depiction of mattress placement.
Figure 3
Figure 3-A. An example of
mattresses stacked and
leaning on other curbside
bulky waste.
Figure 3-B. Mattresses are
stacked and leaning on a
nearby vehicle. The bulky
waste driver must handle
mattresses to position for
access by operator claw.
Figure 3-C. Mattresses are placed
for collection in an area not easily
accessible by operator claw.
Driver must handle mattresses by
hand and potential bedbug con-
tamination is a concern.
The varying placement of mattresses on curbs and streets affected the time it took for em-
ployees to collect waste. Under certain circumstances, employees needed to manually
move mattresses so they were positioned in a way that the operator claw could effectively
lift them into the truck.
Any time employees must physically handle mattresses, bedbug contamination is a possibil-
ity. Currently, gloves are the only form of personal protective equipment employees must
wear when handling waste. With no other protective equipment required, employees'
clothing and skin are at risk for bedbug contamination. If Public Waste employees must
continue to manually pick up mattresses, further protective equipment should be provided
to address potential health and safety hazards.
10
Hartford's High Cost of Mattress Disposal
Prepared by the City of Hartford, Department of Public Works
October 28, 2011
ON-SITE OBSERVATION (CONTINUED)
2. TRAFFIC. On more than one occasion, traffic negatively affected bulky waste collection. If there was
heavy oncoming traffic and trucks were not able to safely cross the street to pick up waste, drivers had
to revisit the same street twice to collect waste on both sides of the street.
3. TELEPHONE POLES AND WIRES. Nearby telephone poles and wires can make collection difficult with the
operator claw (as seen in Figure 4 below).
Figure 4
While Hartford's Public Works employees are very skilled in maneuvering the operator claw, the danger
involved in operating such large machinery near electrical wires should still be noted when evaluating
Hartford's current collection processes.
OUTREACH TO SURROUNDING MUNICIPALITIES
Survey results led to the following conclusions regarding mattress collection and disposal in surrounding municipalities:
Lack of Uniformity. Collection methods varied by town. Towns such as Windsor Locks and West Hartford pro-
vided curbside pickup with a per-mattress fee ($30 and $45, respectively). Most towns, however, mandated
that residents deliver their mattresses to the town's transfer station for disposal or arrange for pickup by a pri-
vate hauler.
Disposal fees also varied among towns. Towns such as Glastonbury and Granby charged residents a per mat-
tress fee of $6 and $10, respectively. Other towns, such as East Granby, charge residents only for transfer sta-
tion permits, and do not charge a per-mattress fee. East Granby representatives noted that because of the
town's fee structure, they are concerned that the town is taking mattresses from other communities, resulting
in out-of-town residents avoiding per-mattress fees.
Storage methods of disposed mattresses also varied by community. Only Cromwell and Granby indicated that
their town's mattresses were stored in closed containers. The remainder of towns stored mattresses in open
containers, which left mattresses subject to environmental conditions, potentially diminishing the quality for
recycling.
Inconsistent Quality/Acceptability for Recycling. Statewide variations in collection, disposal, and storage hin-
der a waste stream with consistent standards. Quality discrepancies will make it difficult for state legislation
to mandate mattress recycling because the eligibility of mattresses for recycling is directly tied to municipal
collection processes. Issues surrounding municipal collection processes must be addressed when drafting
statewide mattress legislation.
11
Hartford's High Cost of Mattress Disposal
Prepared by the City of Hartford, Department of Public Works
October 28, 2011
PILOT MATTRESS RECYCLING STUDY
As of October 2011, Winston Averill, Regional Recycling Coordinator of Southeastern Connecticut Regional Resource
Recovery Authority (SCRRRA), is planning to run a pilot program for the recycling of mattresses in the Authority's 12
member towns, upon approval from the SCRRRA Board of Directors. Averill hopes to establish a trailer at the regional
transfer station to collect mattresses and deliver them to the Bridgeport, Conn. recycling facility. Averill plans to meas-
ure the following:
Number of mattresses collected
Time it takes to fill the trailer with mattresses
Weight of trailer
Cost to deliver mattresses to Bridgeport facility (time, transport costs, etc.)
Unload time of mattresses once delivered to Bridgeport facility
After obtaining the following information, Averill will provide a complete analysis of the process to the City of Hartford
and other relevant stakeholders upon request.
HARTFORD'S CHANGE IN MATTRESS DISPOSAL METHOD
With Hartford's mattress disposal costs projected to exceed $400,000 in fiscal year 2011, senior management elected
to contract with a private bulky waste hauler in an effort to reduce costs. Whereas Hartford's regional disposal facility
treats mattresses as a separate waste stream and charges a per unit fee, mattresses can legally be disposed of with
bulky waste, depending on the receiving facility. Therefore, Hartford merged mattresses with other bulky items, and
arranged for disposal (at $85/ton) that resulted in a cost reduction of mattress disposal fees. The City of Hartford is
working to calculate the exact savings from commingling mattresses with bulky waste, but anticipates an approximate
60% reduction in disposal costs. However, even with significant savings, the cost of mattress disposal remains unsus-
tainable for the City of Hartford, and further strains the City's limited funding.
SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS
Outlined below are a series of key takeaways from this study:
In Hartford, mattresses made up approximately 51% of bulky waste loads, by weight. This is a significant
factor when considering the cost to the City of Hartford. Even with the upcoming contractual change to treat
mattresses as bulky waste subject to a standardized tonnage fee, mattresses alone will still account for over
half of Hartford's bulky waste disposal costs.
In Hartford, collection methods affect the ability to recycle this waste stream. Mattresses cannot be unduly
wet and must maintain their original form to be eligible for recycling, and as was observed in this study, Hart-
ford's current collection process is not conducive to meeting these requirements. Collection equipment de-
forms mattresses, and weekly pickup can leave mattresses vulnerable to roadside debris and weather condi-
tions for up to six days before pickup. While transitioning collection methods from operational to manual
pickup may greatly reduce the destruction of mattresses during pickup, it also subjects Hartford Public Works
employees to a potential health risk, as mattresses may be infested with bedbugs that can easily contaminate
employees' skin and clothing.
A lack of statewide uniformity in storage practices creates a substantial degradation in mattress quality for
recycling feedstock. In Hartford and in other parts of the state, mattress collection and/or storage methods
degrade mattress quality and render a smaller population of mattresses available for recycling feedstock. Col-
lection methodologies and storage of mattresses in open containers at municipal transfer stations subjects
mattresses to harsh weather conditions and other factors that may limit their eligibility for recycling.
Instances of illegal dumping add to the total cost of mattress disposal for the City of Hartford, and contrib-
ute to the large quantity of mattresses found on Hartford's streets. There is likely a connection between
illegal dumping and the fees charged to residents for mattress disposal in surrounding towns. Frustrated resi-
dents who do not want to incur a fee for mattress disposal may illegally dump their mattress in Hartford,
knowing the City provides free curbside collection.
12
Hartford's High Cost of Mattress Disposal
Prepared by the City of Hartford, Department of Public Works
October 28, 2011
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the information collected in this study the following recommendations are made:
1. Mattress disposal costs should not be borne by municipalities. Municipalities should not bear sig-
nificant mattress disposal costs simply because they are responsible for collection of public waste
streams. Municipalities cannot control the quality or the number of mattresses collected, and un-
der the current model, are forced to handle unlimited quantities of potentially unrecyclable mat-
tresses at their own expense.
Attempts by municipalities to transfer disposal costs to residents instead of incurring costs directly
is also not ideal, as resident fee structures come with burdensome oversight and administrative ef-
fects. A lack of standardization among resident fee structures also creates frustration among resi-
dents. Varying fees among municipalities may tempt residents to illegally dispose of their mattress
in their own town, or in a surrounding town, to avoid paying a fee.
2. Mattress manufacturers should assume mattress disposal costs. Manufacturers need to be aware
of the lifecycle costs associated with the products they produce. If manufacturers are not held re-
sponsible for the environmental and financial impacts of product disposal, there is no incentive for
manufacturers to consider such implications during product development. Furthermore, if product
disposal is in the hands of private-sector manufacturers versus public government oversight, under-
lying economic principles should establish the most efficient, cost-effective solution to the problem.
Mattress manufacturers do not want excessive disposal costs affecting their bottom line, and will,
therefore, have incentive to develop strategies to alter current production processes or standardize
recycling practices in exchange for cost-reduction savings.
3. Caution must be taken in developing mandated recycling goals within future legislation, as collec-
tion methods and end-of-life product quality will affect recycling eligibility. Mattresses must
maintain their original form and cannot be severely altered or wet to qualify for current recycling
methods.
As seen in Hartford, many municipal collection operations may not be suited to handle an
immediate shift toward mattress recycling. However, many other institutions (such as ho-
tels, universities, and retailers) have large quantities of mattresses for disposal that are
likely to meet the criteria for recycling, and could help provide feedstock for recycling.
Mattress recycling must evolve into an affordable disposal solution so manufacturers can
absorb the lowest possible cost. The success of mattress recycling facilities is linked to
scale, and therefore, there must be enough feedstock to sustain production operations.
Sources currently generating acceptable feedstock for these facilities could likely provide a
foundation for mattress recycling facilities to grow and expand operations while collection
processes are altered to meet recycling compliance standards or recycling practices evolve
to accommodate lower-quality mattresses.
The City of Hartford, with the help of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and
the Product Stewardship Institute, is currently working on a statewide Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
bill to be introduced during the 2012 Connecticut legislative session. For more information or to track the pro-
gress of this initiative, visit the Product Stewardship Institute's website at http://www.productstewardship.us/
index.cfm.
13
Hartford's High Cost of Mattress Disposal
Prepared by the City of Hartford, Department of Public Works
October 28, 2011
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
A sample of truck loads were weighed upon completion and delivery to the transfer station. The following
data was collected:
A
B
C
D
E
LOAD #
LOAD
WEIGHT IN
POUNDS
NUMBER OF
MATTRESSES
COLLECTED
ESTIMATED
MATTRESS WEIGHT IN
POUNDS (C x 100)
MATTRESS WEIGHT AS A
PERCENTAGE OF LOAD
WEIGHT (D/B)
(Assumes an estimated
weight of 100 lbs/mattress5)
1
4,880
11
1,100
22.54%
2
3,100
24
2,400
77.42%
3
4,360
24
2,400
55.05%
4
3,180
25
2,500
78.62%
5
4,200
32
3,200
76.19%
6
3,600
23
2,300
63.89%
7
4,360
24
2,400
55.05%
8
3,520
24
2,400
68.18%
9
1,920
9
900
46.88%
10
4,980
17
1,700
34.14%
11
3,320
19
1,900
57.23%
12
3,200
21
2,100
65.63%
13
4,560
22
2,200
48.25%
14
3,520
30
3,000
85.23%
15
4,180
24
2,400
57.42%
16
5,720
26
2,600
45.45%
17
3,720
20
2,000
53.76%
18
1,500
4
400
26.67%
19
4,740
15
1,500
31.65%
20
3,960
19
1,900
47.98%
21
4,180
18
1,800
43.06%
22
4,020
23
2,300
57.21%
23
5,380
31
3,100
57.62%
24
3,660
22
2,200
60.11%
25
1,480
2
200
13.51%
26
5,960
15
1,500
25.17%
27
2,580
7
700
27.13%
28
3,440
28
2,800
81.40%
29
2,900
9
900
31.03%
30
5,280
22
2,200
41.67%
31
4,140
14
1,400
33.82%
32
3,500
11
1,100
31.43%
33
3,320
17
1,700
51.20%
34
5,560
16
1,600
28.78%
35
4,660
23
2,300
49.36%
36
3,580
24
2,400
67.04%
37
5,940
33
3,300
55.56%
38
3,640
23
2,300
63.19%
39
2,540
11
1,100
43.31%
40
5,340
30
3,000
56.18%
41
4,800
12
1,200
25.00%
42
3,360
28
2,800
83.33%
43
3,660
15
1,500
40.98%
44
4,940
29
2,900
58.70%
AVERAGE
3,963
20
1,991
50.52%
5. Tempur-Pedic lists their mattresses as weighing anywhere between 60 and 185 lbs., depending on size and model. Foundations are listed as
weighing between 50 and 75 lbs. For more information, visit http://www.foamorder.com/tempur-pedic_4.html.
14
Hartford's High Cost of Mattress Disposal
Prepared by the City of Hartford, Department of Public Works
October 28, 2011
APPENDIX B
A
B
C
D
Resident Type
Number of
Mattresses Delivered to
Transfer Station
Number of Visits to
Transfer Station
Average Number of
Mattresses/Load (B/C)
Landlord
51
19
2.68
South Park Inn
23
2
11.50
Hartford Hous-
ing Authority
11
3
3.67
Other
8
2
4.00
APPENDICES (CONTINUED)
A
B
C
D
E
Number of
Mattresses
Collected
Number of
Mattress Stops
Number of
Loads
Average Number of
Mattresses/Mattress
Stop (A/B)
Average Number of
Mattresses/Load
(A/C)
950
490
74
1.94
12.84
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
APPENDIX C
A
B
C
D
E
Total
Stops
Followed
Stops with
Mattresses
Total
Mattresses
Collected
Percent of Stops with
Mattresses
(B/A)
Average Number of
Mattresses/Mattress Stop
(C/B)
Trip 1
14
9
28
64%
3.11
Trip 2
27
14
30
52%
2.14
Managing Pet Waste
Did you know that pet waste is hazardous to the health
of people and pets? Abandoned pet waste can contain
a host of diseases and parasites that can infect other
pets or in some cases be transmitted to people.
Not picking up after your dog is considered littering.
Owners are required to pick up and properly dispose
of feces left by their pet. Dog and cat feces are banned
from garbage by Metro Vancouver at the Matsqui
Transfer Station.
How to dispose of pet waste
The following options are available to properly dispose
of your pet's waste:
Bury it in your in your backyard or in a pet waste
-
composter. See reverse side for composter ideas.
Flush it down the toilet. Be sure to remove
-
any kitty litter or dirt. Kitty litter is often made of
absorbent clay which can expand when wet
and block sewer lines. Remove pet waste from
ALL bags before flushing down the toilet. Plastic
bags or bags labeled "flushable, water soluble
or biodegradable" are not accepted in the sewer
system.
Use a pet waste pick up service. Visit
-
www.abbotsford.ca/engineering for local
service companies.
Kitty litter can be disposed of in the regular
-
garbage according to the following guidelines:
Kitty litter must be double bagged
and securely tied before
being placed in the
garbage container.
No more than 5L of
kitty litter is
accepted in any
one container.
A pet owner's guide to
Build your own pet waste composter
Follow these steps to properly compost dog waste:
Choose a location that is a suitable distance away
-
from your other composting systems and
vegetable gardens, and from any water body,
standing water, high groundwater, or groundwater
well.
Dig a hole in the ground approximately 60-90 cm
-
(2-3 ft) deep and 60 cm (2 ft) across.
Add a thick layer of shredded cardboard or other
-
carbon-rich, absorbent material (coir, shredded
paper, aged straw etc.) in the bottom.
Use some sort of enclosure over top like a regular
-
plastic backyard composter top. It will control the
amount of water added and prevent flooding,
allow you to add more material, and will help ward
off children and animals.
Add your pet's waste along with more bedding
-
material or a layer of soil and sprinkle with water
following each deposit.
Finished compost can be used on ornamental
-
trees and shrubs.
www.abbotsford.ca/engineering
ü DO
Bury pet waste under
ornamental trees and
shrubs.
Flush pet waste down
a toilet where it can be
treated by the waste
water treatment facility.
Remove pet waste from
ALL bags (plastic or
biodegradable) before
flushing down the toilet.
Place soiled bags in the
regular garbage.
x DON'T
Add pet waste to your
backyard compost bin. It
could make your compost
unhealthy, retain odours
and attract pests.
Bury pet waste near a
vegetable garden.
Put pet waste into the
storm sewer. Storm
sewers do not connect to
the sanitary sewers and
treatment facilities, so pet
waste can cause water
pollution and present
health risks to people and
animals.
Compost kitty litter and
feces.
Solid Waste
as a Resource
REVIEW OF
WASTE TECHNOLOGIES
140 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of WasteTechnologies
Table of Contents
Section 1: Waste Management System Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145
Definitions Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146
Technology Vendors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146
Integrated Waste Management Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146
Section 2: Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147
General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147
Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148
Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .150
Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .150
Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161
New and Emerging Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173
Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174
General Systems Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174
Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177
Energy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178
Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179
Section 3: Composting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182
General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182
System Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193
New and Emerging Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202
Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202
Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204
Energy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .206
Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .206
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 141
Section 4: Anaerobic Digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209
General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209
Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214
New and Emerging Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215
Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215
Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221
Waste Diversion Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222
Wastewater Discharge Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222
Energy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223
Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224
Section 5: Thermal Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226
General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226
Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .231
Specific Technologies/Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .231
New and Emerging Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237
Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241
Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .242
Energy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .245
Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .246
Section 6: Landfilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .248
General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .248
Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .249
New and Emerging Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252
Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254
General Systems Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254
Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .256
Energy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .257
Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258
TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables
Table 2.1
Advantages and Disadvantages of Hydraulic Side-loading Recycling Truck . . . . . . . . . .156
Table 2.2
Advantages and Disadvantages of Conventional Rear-packer Trucks for Collection
of Recyclables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156
Table 2.3
Advantages and Disadvantages of Dual-compartment Collection Vehicles . . . . . . . . . .157
Table 2.4
Advantages and Disadvantages of Drop-off Programs/Depots for Collection of
Recyclables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158
Table 2.5
Typical Processing Equipment at MRFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162
Table 2.6
Recycling Collection and Processing Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164
Table 2.7
GHG Emissions from Recycling Compared to Landfilling of 1,000 Tonnes of
Recyclable Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177
Table 2.8
Acid Gas Emissions and Smog Precursor Effects from Recycling Compared to
Landfilling of 1,000 Tonnes of Recyclable Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177
Table 2.9
Toxic Emissions from Recycling Compared to Landfilling of 1,000 Tonnes of
Recyclable Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178
Table 2.10 Examples of Energy Savings Resulting from Using Recycled Rather than Virgin
Feedstock in Manufacturing Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179
Table 2.11 Recycling Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180
Table 3.1
Advantages and Disadvantages of Public Yard Waste Drop-off Systems . . . . . . . . . . . .187
Table 3.2
Advantages and Disadvantages of Seasonal Curbside Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188
Table 3.3
Advantages and Disadvantages of Weekly or Biweekly Curbside Collection . . . . . . . . .188
Table 3.4
Advantages and Disadvantages of Loose Material Set Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189
Table 3.5
Advantages and Disadvantages of Plastic Bags, Debagged at Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190
Table 3.6
Advantages and Disadvantages of Plastic Bags, Debagged at Curb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191
Table 3.7
Advantages and Disadvantages of Compostable Paper Bags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191
Table 3.8
Advantages and Disadvantages of Rigid Plastic Containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192
Table 3.9
Advantages and Disadvantages of Turned-windrow Composting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196
Table 3.10 Advantages and Disadvantages of Static Pile Composting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198
Table 3.11 Advantages and Disadvantages of Channel Composting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199
Table 3.12 Estimated GHG Emissions from Composting 1,000 Tonnes of Organic Waste
Compared to Landfilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204
Table 3.13 Acid Gas and Smog Precursor Emissions from Composting 1,000 Tonnes of
Organic Waste Compared to Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205
Table 3.14 Toxic Emissions from Composting 1,000 Tonnes of Organic Waste Compared to
Landfilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205
Table 3.15 Composting Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207
Table 4.1
AD Facility Sizes Required for Different Feedstock and Community Sizes . . . . . . . . . .216
Table 4.2
Estimated Capital and Operating Costs for "Generic" AD Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218
Table 4.3
GHG Reductions of a 10,000 tonne/year AD Plant With and Without Carbon
Sequestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222
Table 4.4
Anaerobic Digestion Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225
Table 5.1
Canadian Examples of Thermal Treatment/Destruction Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . .226
Table 5.2
Estimated GHG Emissions from EFW Compared to Landfill of 1,000 Tonnes
of Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244
Table 5.3
Estimated Acid Gas and Smog Precursor Emissions from EFW Compared to
Landfill of 1,000 Tonnes of Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244
142 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 143
Table 5.4
Estimated Toxic Emissions from EFW Compared to Landfill of 1,000 Tonnes
of Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .245
Table 5.5
Thermal Treatment Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .247
Table 6.1
Two Bioreactor Landfills Approved in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254
Table 6.2
Landfilling Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259
Figures
Figure 2.1 Typical Recycling Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147
Figure 2.2 Decision Tree for Recyclables Collection and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152
Figure 2.3 Typical Processing Requirements for Single-stream System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166
Figure 2.4 Typical Processing Requirements for Partially Commingled System - Container
Fraction Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .167
Figure 2.5 Typical Processing Requirements for Partially Commingled System - Fibre
Fraction Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168
Figure 2.6 Typical Processing Requirements for Fully Segregated Recyclables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169
Figure 2.7 MRF Annualized Capital and Operating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176
Figure 3.1 Simplified Composting Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
Figure 3.2 Open Windrow Composting System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
Figure 3.3 Aerated Static Pile Composting System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197
Figure 3.4 Channel Composting System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199
Figure 3.5 In-vessel Composting System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200
Figure 4.1 Typical Schematic of an AD Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211
Figure 6.1 Range of Principal Technical Elements of a Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .249
T
he Solid Waste as a Resource: Review of Waste
Technologies profiles a range of proven and
emerging solid waste management technologies
appropriate for Canadian municipalities to assist
municipal leaders and waste managers select
best practices. Although technically feasible
technologies are described, preference should be
given to those that treat waste as a resource and
meet the objectives of sustainable communities.
The broad waste management activities
covered are:
Recycling
Composting
Anaerobic Digestion
Thermal Treatment
Landfilling
Note that landfilling can be used to manage
all materials, whereas the other four technolo-
gies are limited in materials to which they apply
and tonnage they can manage.
Municipalities mostly deal with residential
waste, with some industrial, commercial and
industrial (IC&I) waste from smaller generators.
Residential waste includes: waste from single
family, multi-family, high- and low-rise resi-
dences, backyard composting, grasscycling, and
waste that is self-hauled to depots, transfer
stations and landfills.
There is some variation across Canada based
on geography and climate, but in general, multi-
family dwellings consistently produce more
waste by weight in all categories except for yard
waste. Typical residential waste composition, by
weight per household per year, in descending
order (all in kg/hh/yr):
Waste
kg/hh/yr
Paper
275
Food waste
208
Other (wood, bulky goods, white goods)
167
Yard waste
162
Glass
61
Ferrous metal
31
Film plastic
31
Textiles/leather/rubber
26
Other plastic
21
Non-ferrous metal
8
High density polyethylene
6
Polyethylene terephthalate
4
Composition of waste generated by the
IC&I sector depends on regional economic
activity, including local industries, manufacturers,
and the business community. The top five items
in a typical composition are:
IC&I Waste
%
Mixed paper
25
Old corrugated cardboard
15
Food waste
10
Plastics
9
Ferrous metals
8
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 145
1
S E C T I O N
Waste Management System Considerations
This waste is generally managed privately
by IC&I generators, but some IC&I waste, par-
ticularly that from small storefront commercial
operations, is managed in the municipal waste
system.
When IC&I waste is added to municipal sys-
tems, either via residential waste collection or at
composting sites, material recovery facilities
(MRFs), energy from waste (EFW) plants, or
landfills (delivered by a private hauler who pays
the tipping fee), it may provide a source of net
revenue for the municipality and make waste
management operations more economically or
technically sustainable.
Definitions Used
Source-separated organics (SSO): A system
whereby the waste stream contains food, yard
waste, and some papers. SSO is separated by
householders according to municipal guidelines,
and processed at composting facilities. For plan-
ning purposes, it is assumed in this document
that a typical SSO program would recover
250 kg of SSO per household per year. The
amount of leaf and yard waste varies according
to local conditions, e.g., there are few leaves in
Saskatchewan.
Source-separated recyclables: A system used in
various locations across Canada, whereby resi-
dents store recyclable parts of the waste stream
in a separate bag, box or bin at home, so that it
is relatively uncontaminated when dropped off
at the recycling centre or picked up at the curb.
Wet/Dry: The wet stream contains organics
plus other wet materials that are typically sent
to a composting facility. Dry contains all recy-
clables plus other dry materials. MRF facilities
are designed to separate dry recyclables from
residual materials which cannot be recycled or
for which there are no or limited markets.
Mixed MSW: A residual waste stream from
the residential sector after some recyclables
have been source separated. In some Canadian
locations this stream is composted. In this docu-
ment, it is assumed that 550 kg/hh/year of
mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) would be
treated by the mixed waste processing systems
considered.
Technology Vendors
Specific vendors are named in this document
if they are the only supplier, or one of a few
suppliers providing the equipment being dis-
cussed. If there are a number of suppliers, no
one supplier is specifically named.
The Government of Canada and the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM),
funding partners for the Solid Waste as a Resource
documents, do not endorse any particular
vendor or technology.
Integrated Waste Management Model
for Estimating Environmental Effects
The Integrated Waste Management (IWM)
model (http://www.iwm-model.uwaterloo.ca/)
has been used to estimate the effects of various
waste management approaches, compared to
landfilling the same material in a well-designed
landfill. In all cases cited in this document
where scenarios are compared, an amount of
1,000 tonnes was used for the model runs.
Results in the following sections are presented
in qualitative terms only, as the model results are
specific to local conditions and will vary by
municipality. Municipal staff is encouraged to
use the model to estimate the comparative local
effects of various waste management approaches.
146 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
General Description
R
ecycling refers to the recovery of dry
materials: paper (old newspapers--ONP;
old magazines--OMG; and old corrugated
cardboard--OCC), plastics, glass, and metals
from the waste stream for incorporation into
new uses. Which materials a municipality
chooses to recycle depends on several factors,
including cost, existence of a market, distance
to a market, and public acceptability. Paper recy-
cling can be expanded to include boxboard and
mixed papers. Plastics recycling programs most
often target PET (polyethylene terephthalate)
and HDPE (high density polyethylene), but
other plastics, such as polypropylene and film
plastic, can also be added. Recycling programs
also collect steel and aluminum cans and glass
bottles and jars.
Recycling is only applicable to 30 to 40 per
cent of the waste stream. (These percentages are
adjusted downward, because not all areas of
Canada have viable recycling markets for all
papers and plastics.) In theory, if all viable mate-
rials in the waste stream were captured, recycled
and composted, approximately 70 to 80 per cent
of the waste stream could be diverted.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 147
Recycling
2
S E C T I O N
TYPICAL RECYCLING SCHEMATIC
FIGURE 2.1
Recyclables Collection
Curbside
Drop-off
Depot
Paper Mills
Glass Plants
Steel Mills
Aluminum Smelters
Additional Processing at MRF
Recyclables Processing at MRF
Aluminum
Steel
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Smelters
Steel Mills
Paper Mills
Plastics
Reprocessors
Glass Plants or Beneficial Uses
(aggregate substitute)
Single-stream Sort
Multi-stream Sort
Manufacturing
Plastic Lumber
Recyclables
for Market
MARKETS
Markets for recyclable materials are the most
critical factor in the success of any recycling pro-
gram. If material cannot be sold, or used to dis-
place another material, it would normally not be
included in a program. However, materials often
are targeted for recycling by municipalities for
a variety of reasons not related to their mar-
ketability (e.g., politics, regulations).
The markets--all end users of recyclable
materials--to which recyclable materials are
sold for revenue are critically important as they
specify types, quantities, and quality of materials
that will be purchased. These requirements fun-
damentally influence processing, collection, and
all aspects of a recycling program's operation.
Some recovered recyclable materials are directed
to "beneficial use" (e.g., when collected glass is
crushed and used as an aggregate substitute),
which offsets the cost of procuring raw materials.
General principles to apply to recyclable
materials markets:
Markets should be as secure as possible;
Market requirements and location influence
program collection and processing;
Markets need high quality (materials are
processed to meet market specifications),
volume and consistency;
Market fluctuations must be considered in
program planning;
There must be a market for materials made
from recycled products to "close the loop."
Whereas a waste manager is a service
provider, with a responsibility to collect waste
and keep citizens satisfied with service, a recy-
cling manager must also provide quality feed-
stock to an industrial process, ensuring clean,
consistent volumes of useable material.
Traditional revenue generating markets
require the following:
High and predictable quality feedstock
(i.e., uncontaminated recyclables);
Sufficient volumes to be cost effective;
A consistent supply.
These market requirements dictate the
appropriate recovery technique, equipment, and
recyclable material revenues.
Recyclable material revenues (and the
stability of end markets) are affected by:
Business cycle;
Energy prices;
Transportation costs;
Exports and imports;
Size and proximity of the market;
Demand and supply of a particular material;
Competition;
Labour issues;
A development/change in end use;
Demand and supply of virgin materials;
Innovations in raw material supply;
Regulations, institutional, and
government issues;
Quality/quantity and consistency of supply
of material;
Landfill costs (indirectly).
Selecting End-market Options
Delivery options of processed materials to end
markets are as follows:
Haul recyclable material directly to material
consumer (the mill) where it is processed and
used in an industrial process;
Haul to an intermediary (a broker or dealer)
who processes it to specification and hauls it
to the mill;
Have an intermediary pick up recyclable
materials;
148 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Adopt a regional approach with smaller, feeder
programs decontaminating and storing materials
to feed into larger regional processing centres
that process materials and haul to market.
Factors to consider in choosing a recyclable
materials market:
Distance to the market - The greater the distance,
the higher the haulage costs and the greater
the need to reduce material volume through
compacted/baled loads.
Required specifications for material preparation -
In general, select the market with the mini-
mum specifications and the highest price. For a
stable situation, it is important to balance the
two elements, and look at patterns and history.
Tonnages - Programs with larger tonnages can
sell directly to a market, ensuring a higher
price. Smaller programs require a broker/
merchant to obtain a lower price.
Revenue:cost ratio - Maximum revenue implies
a higher processing cost, therefore there is a
need to select the optimum revenue:cost ratio.
It is important to find a balance between the two.
Steps to Finding Markets
Determining the best market for a material
requires four steps: identifying, contacting,
selecting, and contracting with buyers. This
process takes time and resources to ensure it is
done well.
Step 1 - Identify Potential Buyers: Contact infor-
mation can often be found from talking to other
recycling program operators, or by contacting
national and provincial recycling and/or indus-
try organizations.
Step 2 - Contact Potential Buyers: This step
involves requesting information regarding the
market. Some questions might include:
Price paid for material;
Material specifications (degree of contamination
acceptable, densification required);
Transportation costs;
Minimum loads;
References;
Payment terms.
Step 3 - Select a Buyer: This step may involve
interviewing potential buyers and assessing
them based on a set of criteria.
Step 4 - Contract with a Buyer: A written agree-
ment protects a relationship with a buyer as
competition for markets escalates. Contracts can
be useful when markets take a downturn
because buyers may only service customers with
written contracts. Written agreements may
include letters of intent to purchase material as
well as formal contracts. Provisions in a written
agreement may include tonnage and volume
requirements, material quality specifications,
and provisions for delivery or pickup, termina-
tion provisions, length of commitment, and the
pricing basis.
Co-operative Marketing
Where recycling programs are relatively small
and do not benefit from economies of scale, co-
operative marketing is beneficial. Co-operative
marketing is the co-ordination among public
and private sector recyclers facilitating more effi-
cient and cost-effective movement of recyclables
from sellers to buyers. Pooling the recyclables
means sellers of recyclables have enough volume
to enter large markets and command better
prices for recyclable goods; it also allows access
to longer-term, more reliable markets. From the
buyers' perspective, it is often preferable to deal
with large suppliers because this reduces overall
purchasing costs.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 149
Additional advantages of co-operative
marketing include:
Minimizing storage requirements at the
processing facility (a full load of PET plastic
is not required before it can be shipped out,
because the co-operative efforts allow for a
part load from each participant);
The potential to organize more efficient trans-
portation networks (due to larger volumes of
recyclables).
Possible disadvantages include:
Loss of total control or flexibility of the local
recycling program;
Potential to alienate private recycling businesses
(brokers that no longer have your business);
Difficulty to ensure that all loads meet quality
specifications (it is often hard to determine
what material originated from which program,
which would have to be addressed in a regional
agreement).
Local Market Development
Reuse and recycling industries convert materials
from solid waste into marketable products. A
range of materials is processed--paper, plastic,
metals, tires, wood, textiles, construction and
demolition waste, and organic garden and food
waste. The sources of these materials are post-
industrial (process scrap, off-cuts, off-spec
materials) and post-consumer (used products
and packages).
There is potential for the growth and devel-
opment of reuse and recycling industries,
especially where a large infrastructure for the
collection of secondary materials already exists.
Local reuse and recycling industries offer
several environmental benefits, including:
diversion of solid waste from landfill; energy
conservation; reduced transportation; and local
employment. There are a number of studies on
the viability of establishing local, small-scale
industries to absorb locally collected recyclables.
Examples of where this has been successful exist
(Arcata, Calif.), but are limited and only absorb
small amounts of the feedstock available.
Local reuse occurs in many Canadian loca-
tions. Ninety per cent of Manitoba's recycled
glass is used locally (e.g., road construction).
In the past, the Northern Ontario Recycling
Association (NORA), a collection of rural and
small town recycling programs in Northern
Ontario, transported glass to Consumers Glass
in Toronto. Since the market for glass is negative
anyway, local uses for the glass in construction
projects were adopted, rather than sending to
distant markets (transportation costs of $65/tonne
were higher than revenues of $43/tonne).
Technologies
COLLECTION
Collection includes source separation of recycla-
ble materials by the householder (optional),
pickup of those materials from the householder
(or drop-off systems in which the householder
takes the materials to a specific site), and trans-
port of the recyclables to either a transfer sta-
tion or a processing facility. The issue of
integrating recyclable collection with recyclable
processing that suits local conditions is a key
factor in the success of any recycling program.
The actual collection decision is based on
several local factors, such as fleet age. Collection
and processing decisions must be made together,
because processing needs and design depend on
how material is collected. The trade-off between
cost and complexity of collection and processing
150 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
is illustrated in Figure 2.2 on page 152. Effective
recycling collection programs share the follow-
ing characteristics:
Convenience for operator and residents;
Consideration for and integration with current
waste management practice. For example, a
community without curbside waste pickup
would not have curbside recyclable pickup.
On the other hand, making recycling more
convenient than waste can realize greater
diversion, but this requires political commitment;
Flexibility to respond to changes in the
recycling program. For example, it should be
relatively easy to add new materials to the
collection systems, although it is necessary to
have a MRF that can handle the additional
materials and to understand that removing
them is often difficult (because of resident
habits);
Strong emphasis on communication and
education programs.
Collection - Curbside Collection
Curbside collection programs involve collecting
recyclable materials directly from householders.
Typically, recyclable material is placed in a recy-
cling container and is collected by a vehicle dedi-
cated to collecting recyclable material only, or in
co-collection vehicles, where recyclables are col-
lected along with garbage or organics. Well-
designed and well-promoted programs can
achieve high participation and recovery rates.
This increased recovery potential comes at a
cost: most curbside programs are more expen-
sive to establish and maintain than depot
systems.
A key decision for curbside collection is the
level of commingling at the curb. This influences
types of material collected, types of trucks used,
and the design of the processing facility.
Decision-makers must decide whether to invest
more effort in the collection system (maximum
source segregation/minimal sorting) or in
processing (commingled collection/maximum
processing). Collection costs are typically higher
with more detailed material separation curbside,
but processing costs can be lower. When material
is commingled curbside, collection costs are
lower, but processing costs can be higher.
Collection and processing costs need to be com-
bined to assess the most cost-effective system.
Another key consideration is collection fre-
quency, which is decided in conjunction with
other factors. Where collection and processing
are split between two jurisdictions, the decision
is even more challenging. Higher recovery is
obtained with more frequent collection.
Recycling collection on the same day as refuse
also increases recovery. However, a number of
other factors, including policies such as user pay,
also have an effect on participation in and recovery
from recycling programs.
Curbside collection options include: single-
stream collection (fully commingled); two-
stream collection (partially commingled);
multi-stream collection (segregated), and
co-collection.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 151
Single-stream Recyclable Collection
Single-stream collection involves all fibre and
container recyclables, fully commingled, in a single
vehicle compartment. This results in a lower col-
lection cost because collection is quicker, decreasing
labour and other operating costs, and more effi-
cient, lowering the size of the fleet required. All
sorting takes place at a processing facility. The
major disadvantage is that the processing facility
must be capable of segregating all materials,
including fibres, but this increases both the
capital and the processing cost of the facility. It
also increases potential for cross-contamination,
lower quality and unhappy markets, and results
in higher residue rates.
This approach is gaining popularity due to
technical advances in processing that make it
more cost-effective to separate the fibre/container
stream. Minimizing collection time and associated
costs are key considerations since collection
expenses are typically the largest cost compo-
nent of the recycling system. The single-stream
recyclable collection system is well suited for
large urban centres, where population density
is high and traffic is a key concern, as it consid-
erably shortens collection time.
152 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
DECISION TREE FOR RECYCLABLES COLLECTION AND PROCESSING
FIGURE 2.2
Simple Collection
All recyclables in one or two
streams commingled at the curb
Maximum Processing
More Expensive Processing
Multiple-stream Collection
Recyclables segregated
at the curb
Simple Processing
Less Expensive Collection
More Expensive Collection
Less Expensive Processing
Advantages include:
No need for specialized collection vehicles
(i.e., opportunity to use existing fleet);
Lower collection capital investment (i.e., a
rear-packer or side-loader used to collect
garbage can be used);
The system is more convenient for the house-
holder, usually resulting in increased material
recovery;
Leads to simpler, more efficient and cost-
effective collection systems (compaction, higher
collection productivities, and it facilitates
co-collection);
Protection of valuable materials, such as
aluminum cans, from scavenging.
Two-stream Recycling Collection
Curbside material is separated into two streams
of recyclables, commingled fibres (cardboard,
boxboard, paper) and commingled containers
(glass, plastic, metal). Material can be collected
in a single compartment truck, where one of the
recyclable streams is bagged and the other is
loose, or in a two-compartment vehicle. In the
latter case, vehicle compartments are not prop-
erly matched to the proportions of recyclables
set out at the curb; it is possible that one com-
partment may fill up before the others, reducing
collection efficiency.
Advantages include:
Cleaner, more marketable materials, since
material has not been mixed and will not
require separation at the MRF (driver can also
check for contaminants). Some material may
not meet specifications if not sorted at the
curb (e.g., colour-sorted glass);
Fewer processing requirements (e.g., sorting);
Where the fibre stream is collected in a single-
compartment truck, the material can be com-
pacted to maximize the load and minimize the
number of loads as long as the processing facil-
ity can process the material in that condition.
(Note that two-stream collection of recyclables
is different from two-stream wet-dry systems,
which are part of composting.)
Disadvantages include:
Partially commingled collection requires vari-
ous levels of intermediate processing capabil-
ity, depending on the collection truck and
number of materials collected;
Higher levels of non-recyclable materials at
the processing facility, since this approach
normally involves less sorting and thus less
contaminant removal at the truck;
The compaction of commingled containers
must be limited to avoid crushing glass con-
tainers, because anything less than two inches
is usually not recovered.
Multi-stream Recycling Collection
Multi-stream collection means sorting recy-
clables into more than two streams at the curb.
Since collection efficiency decreases with the
number of sorting activities curbside, this system
is more costly. However, processing requirements
and costs decrease. This system is particularly
appropriate for small programs with no local
processing capability.
Advantages are similar to those of the two-
stream system, although the benefits are more
fully recognized. In particular, the quality of
the material streams is usually higher since
the driver/sorter is most likely to leave non-
recyclables at the curb.
Co-collection
This approach is essentially the simultaneous
collection of two or more material streams
(e.g., recyclables and garbage, or recyclables and
organics) with one vehicle. Co-collection may
provide improved efficiency over operating two
(or more) collection vehicles on the same route.
Co-collection may involve any combination
of refuse, recyclables, and organics. If properly
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 153
designed, co-collection systems can be cost-effective,
and achieve high recovery and participation
rates. Most communities choose to co-collect
for economic reasons, especially because of the
potential to provide a simple, low-cost approach
to curbside collection of recyclables.
Advantages include:
The need for fewer trucks and less labour
(most co-collection systems require only one
or two employees while separate collection
requires two trucks and usually more
personnel);
Decreased road wear and tear (especially rural
dirt roads);
Reduced fuel consumption and associated
pollution;
Reduced compensation costs for workers;
Increased efficiency in rural areas as truck
volumes are optimized.
Co-collection systems have been tested in
rural and urban settings in North America and
Europe. Canadian communities now using co-
collection: City of Guelph, Ont., (two-stream,
wet/dry); Regional Municipality of Halifax,
N.S., (three-stream recyclables and garbage with
alternating week collection); Northumberland
County (wet and dry streams); Bluewater
Recycling Association, in Southwestern Ontario,
(recyclables and garbage); and the City of
St. Thomas, Ont., (recyclables, organics,
and garbage on biweekly schedule).
Collection - Curbside Collection
Equipment
Household Recycling Containers
Blue, black or green boxes, plastic bags, or roll-
out containers, facilitate storage and contribute
to collection efficiency and ongoing promotion/
peer pressure to participate. The existence of a
container has been shown to significantly
increase participant rates. Different containers
are suited to different systems.
Bags
Several bags are currently on the market, includ-
ing recyclable or reusable plastic or mesh bags.
Kraft bags are increasingly used for organic
material, especially yard waste. Bags require less
storage space in the home than containers, and
they are easy to collect by the driver. Other con-
tainers must be emptied and returned to the
curb. Additional considerations if bags are used:
Reyclables need to be debagged before
processing;
If bags are opaque, the driver cannot spot
contaminants;
If recyclable, the bags will require processing;
Bags require a permanent distribution system.
Canadian municipalities using bags for col-
lection of recyclables: City of Edmonton, Alta.;
City of Guelph, Ont.; Regional Municipality of
Halifax, N.S.; and City of Kelowna, B.C.
Containers
Blue, green, grey, and black boxes are more com-
mon in Canada than bags. Some programs pro-
vide two boxes (one for containers, the other for
fibres). Product specifications to consider when
purchasing containers:
Container size, weight, and volume capacity
must be large enough to handle several materi-
als, yet small and light enough for transport to
the curb;
Handle design should be safe, comfortable,
and easy to grasp;
Drainage holes - container should allow for
some liquid accumulation during in-house use,
but permit rainwater drainage outside;
Durability - able to withstand temperature
extremes, rough handling, household
chemicals;
154 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Nesting capability - for storage and shipping
efficiency;
Attractive colours enhance participation and
may significantly affect program success;
Large flat surface for program message
delivery;
Plastic containers should contain an ultraviolet
stabilizer to protect from sun damage.
Rollout Containers
Carts or wheelie bins potentially can be stored
outside. These bins also hold more materials,
allowing recycling of a larger number of materials
and greater diversion.
Disadvantages include:
A tendency to have higher contamination levels,
as the containers can not be checked by the
driver before dumping in the vehicle;
Rollout carts need specialized vehicles with
hydraulic lifting, require cycle time for the lift
mechanism and, therefore, slow collection
productivity;
Rollout carts are much more expensive;
The larger size of rollout carts is often not
appreciated by householders with limited
storage space.
As programs move towards more commingled
collection systems, the use of carts and bags will
increase. Many municipalities favour rollout
carts because semi- or fully automated trucks
reduce worker injury.
Collection - Collection Vehicles
Basic recycling vehicles include:
Closed-body vehicles;
Low-profile closed-body vehicles;
Hydraulic side-loading trucks;
Compactor trucks;
Dual- or multi-compartment collection vehicle;
Co-collection truck.
Recycling vehicle design has a significant
effect on collection productivity. Collection vehicles
have become more diverse as fleet managers
demand models and design features best suited
for local conditions and needs. Considerations
for recycling vehicles include:
Vehicles with separate compartments (co-
collection of recyclables) for each material will
result in cleaner, more marketable materials
(requiring less processing) than recyclable
material that is commingled;
Vehicles that avoid compaction generally
result in more marketable materials than
those that compact materials (although this
is improving in more recent co-collection
vehicles);
Vehicles that dump recyclables from a height
tend to lead to higher glass breakage;
Vehicles used for refuse and recyclables
must be well cleaned between uses to avoid
contamination;
Some vehicles can be equipped with processing
equipment (e.g., a plastics compactor);
Vehicles that collect fully commingled recyclable
streams have greater collection efficiencies
than those that collect materials in separate
compartments. Vehicles with only one com-
partment have greater capacities, which has a
positive effect on collection efficiency;
Vehicles that are obviously designated for
"recycling" encourage participation.
Hydraulic Side-loading Recycling Truck
This type of truck was specifically designed to
overcome some problems associated with opera-
tion of manual-loading recycling trucks. Rather
than sorting materials directly into the body of
the truck, materials are sorted into a segmented
trough on the side of the vehicle. When full, the
trough is raised mechanically or hydraulically to
the top of the truck and dumped in.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 155
Conventional Rear-packer Truck
This type of truck is the most commonly used
vehicle for residential garbage collection in
North America. Garbage is loaded into a hopper
at the rear of the vehicle and, when the hopper
is full,"swept" into the body and compacted.
These trucks are also used to collect single-
stream recyclables, or wet and dry waste in a
wet/dry program.
156 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
High capital costs
Dumping height of side buckets can result
in increased glass breakage (can be reduced
by commingling glass with metal/other plastic
containers
Roof height when loading (some models)
One-person operation
Dual drive
Easy exit and entry
Hydraulic unloading
Distinct, specialized recycling vehicle contributes
to promotion effect
Hydraulic side buckets result in constant low
loading height increasing ease of loading
and collection efficiency
Full volume of truck can be used (typically 31 cu yds)
Dumping mechanism can be used to service
large collection containers from apartments and
commercial establishments
Disadvantages
Advantages
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF HYDRAULIC SIDE-LOADING RECYCLING TRUCK
TABLE 2.1
Can not be used for multi-material collection,
as only one compartment is available
Normally two- or three-person operation
High capital and operating cost related to
hydraulic system
Only one compartment available
Contamination problems if truck is also used
for refuse collection
Residents might be confused with regular
refuse collection (if not using good signage)
Available and familiar in most communities
Well-suited for refuse collection (may integrate
recycling with refuse collection)
Easy to load and unload
High cargo weight
Suitable for collection of cardboard
Low loading height
Loader can ride on back
Lower cost
Availability
Disadvantages
Advantages
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CONVENTIONAL
REAR-PACKER TRUCKS FOR COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES
TABLE 2.2
Collection - Co-collection Equipment
and Technologies for Recyclables
Collection programs require MRFs capable of
handling increased commingling of recyclables.
Two-facility-siting considerations affect efficiency
due to distance between facilities and routes,
and proximity of one facility to another (e.g.,
of the MRF to the landfill). In a co-collection
program, the closer the facilities are, the more
likely the co-collection will result in savings.
Equipment for these programs, such as
household storage containers (bags to carts)
and vehicles, can vary. Vehicles range from refuse
side-loaders to specialized collection vehicles. A
number of vehicle configuration options exist:
using an existing truck (e.g., packer) with bags;
towing a trailer behind an existing garbage
truck; retrofitting an existing truck; and using a
specially designed co-collection vehicle. Vehicle
design considerations include:
Vehicle configuration;
Overall truck capacity;
Useful volume of truck and compartment
configuration;
Hopper size;
Loading and unloading configurations;
Special design features (e.g., electronic trans-
mission instead of mechanical to improve fuel
mileage, specialized brake recovery system).
Factors influencing the cost-effectiveness of a
co-collection program:
Proximity of the processing facility and
disposal sites;
Number of staff/truck and wage rates;
Truck capacity by material;
Cycle time during collection;
Household participation rate;
Amount set out per household by material;
Non-collection time;
Physical conditions for truck operation.
Switching from a dedicated recycling and
garbage system to co-collection is likely to affect
program costs.
Number of trucks: Typically, the same
number or fewer co-collection trucks is needed
compared to recycling plus garbage truck
use (co-collection trucks tend to be bigger).
Dual-compartment Collection Vehicle
These trucks are now common in side-loader
and rear-loader models. They allow compaction
in both compartments. Vehicles have a horizon-
tal or vertical split depending on specific manu-
facturers or designs.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 157
Compartments may fill at different rates, unless
the partition is self-adjusting
High cost
Permits two material streams to be collected on one
vehicle at the same time
More efficient in rural areas with a single pass
Disadvantages
Advantages
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DUAL-COMPARTMENT COLLECTION VEHICLES
TABLE 2.3
For instance, moving to co-collection in the
City of Guelph, Ont., reduced routes from
nine to eight.
Increased capital costs/truck: Co-collection
trucks cost more than dedicated recycling or
garbage trucks. However, this may be offset
by the requirement for fewer trucks with
co-collection.
Operating costs: A co-collection vehicle costs
more to maintain (by virtue of its hydraulics);
however there may be fewer trucks to main-
tain. Fuel costs typically decrease.
Wages: The number of crew (and wages)
likely decrease.
Collection - Drop-off
Programs/Depots
Depots involve the public bringing material to a
site or container from which it is collected and
transported to a market directly for recycling, or
to a MRF for processing before recycling. This
involves free-standing containers placed at spe-
cific locations where the public deposits a vari-
ety of materials. Some programs include only a
single container for a material such as glass or
fibre. Others use a mini recycling centre that
houses three to four containers for different
materials, or a large recycling centre that has
reception areas for many materials, including
refuse, but that also carries out salvage opera-
tions on the materials (sorting, crushing, baling,
resale to public). The containers are emptied
frequently.
158 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Risk of material contamination/vandalism
Relatively low recovery rates (typically
10-15 per cent relative to curbside, though glass
recovery rates of more than 60 per cent have
been reached at some depot centres)
Typically participation is in the 15-20 per cent
range (less convenient for residents than
curbside)
Not typically used for collection of organic
materials
Requires minimum amount of recyclable
material to be economical
Not energy efficient if public makes extra trips
to use the site
Inexpensive to install and easily available
Established and well understood system which
raises public awareness
Provides service to most dwelling types, including
high density; easy to extend or contract by placing
depots in other areas
Can handle wide variety of materials (more than is
practical to collect at curbside)
Can be used to help community groups raise funds
Convenient, round-the-clock access is possible
Investment costs can be carried by merchants
and/or retailers
Relatively easy to manage and quick to implement
Energy efficient provided public use them as part of
their normal routine
Good for seasonal populations
Good for sparsely populated areas
Disadvantages
Advantages
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DROP-OFF PROGRAMS/
DEPOTS FOR COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES
TABLE 2.4
Variables affecting recycling recovery from drop-
off systems:
Location and number of locations or sites;
Type of sites (permanent, mobile);
Range of materials accepted;
Promotion and education;
Public access (hours of operation);
Whether household storage containers are
distributed to residents or not;
Seasonal variations;
Whether the site is staffed or not staffed.
Differences in site design and sophistication
have developed relative to capital constraints and
anticipated program life cycles. The key consid-
eration from an operator's point of view is the
collection and handling system for recovering
the materials deposited in the depot.
Drop-off Depot Options
The most common containers used in drop-off
programs include:
Bulk-lift containers (with compartments for
different types of the same material, e.g., glass
bottles sorted by colour, or open containers
for green refuse or demolition type materials);
Roll-off containers (top-loading, capacity from
240 to 1,100 litres);
Multi-purpose depot systems.
In deciding on the type of container to
install, attention should be given to:
Aesthetic, well-maintained containers that can
be placed in high-profile/easy-to-access locations
serving as a constant reminder of the recycling
program;
A low loading height with access holes within
reach for children and with handicap access;
Customized openings to encourage correct
separation of materials;
Modular design allowing optimal utilization
of storage capacity while minimizing host
space utilization.
Bulk Lift Containers
The introduction of self-dumping depots
responds to the inherent handling problems
of small unstaffed depots. Basically, each depot
container is mechanically lifted and its contents
off-loaded directly into the collection vehicle.
The primary impetus was the development of
recovery systems for waste glass in European
and some U.S. cities, where a dense network of
depot sites can be serviced economically. Key
limitation: a special collection vehicle may be
required with appropriate storage compartments
for each material handled.
The "igloo" system is a commercially avail-
able depot, originally developed in Europe. The
igloo-shaped, fibreglass reinforced, polyester
depots have two steel eyelets at the top and steel
trap doors on the bottom. Each igloo is approxi-
mately five feet high with a capacity of three
cubic yards and handles a single material. Igloos
exist with one, two, or three compartments, cre-
ating separate volumes of 1.6 to 8 cubic yards.
This allows the construction of drop-off depots
in the right shape and size for every application.
A roll-off truck fitted with a hydraulic crane best
services the depots. The crane picks up the depot
by the steel eyelets, the contents are emptied
into the roll-off container by releasing the trap
door, and the empty depot is returned to the
ground. If handling more than one material, the
roll-off container can be divided into sections.
The truck can hydraulically unload the collected
material at the processing facility. The number
of depots that can be serviced by one truck
depends on the variety of materials handled, the
distance between sites, and collection frequency.
Another bulk lift system utilizes a deep well
whereby two thirds of the container is actually
underground. This system has several benefits: a
relatively small ecological footprint; and the con-
tents are less likely to smell, given the cooler in-
ground temperature. A disadvantage is the need
for a special truck with a hydraulic arm. The
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 159
City of Toronto, Ont., has been testing some of
these containers at some apartments.
The City of Calgary, Alta., operates 44 resi-
dential recycling depots within city limits using
specially designed, high profile Haul-All containers.
Containers are available in 4- or 6-cubic-yard
capacities (3 or 4.5 cu metres). Specially
designed openings for different material types
minimize contamination. Haul-All side-loading
collection vehicles service the depots.
Bulk lift container systems are well suited for
high-rise neighbourhoods, institutions, factories,
retail, and recreational areas.
Roll-off Containers
The containers are made from a standard
enclosed roll-off container (capacity from 240 to
1,100 litres), modified by dividing it into sepa-
rate compartments for glass, cans, plastic bottles,
and newspaper. Small holes are cut in the top or
side for glass, cans, and plastic bottles. Doors are
cut in the side for newspaper and cardboard.
The dividers are hinged to allow materials to
be hydraulically unloaded, one at a time.
Since the depot is of sufficient size, less
frequent servicing is possible, making this system
best suited for rural areas where infrequent
servicing is desirable. Many rural programs
locate a specially divided, open-top, roll-off con-
tainer, with an access ramp, at the local landfill
site. Given that the siting of a depot will often
require a concrete or asphalt pad and a large
area for the collection vehicle, it is generally
not suitable for high-rise complexes or small
commercial/retail sites.
Multi-purpose Depot Systems
Systems equipped with a hook-lift system are
used in smaller municipalities. They use truck
platforms that can accommodate various con-
tainers or bodies, including those suitable for
use as recycling depots. These depots are modi-
fied, closed, roll-off containers with multiple
compartments, each equipped with a door. The
trucks can also be used as a roll-off truck, a
dump truck, or a flat bed, allowing a small opera-
tor a wide range of services from a single vehicle.
Some communities operate larger-scale
depot programs that collect a wide range of
material. The Region of Peel, Ont., operates four
sophisticated public waste and recycling depots.
The depots are located in convenient and acces-
sible industrial areas. There are four main com-
ponents to each facility, including a recyclable
material drop-off (for material not suitable for
curbside collection, such as bulky items, elec-
tronic goods), household hazardous waste drop-
off, a reuse centre, and an organic material
drop-off and compost sale.
The Nova Scotia Resource Recovery Fund
Board (RRFB) operates almost 90 Enviro
Depots for drop-off of a number of materials.
Mobile Drop-off Programs
If a community cannot justify a stationary depot
site, an alternative is a mobile program. Mobile
stations can visit temporary drop-off locations
in multiple communities on a rotating basis, are
usually staffed, and residents know site schedules.
These are more typically used for the collection
of household special waste, where costs of
operating permanent depots is high.
Collection of Recyclables from Multi-family
Buildings
Servicing residents living in multi-unit buildings
presents unique challenges. Common approaches
involve providing residents with a recycling
container (bag or box) and encouraging them to
take recyclables to a central storage area, which
may include rollout carts outside the building
or a designated room on each floor where
residents sort materials into larger containers.
160 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Some high-rise buildings with garbage
chutes have implemented a multiple chute sys-
tem that can service both garbage and recy-
clables. One system allows the traditional
garbage chute to be used for up to six different
materials. Residents select one of a series of but-
tons on a control panel that relocates a diverter
or carousel at the bottom of the garbage chute
to direct materials into a specified storage bin.
One button is always for garbage, but addi-
tional buttons can specify segregated recyclable
streams (e.g., commingled papers and commin-
gled containers). The most common system
includes buttons for garbage, and commingled
papers and containers and requires a minimum
of three bins at the chute base.
The systems can be installed in new build-
ings or as retrofits. The two and three separa-
tion systems are particularly effective for
retrofits because existing compactors, garbage,
and recycling bins can often be used.
Hi-Rise Recycling Systems Inc in Miami,
Florida, offers a number of models capable of
multiple separations in multi-unit buildings.
The City of Toronto, Ont., has tested various
approaches in chute designs.
PROCESSING
Processing involves getting collected recyclable
materials into a form suitable for sale to markets
through removal of contaminants, densification,
and baling. Once markets have been determined, a
decision can be made on how to process materials
to meet market specifications. Processing includes:
Sorting material (removal of contaminants);
Grade sorting (i.e., sorting different grades
of paper); and
Separating mixed recyclables.
Processing includes compaction of materials
for transportation, storage of materials, and then
loading onto transfer containers to be hauled to
market. The processing needs of recycling
programs vary from regional facilities requiring
a full complement of sorting and densification
equipment to small programs carrying out
minimal material handling.
Processing - General Variations on
Recyclables Processing Design
Key principles of recyclables processing:
Economies of scale - The greater the through-
put of recyclable materials, the less expensive
(per tonne) it is to process the materials.
Value added or cost versus revenue - Processing
recyclable materials is normally justified by
more revenue obtained for those materials.
Other factors, such as citizen demand or
provincial regulation, also influences decisions.
Efficiency - Minimize double handling where
possible.
Flexibility - Maximum utilization of equip-
ment and labour (finding the optimum balance
between manual labour and equipment).
Provide adequate floor space - To meet local or
regional capacity and sufficient unloading and
storage areas.
Processing - Equipment Overview
Table 2.5 on page 162 outlines typical processing
equipment used at MRFs to process collected
recyclables to a quality suitable for sale to market.
The main techniques used to process collected
recyclables involve sorting materials using a
variety of methods and approaches including:
Manual labour - Sorters along conveyors pull
specific materials off the line.
Size - Trommel screens, disc screens, and vibrat-
ing screens allow materials of a certain size to
pass through.
Weight - Chain curtain inclined vibrating
tables and air classifiers sort materials based
on weight.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 161
Density - Although not common, materials
may be sorted with liquid floatation systems
based on density.
Magnetic properties - Ferrous metals can be
sorted based on their magnetic properties.
Electrical properties - An eddy current and
conductivity can be used to sort materials
based on electrical properties of the materials
(materials are given an electrical charge).
Shape - Flat/round separators, such as disc
screens, bounce cohesion conveyors, etc., sort
materials based on their shape.
162 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Steps
Equipment for
Large Facilities
(more than 30K households)
Equipment for Small Facilities
(less than 30k households)
TYPICAL PROCESSING EQUIPMENT AT MRFS
TABLE 2.5
UNLOAD COLLECTION VEHICLES
SORTING
COMPACTION
STORAGE
LOADING FOR SHIPMENT
SHIPMENT TO MARKET
Bunkers/bags
Skid steer loader
Front end loader
Ramps
Conveyors
Weigh scale
Concrete tipping floor
Sort equipment (mechanical)
Air classifier
Conveyors
Magnetic separators
Sorting platforms
Trommels
Eddy current separators
Screens
Baler
Densifier
Compactor
Shredders
Granulator
Bunkers/bays (covered)
Building
Containers
Trailers
Cages
Forklift
Front-end loader
Walking floor trailer
Conveyor
Blower
Roll-off containers
Trailers
Weigh scale
Barge
Rail
Rollout containers
Weigh scales
Bunkers
Trolley/wheeled container
Roll-off containers
Igloos
Ramps
Tipping floor
Pallet jack
Skid steer loader
Blowers
Grade separation
Conveyors
Small baler
(dedicated to one material
and less automated)
Front-end loader
Roll-off containers
Bunkers/bays (open/covered)
Skid steer loader
Blowers
Grade separation
Forklift with self-tipping hoppers
Roll-off containers
Processing - Residue Levels
Residue is produced when recyclables are
processed to meet market specifications. Residue
rates are lower in source-separated recycling
programs and higher when recyclables are com-
mingled. Residue levels at a MRF depend on the
recycling system and can vary from two to 15
per cent for a MRF receiving source-separated
recyclables (i.e., high level of control at the
curbside). Residue rates of up to 40 per cent
are experienced at mixed waste and two-stream
MRFs. Residue is either sent to landfill or incin-
eration or is reincorporated into the processing
system. High residue levels are generally consid-
ered unacceptable and are a reason to investigate
for causes.
Residue can be intercepted/avoided by:
Source separation by the resident - Significant
communication with residents is required to
educate them regarding what materials are
and are not acceptable, and how they must be
prepared. Several curbside recycling programs
find it effective to promote instructions for
recycling in appropriately prepared recycling
containers.
The collection crew - An important line of
defence in a successful recycling system,
especially a source-separated collection system.
They must leave unacceptable materials
behind and often can speak directly to the
public, explaining why materials cannot be
accepted. Some containers (for example carts
and bags) are more difficult for drivers to
monitor for contamination.
The design of the collection system - Some
contribute less to contamination and residue,
for example, those that involve a detailed
curbside sort.
Processing modifications - Installing a second
magnetic separator ensures that more steel
is recovered from the aluminum stream.
Inspection or pre-sort stations at the start
of the sorting line can also reduce unwanted
objects, as can screening equipment that
screens off fines too small for marketing.
In general, there is a correlation between
the collection/processing system and level of
residue. Typically, residue is higher in recycling
processing facilities that accept commingled
materials.
Processing - Relationship Between
Processing and Collection
The type of collection program directly affects
the waste processing options available. A recy-
cling system that relies heavily on sophisticated
processing will have a simple and inexpensive
collection system, while a system requiring little
processing has a more complex and costly collec-
tion approach. A municipality considering recy-
cling collection and processing operations will
confront the issue of whether to invest more
effort in the collection system (maximum source
separation/minimal processing) or in the pro-
cessing system (commingled collection/maxi-
mum processing). The decision is one of
economics, level of diversion desired and regula-
tions, and is heavily influenced by community
demographics. In large urban centres, where
population densities are high and traffic a con-
cern, minimizing collection time and associated
costs are key considerations since collection
costs are typically the largest component of the
waste management stream.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 163
Single-stream Recyclable Processing: Required
when the collection of recyclable materials is
fully commingled. This approach is gaining
interest throughout North America. In 1997,
there were three reported MRFs in the U.S.
processing single-stream recyclables; in 2001,
there were more than 80.
While this system makes collection quicker
and therefore cheaper, it also presents more
complicated sorting and processing challenges
(resulting in higher capital costs) for the efficient
separation of fibres and container materials.
Maximum processing is required, which is
costly, and there is an increase in contamination
levels and residuals (especially mixed broken
glass). The dramatic growth of these systems in
recent years has largely been the result of signifi-
cant technology advances in the development of
"star" or "disc" screens, which assist in the pri-
mary separation of fibre grades and perform the
majority of the fibre/container separation.
Other sorting processing equipment may
include: mechanical sort equipment; air classi-
fiers, blowers; magnetic separators; conveyors;
sorting table; manual labour sorting systems;
and trommel screens.
Compaction equipment may include balers
and densifiers.
Two-stream Processing: Required when recyclable
materials are collected in two groupings during
collection, e.g., fibres and containers (partially
164 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
RECYCLING COLLECTION AND PROCESSING COMBINATIONS
TABLE 2.6
SINGLE-STREAM
Fully commingled recyclables
collection (no sorting)
TWO-STREAM
Partially commingled recyclables
collection (minimal sorting);
typically fibre stream and
container stream
MULTI-STREAM
Segregated recyclables
collection (maximum sorting)
Maximum processing required to
separate different recyclables from
single collection stream
Basic sorting and processing to
separate different grades of paper
(ONP, OCC, etc.) from fibre stream
and different container materials
(glass, plastic, aluminum, ferrous)
from container stream
Minimal processing required because
most streams already separated into
separate materials during collection.
Processing usually only required to
consolidate/bale material for market
Edmonton, Alta.
Peel, Ont.
Quinte, Ont.
15%
6%
<3%
Collection Approach
Processing Approach
Municipal
Example
Where Used
Typical
Residue
Rates
commingled). The approach is commonly
used in curbside collection and sometimes
in drop-off programs. Typically this approach
involves commingling all fibre material (ONP,
OCC, boxboard, mixed paper) in one compart-
ment, and mixed containers (glass, plastic,
aluminum, steel) in another.
Basic sorting and processing is required
under this approach, as well as some consolidation
of materials. Sorting processing equipment may
include conveyor belts, sorting table, and a
manual labour sorting system. Compaction
equipment may include balers and densifiers.
Multi-stream Processing: Used when recyclable
materials are segregated to the maximum degree
during collection. This approach is commonly
used in drop-off programs, and sometimes in
curbside programs. Minimal separation is
required during processing. Typically, only com-
paction is required, and material is sometimes
shipped directly to the market or broker.
Compaction equipment includes balers and
compactors.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 165
166 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
TYPICAL PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE-STREAM SYSTEM
FIGURE 2.3
Inclined
Screen
Disposal
Tipping Floor
Feed Hopper
Feed Conveyor
Contaminants
and OCC
Baled OCC
Feed Conveyor
Baler
Storage
New Products
Markets
Residue
Residue
Pre-sort
Disc Screen
Disc Screen
Commingled
Recyclables
ONP
Container Mech
& Manual Sort
Mixed Fibre
Sorted into
Paper Grades
Disposal
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 167
TYPICAL PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTIALLY
COMMINGLED SYSTEM - CONTAINER FRACTION ONLY
FIGURE 2.4
Market
Market
Market
Ferrous Cans
Bi-metal
Disposal
Tipping Floor
Feed Hopper
Main Feed
Conveyor
Steel
Coloured Glass
Residue
Residue
Inspector
Disc Screen
Commingled
Containers
Eddy Current
Separator (alum)
Magnetic
Separator
Air
Classifier
Vibrating
Screen
Can
Flatener
Aluminum
PET
Market
Glass Sorting
Plastic Sort
Disposal
Clear Glass
Clear Glass
168 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
TYPICAL PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTIALLY
COMMINGLED SYSTEM - FIBRE FRACTION ONLY
FIGURE 2.5
Market
Disposal
Feed Conveyor
Paper Sorting Bins
(OTD, OBB, etc.)
Tipping Floor
Feed Hopper
Feed Conveyor
Residue
Pre-sort
Disc Screen
ONP, OMG
Mixed Fibres
Manual
Separation
Residue
Baler
Storage
Contaminants
and OCC
Baled OCC
Market
Disposal
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 169
TYPICAL PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS FOR FULLY SEGREGATED RECYCLABLES
FIGURE 2.6
Stored Bales
Metal
Plastics
Green Glass
Market
Feed Conveyor
Tipping Floor
Feed Hopper
Feed Conveyor
Residue
Disc Screen
Commingled
Fibres
Manual
Separation
Baler
Storage
Market
Disposal
Market
Commingled
Containers
Tipping Floor
Feed Hopper
Feed Conveyor
Manual Sort
Disc Screen
Manual
Separation
Clear Glass
Glass
Glass
Processing - Processing Technologies
for Recyclables
Bag Breakers/Openers: Needed when recyclables
are collected in plastic bags. There is much variety
in the market, but most products can be catego-
rized as either slitters or augers. There is no
mechanical "debagger" that does an efficient job
of breaking the bags and mechanically collecting
the plastic. All units require some degree of
downstream manual separation of the plastic film.
Auger-type bag openers rely on a screw
auger rotating in a cylinder. As bags are moved
through, they are ripped by the action of the
auger against the inside cylinder wall. These
have achieved mixed success with bagged recy-
clables. Glass breakage is more severe in these
breakers. This breaker is more popular for use
with bagged organics (e.g., as in the City of
Guelph, Ont., wet composting plant).
Capital costs of bag breakers are approximately
$150,000.
Air Classifiers for Light/Heavy Sort: Low
velocity air is used to separate lighter materials
(e.g., aluminum and plastics) from heavier
materials (glass). This can be accomplished by:
Blowing the lighter materials across an air
knife to another conveyor at a conveyor tail
pulley (heavier materials drop over the tail
pulley); or
Using suction above a commingled container
stream on a conveyor to remove the lighter
material (heavier material stays on the con-
veyor). Once removed, the lighter materials
are directed to a separate sorting conveyor.
In the vacuum system, air velocities within
the pickup unit can be adjusted to create multi-
ple pressure drops. Heavier items will drop out
first and lighter second. Vacuum systems are
popular for conveying materials, such as film
plastic, PET and HDPE containers and
aluminum cans, from sorting stations to a
remote cage or bunker.
The use of an air classifier is common in
a container MRF, with most units ranging in
throughput capacity from 5 to 10 tonnes/hr.
Capital costs are approximately $55,000.
Inclined Conveyors for Light/Heavy Sort:
Bezner introduced the first inclined heavy/
light sorting conveyor system into the North
American market at the Rhode Island Johnston
MRF. It uses an inclined conveyor and a series of
parallel chain curtains to separate light containers
(plastic and aluminum) from heavy containers
(primarily glass). Lighter containers are directed
along the conveyor and discharge off the end.
Glass containers are encouraged down the side-
slope and removed. Manufacturers of disc screens,
such as Bollegraaf, CP Manufacturing, BHS and
Machinex, also produce similar inclined conveyors
for separation of containers and miscellaneous
fibres.
An inclined conveyor with a throughput
capacity of approximately 10 tonnes/hr has a
capital cost of approximately $230,000.
Trommel Screens for Size Separation:
Rotating, inclined drums primarily use a combi-
nation of rotation and screening to separate
materials. The tumbling motion created by the
rotation drum shakes loose smaller-sized objects
(dirt, grit, bottle caps, broken glass) that exit
through holes in the drum. Larger materials exit
at the downstream end. Trommels can be
designed with a variety of hole diameters, staged
in sequence to separate different container sizes.
Trommel screens can also be used as bag
breakers. For this application, triangular steel
"knives"or spikes are welded to the inside of the
drum. As bags containing recyclables or mixed
waste tumble in the drum, the bags are ripped
170 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
open. One disadvantage is pronounced breakage of
glass if it is intended that glass be manually colour
sorted and when ceramic content must be reduced.
Trommel/Magnets for Size Separation:
Several manufacturers offer a combination
trommel screen and ferrous separation. The
combination trommel-magnet has a stainless
steel tube welded to the end of the trommel. A
magnetic field is created in the tube to attract
ferrous recyclables. Ferrous materials attached to
the inside of the tube rise with the rotation of
the trommel. At a predetermined point in the
rotation, the magnetic field weakens, allowing
the ferrous to drop via a chute into a bin or onto
a dedicated conveyor.
The trommel-magnet is less expensive than a
cross-belt magnet, yields a high ferrous recovery
with almost the same purity, and also removes
fines.These trommel systems handle 4-9 tonnes/hr
of commingled containers with prices starting
at approximately $30,000. This trommel also
provides some space savings over a conventional
trommel and fines screen combination.
Star Screens (Disc Screens) for Size
Separation: Popular in a variety of sorting
applications:
Single-stream MRFs to perform an initial
separation of fibre and container materials;
Fibre sorting applications to separate OCC or
ONP from other fibre grades;
Commingled container sorting systems, as an
alternative to vibratory screens and trommel
screens for removing fines, debris, and broken
glass from larger containers;
Commingled container sorting systems, to sort
containers from miscellaneous fibre contaminants.
These screens consist of a number of
rotating axles, each containing a number of
"star"- shaped wheels. The spacing between
axles is adjustable, as is the star diameter.
Spacing depends on the sorting function. The
screen bed is tilted upward. As the commingled
stream is directed onto the lower end of the
screen, oversized material bounces along the top
in the direction of the star rotation, and smaller
material falls through the open spaces between
the stars. In most Canadian MRF applications,
these screens would be used on a container sort-
ing line to remove fines, debris, and broken
glass. In a single-stream (fully commingled mix-
ture of fibres and containers), disc screens are
used for OCC and ONP separation. They han-
dle up to 25 tonnes/hr and range in cost from
$150,000 to $250,000.
Glass Sorting: Mechanical sorting of glass cullet
is relatively new in North America. The sorting
technologies are more common in larger glass
reprocessing facilities, where larger throughputs
are necessary to justify the capital outlay for the
sophisticated equipment. Optical sorters gener-
ally work effectively on glass pieces ranging in
size between one and four centimetres. Sorting
equipment is operated to remove ceramics from
a mixed glass stream, or colour sort a mixed
glass stream.
Deciding to purchase glass-sorting equip-
ment should depend on several factors. Years
ago, high market value of glass made glass-
sorting equipment a more viable option than
today. The local glass market value, transportation
costs, tipping fees, amount of glass recovered,
and equipment cost all play a role in the pur-
chase decision. Glass-sorting technology is avail-
able and in operation in MRFs throughout the
U.S. Some manufacturers claim that a MRF
must have in excess of three tonnes/hr of glass
throughput to achieve a payback in a reasonable
number of years, although others suggest that a
volume of at least nine tonnes per day of glass
is necessary.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 171
Plastics Sorting: In North America, plastic con-
tainer sorting at a MRF is primarily a manual
task. In contrast, in Europe, automation of this
process has been implemented more widely
because of high manual labour costs. Most auto-
mated bottle-sorting systems in North America
are located at plastics processing facilities and
plastic reclaimers, where the volume can justify
the system costs.
In general, there are two methods of feeding
automated bottle-sorting equipment: singulated
feed and mass feed. In singulated feed, objects
are fed to the sensor one-by-one. In most MRFs,
the mix of container materials (metals, tetra,
trash) mean that a singulated feed system is not
particularly suitable unless plastic containers are
first separated from non-plastic containers.
These systems require relatively complicated
space-intensive feed systems, and have a feed
rate limitation of 570 to 680 kg per hour. Capital
cost for these systems, including feed and singu-
lation conveyors, range from $315,000 to
$400,000. These systems are best suited for high
volume plastics reprocessors.
The material properties of plastic can be
sensed and identified through either transmis-
sion or reflection. Transmission identification
mode (x-ray, visible light) is used widely to
determine resins and colours in plastic reclaim-
ing facilities that have a controlled material
stream. It can also be used in some MRFs,
where contamination input stream is limited.
Reflective near infrared (NIR) sensors are used
in dirtier MRF applications, where the mixed
input material stream does not allow for trans-
mission sensor design use.
The mixed container stream is the main reason
for the use of reflective NIR sensors. The sensor
module can be placed on top of the sorting
conveyor and does not come in contact with the
material being sorted. A limitation is that it is
not suitable for multiple sorts unless there are
back-to-back systems, each tasked to separate a
particular resin type according to its physical
and/or chemical properties. For most efficient
plastic sorting, the MRF process should provide
for prior removal of oversize objects and film,
ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and undersize
materials. Capital cost for a complete mass feed
system ranges from $270,000 to $315,000.
Germany has the highest level of automation
for sorting equipment. As with all NIR sensors,
cost is the major reason for hesitation by North
American MRF operators. Experience in devel-
opment and operation of plastics separation sys-
tems shows proper feeding and preparation of
the feed stream as well as the quality of the
sensing system are critical to optimal separation
efficiency.
MSS has developed a high capacity plastic
bottle separator (Alladin) that contains multiple
identifications and sorting capabilities: it performs
two needed tasks--resin and colour identifica-
tion. This is a mass feed system--no singulation
is necessary. The system combines full spectrum
colour and NIR detection in one sensor to allow
separation of three different fractions. The
system has a throughput capacity of 3.6 to
5.5 tonnes/hr. Due to this high throughput
capacity and cost ($270,000), this machine is
geared to serving high volume plastics reprocessors
or regional MRFs with high plastics throughput.
The MSS "Saffire" sorting system ($120,000)
is targeted for MRFs processing commingled
containers. This equipment mechanically sorts a
single resin type (1.5 - 3 tonnes/hr). A number
of units must be placed in a series to undertake
sorts of multiple resin types. There are approxi-
mately 18 systems installed in German MTFs
but none in North America.
TiTech, a Norwegian company, developed
an automated plastics sorting system to separate
a single plastic resin from a mixed stream of
beverage cartons using near infrared particle
detection and selective impulses of compressed
air. The system has capacity for up to four
172 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
tonnes/hr depending on conveyor width and the
material to be sorted. This equipment is now
distributed in North America. Approximate cost
of one unit (one unit is required for each target
resin type) is approximately $145,000.
Eddy Current Separators: These are designed
to separate conductive but non-ferrous metals
from other lightweight commingled materials.
This is a mature technology widely used for
sorting aluminum in MRFs. There are two basic
types of separator designs: one uses a rare earth
ceramic rotor to separate small, non-ferrous
material; the second, which uses a strontium-
ferrite-ceramic rotor, has less power, but is ideal
for separating aluminum cans. Consequently,
these separators can be smaller and less power-
ful and still achieve high recovery rates. High-
speed oscillating magnetic fields are produced,
which induce an electric current in the conduc-
tive object. The oscillating fields can be adjusted
to optimize separation. This electric current
generates a magnetic field, which causes objects
(e.g., aluminum cans) to be repelled from the
primary magnetic field.
Aluminum cans are removed at a point in
the sorting process where they are the dominant
material, or at least one of only a few on the
conveyor. Typically, separators are placed at the
end of a sorting process where aluminum is sep-
arated from a plastic mix, or after positive sort-
ing of plastics takes place. This ensures the
separator operates at maximum efficiency and
that aluminum cans do not get "buried" under
other containers (and that other materials don't
get pulled off with aluminum cans).
Models designed for MRF applications cost
approximately $63,000 to $80,000.
A relatively new development is a machine
that sorts aluminum based on thickness and is
able to differentiate asceptic packages (e.g., tetra
boxes) from aluminum cans. The machine
senses the thickness of aluminum in a container
(using a patented LEAS sensor technology) and
through use of air jets at the end of a sorting
conveyor, ejects the targeted container over one
of two "air knives." This equipment is now used
in several French MRFs, typically at the end of
the container-sorting conveyor after a positive
plastic sort. This manufacturer has expressed
interest in the North American marketplace.
No cost information is available.
NEW AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
There is a trend towards more automation of
processing with equipment such as optical
sorters for glass and plastic, and disc or star
screens for paper sorting. The costs of these new
approaches can only be justified by building
larger, regional MRFs where economies of scale
are possible. Recent research indicates that a
single-stream MRF can be constructed and
operated for $1.17/tonne more than a two-
stream MRF, when capital amortization and all
other factors are taken into account. This is
approximately a five per cent increase in processing
costs for a significant reduction in collection
costs compared to other alternatives. Single-
stream MRFs have higher equipment capital and
maintenance than two-stream MRFs, but the
relatively small increase in processing costs is
more than offset by the significantly quicker and
therefore cheaper collection involved (estimates
indicate a 30 per cent reduction in collection
costs). This conclusion is likely to prompt many
municipalities in Canada to re-evaluate their
current collection and processing operations to
find additional cost-savings through system
design changes.
There also is a trend towards commingling
(collecting a number of materials in a single
stream and designing a MRF to process this
more complicated stream).
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 173
Evaluation
GENERAL SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE
Waste stream composition information shows
that approximately 40 to 50 per cent of residential
waste is potentially recyclable. The actual amount
depends on whether there is a deposit-return
system on various containers, which affects the
amount of plastic and metal packaging available
for recycling. The top eight recyclables in munic-
ipal waste streams in Canada (percentage of
residential waste composition):
Waste
%
Newsprint
12
Mixed paper
11
Plastics
6
Glass
6
Corrugated cardboard
3
Office paper
2
Steel cans
3
Aluminum cans
1
Ideally, each community should do its own waste
characterization analysis to guide its decisions.
The methodology developed by a working
group (including municipalities) of the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment (CCME) is recommended
(http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/waste_e.pdf).
The actual amount recycled, and therefore
the amount of diversion that can be achieved by
recycling systems, depends on the type of collec-
tion system (curbside or depot), and materials
collected.
Good curbside recycling programs should
achieve 90 per cent participation or higher. Even
when households participate they do not always
recycle all material collected by the program,
therefore participation must be multiplied by
capture to estimate the proportion of the waste
stream that will be recovered in a program.
Experience has shown that capture varies by
material, generally related to how complicated
the recycling message is. In mature curbside pro-
grams, people understand that cans, bottles, and
newspapers are recyclable; therefore capture of
these can be as high as 80 or 90 per cent where
good promotion and education programs exist
and in communities with user pay systems,
which encourage participation. Once new mate-
rials are added in an expanded collection pro-
gram, people are often confused (e.g., different
kinds of plastics and mixed paper).
In Canada, curbside recycling programs
(which are the most mature and sophisticated in
the world) divert 15 to 20 per cent of the resi-
dential waste stream. Depot programs generally
divert seven to 12 per cent. Deposit or return-
to-retail systems typically recover more than 80
per cent of targeted beverage containers.
Residue rates also vary depending on how
materials are collected."Typical" residue rates
are five to seven per cent or less for curbside
sorted materials, and 20 per cent for bag or cart
collection systems, or where no curbside sort
takes place.
Wet/dry programs, where waste is collected
in two streams, experience a combined 30 per
cent residue rate in their wet and dry streams
(because wet/dry programs usually direct non-
divertible materials into one stream or the other).
Given the Canada-wide agreed goal of 50 per
cent waste reduction, it is clear that more needs
to be done.
174 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Community Characteristics
A community of any size can recycle.
Traditionally, small communities (5,000 house-
holds or less) use drop-off sites for recycling;
larger communities use curbside programs. One
exception is the City of Calgary, Alta. (popula-
tion 800,000), which has a depot rather than a
curbside program. This decision was made to
provide reasonably convenient recycling at low
cost ($7/household for drop-off depots com-
pared to $22/household for curbside recycling).
The decision on curbside or depot depends on
goals; if high diversion is essential, then curbside
collection is the better option, but is more
expensive than depot collection.
Rural communities can implement curbside
collection if an efficient co-collection system can
collect garbage, recyclables, and organics at the
same time. The Bluewater Recycling Association
in Southwestern Ontario and the Quinte collec-
tion system in Eastern Ontario are excellent
examples of recyclables curbside collection
offered to rural and small town areas. Bluewater
has achieved system efficiencies through co-
collection; Quinte has reached system efficiencies
with extensive curbside sorting--households are
asked to sort materials into nine separate group-
ings at the curb. User pay also plays a strong role
in both of these communities. This leads to a
simple, inexpensive MRF design.
Significant economies of scale are realized in
larger MRF processing operations. This leads
municipalities to share processing facilities
where practical and haul costs are reasonable.
The need to consolidate recyclables for process-
ing is a challenge for small, remote communities.
The decision whether to recycle and what to
recycle needs to be made based on whether sus-
tainable markets and end uses can be found for
the recovered materials. It is usually better to
join forces with neighbouring municipalities to
increase the catchment area for collecting recy-
clables, increase the tonnages collected and the
size of MRF constructed, and therefore lower
the costs (Figure 2.2 on page 152).
There are no simple "rules of thumb" regard-
ing what size of community should consider
establishing its own MRF; the rule is simply the
larger the better.
Costs
Cost has an enormous influence on design
decisions.
The varying cost of recycling programs
depends on vehicles used, how material is col-
lected, what materials are included, whether
bags or boxes are used, distance to markets, and
strength of markets. The economics of recycling
also change significantly from one year to another
based on the material revenues received. These
are dependent on world markets for commodi-
ties and fluctuate with the health of the econ-
omy and demand for different materials.
General guidelines for urban areas are that
the combination of collection plus recyclables
processing should cost approximately $150/tonne
(with collection higher for curbside sort, but
processing lower, and the opposite for single-
stream collection. Revenues for the "basket of
goods" collected will vary throughout Canada
(from $50 to $150/tonne), depending on the
materials collected and revenues available locally.
Depending on market conditions, the net cost
of recycling can be anywhere from $0/tonne to
$100/tonne.
In terms of cost per household, weekly curb-
side collection should cost $20 to $25/house-
hold/year (higher in rural areas). Recyclers
generally estimate that processing and revenues
cancel each other out, and that the net cost of
recycling is actually the collection cost, hence
ongoing efforts to reduce collection costs.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 175
Figure 2.7 shows the capital costs and oper-
ating costs per tonne for a typical MRF based on
the capacity of the MRF in tonnes. Generally,
the higher the capacity, the lower the processing
costs. However, the curve begins to flatten
at a processing capacity of approximately
30,000 tonnes/year, which is the amount of
recyclables collected from a community of more
than 100,000 households (300,000 population).
At lower capacities, processing costs are higher,
and each community needs to decide the point
at which processing costs justify partnering with
neighbours to reduce costs. Longer transportation
costs to the MRF must be considered in this
decision.
176 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
MRF ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS CURVES
FIGURE 2.7
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0
15,000
30,000
45,000
60,000
75,000
90,000
105,000
Capacity (tonnes/yr)
$ per Tonne
Annual Operating
Annualized Capital
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
IWM Model
Using recycled materials to manufacture paper,
aluminum, plastics, glass, and ferrous metal
reduces the energy and raw material require-
ments in the manufacturing processes. The
IWM model was used to determine the environ-
mental effects of recycling versus landfilling the
same material. Two views were considered: the
total waste management system and the net life
cycle inventory.
A value of 1,000 tonnes of typical recyclables
(paper, glass, metals, and plastics) was consid-
ered for each model run, shown in the following
three tables. The energy emissions for residen-
tial collection of recyclables were not included,
because they were considered very small com-
pared to upstream benefits.
Tables 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9 estimate emissions of
greenhouse gas (GHG), acid gas, smog precursors,
and toxic emissions from recycling compared to
landfilling.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 177
Higher
Lower
CO2 Equivalents
GHG Emissions
Highly Engineered LF
Recycling
(tonnes)
(tonnes)
GHG EMISSIONS FROM RECYCLING COMPARED TO LANDFILLING 1,000 TONNES
OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS IN A WELL-DESIGNED LANDFILL WITH LEACHATE
COLLECTION, GAS RECOVERY AND CONVERSION
TABLE 2.7
Similar
Lower*
Similar
Higher
Similar
Similar
Higher
Similar
Lower
Similar
NOx
SOx
HCI
PM
VOCs
Acid Gas and Smog Precursor Emissions
Highly Engineered LF
Recycling
(Kg)
(Kg)
ACID GAS EMISSIONS AND SMOG PRECURSOR EFFECTS FROM RECYCLING COMPARED
TO LANDFILLING OF 1,000 TONNES OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
TABLE 2.8
* Indicates an energy offset or avoided emission.
In the scenario assumed, landfilling produced similar NOx emissions to recycling. The landfilling option resulted in a reduction
in SOx emissions (through energy offsets, shown by an *). HCl emissions were similar.
ENERGY IMPLICATIONS
Recycling requires relatively small amounts of
energy to operate. Energy requirements are
mostly related to fuel for recycling trucks, and
relatively small energy requirements to run con-
veyor belts, balers and other MRF equipment.
Energy input for recycling processing ranges
from 88MJ/tonne for manual processing opera-
tions to 154MJ/tonne for highly mechanized
recycling operations (Tellus Institute study).
The energy expended on collection of recy-
clables is estimated at 475MJ/tonne collected,
compared to 167MJ/tonne for garbage collec-
tion. The difference is related to slower collec-
tion time for recyclables compared to garbage.
This value may decrease as completely com-
mingled collection of recyclables gains in popu-
larity. GHG emissions related to collection of
recyclables are estimated at 33.6 kg CO2 per
tonne of recyclables collected.
However, recycling of materials has a signifi-
cant energy effect in reducing the amount of raw
material extracted (which is an energy intensive
business), and also in remanufacturing using
recycled materials. Aluminum is the best example
of energy saved. It takes 95 per cent less energy
to manufacture aluminum from recycled alu-
minum than from virgin material. The relative
energy intensity is less dramatic for other mate-
rials, but is still significant.
178 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Lower (offsets)
Lower (offsets)
Lower (offsets)
Higher
Lower (offsets)
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Lower
Higher
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
AIR
Pb (kg)
Hg (kg)
Cd (kg)
Dioxins (TEQ) (g)
WATER
Pb (kg)
Hg (kg)
Cd (kg)
BOD (kg)
Dioxins (TEQ) (mg)
Toxic Emissions
Highly Engineered LF
Recycling
TOXIC EMISSIONS FROM RECYCLING COMPARED TO LANDFILLING
OF 1,000 TONNES OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
TABLE 2.9
Lessons Learned
Collection represents the highest cost in recycling.
Measures to lower these costs are evaluated by
municipalities across Canada.
Ongoing promotion and education is critical
to the success of recycling programs to ensure
that residents understand which materials to
include, and also that recycling behaviour is
constantly reinforced, resulting in high partici-
pation and capture. Generally, the more materials
collected, the cheaper the program (depending
on location and technologies used).
Lessons learned in co-collection programs:
More time on route is needed to collect
recyclables and garbage;
Co-collection trucks are often long, and may
be harder to maneuver along some streets;
Mechanical/maintenance problems may be an
issue with some specialized vehicles (hydraulics);
Commingled collection vs. more segregated
collection increases contamination rates and
may decrease the amount of materials marketed;
Determining the ultimate compartment for
multi-compartment trucks has been problematic
in some co-collection programs;
Significant program planning is required since
it may not be simple to add materials after a
co-collection vehicle has been designed and
built (vis-à-vis compartment volumes).
Glass breakage is a concern with some
bag co-collection systems. Some strategies to
reduce/eliminate glass breakage:
Collect glass separately (e.g., collecting glass
on side racks on the trucks);
Exclude glass from a co-collection program
(e.g., encouraging residents to recycle glass
through a drop-off program);
Lighten compaction to reduce breakage (how-
ever, this decreases collection efficiencies);
Cushion glass by collecting and commingling
with many other materials, including paper
and plastics;
Some communities separate glass and paper
products to reduce the contamination of paper
with glass fragments.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 179
*Source: Perspectives on Solid Waste Management in Canada; An Assessment of the Physical, Economic and Energy Dimensions of Solid Waste
Management in Canada, prepared by Resource Integration Systems Ltd for Environment Canada, March 1996
EXAMPLES OF ENERGY SAVINGS RESULTING FROM USING RECYCLED
RATHER THAN VIRGIN FEEDSTOCK IN MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS
TABLE 2.10
UNBLEACHED COATED
BOXBOARD
LINERBOARD
CORRUGATED MEDIUM
ALUMINUM
GLASS
STEEL
Material
Energy Requirements
Using Virgin Material
Inputs (MJ/t)*
Energy Requirements
Using Recycled
Material (MJ/t)*
Reduction in Energy
Requirements When
Using Recycled Rather
than Virgin Inputs (%)
71,321
73,552
55,274
241,688
15,686
22,774
43
44
27
96
27
14
40,483
41,203
40,111
9,668
11,503
19,637
180 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Some dry components of the waste stream (paper, glass, metal, plastic)
can be collected through drop-off or curbside collection
Dropped-off material: directly to market if clean enough or
further processing
Curbside material: collected in different streams (through separate
compartments in the collection truck) and processed at a fairly simple
MRF (material recovery facility). More mixing of streams requires
more complicated MRF design
15% to 25% municipal waste stream diversion, depending on materials
collected and residue rates at the MRF
2% to 5% residue at simple MRFs with source separation
20% to 40% residue (depending on materials) with commingled collection
Any size community, but different designs required
Small communities (<10,000 households) and low-density rural areas:
Drop-off collection performs well. Co-operation with neighbouring
communities can facilitate curbside collection, e.g., Bluewater and Quinte
areas of rural Ontario. Recyclables have to be shipped to larger facilities
Larger urban communities: curbside collection is cost-effective
Recyclable processing follows a steep cost curve; cost decreases
substantially as MRF size increases, particularly beyond 30,000 tonnes/year.
Drop-off depot costs: $10 to $25 per household/yr, including processing.
Lower end for large system, e.g., Calgary; high end for a rural consortium
Large urban curbside collection (including processing) cost of about
$25/hh/year, depending on housing density
Collection and processing $150/tonne; revenues $50 to $150/t; net $0 to $100/t
Processing costs decrease with economies of scale. Smaller communities
(< 10,000 hhlds) need to combine processing needs with neighbours
Politically driven; a community decision regardless of cost
Mandated recycling systems (e.g., Ontario)
Should start with an assessment of markets, but this rarely happens
Landfill crisis (i.e., existing landfill is running out of capacity, high new landfill
costs and public opposition)
Availability of markets for recovered materials should drive, but
often does not
DESCRIPTION
GENERAL PERFORMANCE
COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
COSTS
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED ACQUISITION
Summary
Factor
RECYCLING SUMMARY
TABLE 2.11
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 181
More efficient methods of collection and processing of recyclables
Star and disc screens have improved processing of papers, making single
stream collection of recyclables more viable
Optical sort systems for plastics have limited success; more recent designs
work better
Saves resources otherwise lost to landfill or thermal treatment
Paper: highest and best use to recycle into new paper. Avoids the need to cut
trees; manufacturing energy savings (recycling is less energy intensive than
making paper from virgin pulp). The "upstream" benefits of recycling are
significant, in that each tonne of paper or metal recycled saves a number
of tonnes of greenhouse gases and other air and water contaminants
Metals (e.g., steel, aluminum): conserves non-renewable resources, reduces
manufacturing energy, and reduces environmental effects
Glass: saves natural resources but energy savings less significant.
Substituting glass as an aggregate saves on the environmental effects
of mining new aggregate
Curbside pick-up or drop-off depot is a low energy process, mainly from
transport. MRFs have minimal energy needs (conveyor and baler)
Major benefit is the "upstream" energy benefit of reducing the need for
primary resource extraction (see Environmental Effects above)
Materials produced are totally vulnerable to market conditions.
When markets fail, recycling an expensive way to process waste
Solutions to market vulnerability:
structuring contracts to share market risk with either a recycling
contractor, or directly with the market itself
sign a long term contract (five yrs), with guaranteed rates
The early years focused on efficient collection and processing.
Collection more expensive part, therefore attention now on reducing collection
costs. Current trends moving towards faster single stream collection with more
expensive MRF as cheaper overall
NEW AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
ENERGY IMPLICATIONS
LESSONS LEARNED
Summary
Factor
General Description
C
omposting refers to a family of processes
that can be used to recycle organic fractions
of the waste stream into a valuable end product
called compost. Composting is a biological
process in which organic matter is consumed
through microbial activity, in the presence of
oxygen, to produce a peat-like humus. In an
oxygen-rich (or aerobic) environment, compost-
ing releases a significant amount of energy due
to the metabolic activity of the bacteria, fungi,
and actinomycetes present on the waste. In fact,
it is often desirable within a composting process
to"turn" the composting piles regularly or venti-
late them continuously to remove excess heat,
since temperatures above 65°C can readily be
achieved, and this limits microbial activity and
the efficiency of the composting process. A well-
run process requires effective management of
the same basic elements needed by all aerobic
organisms--an adequate supply of oxygen,
water, and food.
Composting reduces the waste mass by
approximately 40 per cent (through evaporation of
moisture). It is not the only process suitable for
processing organic waste (see Anaerobic
Digestion, Section 4). Adding some low-value
paper products means that composting and
anaerobic digestion (AD) can address 50 per cent
or more of the waste stream.
The chief objectives of composting residential
or municipal solid waste are to:
Divert solid waste from landfill;
Stabilize organic material; and
Produce a reusable, beneficial soil amendment.
Generally, higher quality compost is
produced from source-separated feedstock.
Composting of MSW faces tougher challenges
meeting compost quality guidelines. Reasonable
revenues can be obtained for high quality com-
post, whereas zero revenue can be expected for
lower quality compost.
Because organic material makes up approxi-
mately 40 to 50 per cent of residential solid
waste, composting must be part of any system
seeking to achieve diversion levels of 50 per cent
or more (residential and IC&I combined,
excluding construction and demolition waste).
182 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
3
S E C T I O N
Composting
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 183
SIMPLIFIED COMPOSTING SCHEMATIC
FIGURE 3.1
Incoming
Material
Pre-processing
& Debagging
Composting
2-3 wks
enclosed or
in-vessel
8-12 wks open
windrow
Trommel
Open Air Curing
"Overs"
Post
Processing
"Unders"
Residue
to Disposal
Finished
Compost
Bulk Sales
Trommel
"Overs"
Blending with
sand, topsoil
Finished
Compost
Residue to
Disposal
Bagging
Retail sales
SYSTEM APPROACHES
Many municipalities encourage backyard com-
posting as the lowest-cost approach to diverting
some organics from the waste stream. Many
collect and compost yard wastes (e.g., brush,
leaves, grass clippings, and other summer yard
wastes), because they already collect this material
separately, or because their province mandates
such composting. Many municipalities have
more comprehensive, year-round programs to
collect a broader range of residential organic
wastes (including food wastes) because of local
policy or provincial mandate. Some municipalities
have included provision to compost commercial
organic wastes to encourage landfill diversion or
to improve economies of scale for residential
programs.
The Composting Council of Canada's 1998
national survey found more than 340 composting
facilities in Canada, with different technologies
represented in every province and the Yukon.
Those facilities processed an aggregate of more
than 1.6 million tonnes of solid waste. Though
challenging to implement, a wide range of prece-
dents have been successfully established, pro-
viding new facility planners with a wealth of
models to build on.
Backyard Composting
The simplest and most cost-effective way to
remove residential food and garden waste from
the waste stream is through backyard composting.
Citizens benefit directly from their own efforts
by producing valuable compost for their gardens,
and municipalities save collection and manage-
ment costs.
Municipal backyard composting initiatives
range from simple educational programs, to
active programs subsidizing the purchase of
backyard composting units, to intensive programs
to install free units in virtually every backyard.
The GAP method (see www.csr.org)
assumes that each distributed backyard com-
poster diverts 100 kg/year of organic waste.
Some provinces assume a higher number (e.g.,
B.C. assumes 125 kg/hh/yr). General rules of
thumb assume that 25 to 30 per cent of single-
family households will use a backyard composter
in moderately promoted programs and approxima-
tely 55 per cent in an intensely promoted program.
Programs providing municipal subsidy (com-
monly around 50 per cent of purchase cost) for
backyard composter purchases were relatively
common in Canada in the 1990s. When sup-
ported by education and promotion, this can be
a cost-effective method, but has a hard-to-measure
effect on solid waste diversion.
One of the most aggressive backyard com-
posting programs mounted in Canada was in the
City of Port Colborne, Ont., in 1993. Free back-
yard composters were delivered and installed for
every home in the city (population 20,000).
More than 80 per cent of households agreed to
participate. Student employees trained in back-
yard composting, who went door-to-door, heavily
supported the program.
A detailed assessment of the project four years
later found that 63 per cent of households were
still using the system effectively, collectively divert-
ing approximately 27 per cent of the city's residen-
tial waste stream. Cost for building and operating
the system was $32 to $45/tonne of organic material
diverted--well below the cost of other available
waste management systems (including collection
costs), according to a city report.
Some critics cite issues, such as nuisance
potential of backyard composters, the possibility
for generating GHGs from poorly managed
composters or the possibility of pesticide
residues on food entering the garden. Minor
effects have been found but do not detract from
the significant benefits of backyard composting
in raising awareness of waste management issues.
184 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Leaf and Yard Waste
Many municipalities historically have collected some
yard wastes,typically leaf and yard waste in spring
and fall.These materials are almost always processed
at outdoor windrow facilities.Municipalities provide
one of the following initiatives:
Drop-off depots;
Dedicated collection in the spring or fall;
Weekly or biweekly curbside collection
programs during the entire growing season.
Most yard waste composting programs suc-
cessfully operate at total costs, (collection and pro-
cessing, net of any proceeds from selling compost),
that are equal to or better than the prevailing local
cost of conventional waste collection and disposal.
Some municipalities, enjoying relative success
in collecting and composting yard wastes, have
also collected food waste from households,
usually either because of a policy to divert more
waste from disposal, or because of a provincial
mandate to do so. In some provinces it is relatively
easy to add fruit and vegetable waste to an exist-
ing yard waste program without affecting opera-
tions or permit requirements.
Residential Organic Waste (leaf and
yard waste, food waste, some paper)
A handful of large Canadian municipalities have
dedicated systems to collect and compost a larger
fraction of the organic waste stream. The highest
concentration of year-round comprehensive
household organics collection programs is found
in Nova Scotia, where organic waste has been
banned from landfill disposal by the province.
To ensure the highest percentage recovery
and the best quality final product, household
organic material should be source-separated
by the householder and collected separately
from other household waste. For this reason,
municipalities are closely examining cost-effective,
source-separation strategies for residential
organic waste.
Comprehensive household organics collection
programs offer year-round municipal collection
of a broader range of organic material, generally
including kitchen food wastes. All require a
more sophisticated composting facility to
process such wastes year round. Many, but not
all, have moved to capital-intensive enclosed
composting facilities. Most tend to operate at a
net cost (collection and processing, less revenue
from compost sold) that is higher than conven-
tional collection and landfill disposal of waste.
This tendency towards higher cost has prevented
these projects from becoming more ubiquitous
in North America and the UK.
Organic Waste from the IC&I Sector
Most municipalities play a limited role in the
IC&I waste management, preferring to leave this
to private-sector collectors and private disposal
facilities. Perhaps as a result, few municipalities
compost IC&I waste. Occasionally, municipalities
compost IC&I waste because they want to
improve the economies of scale of existing
operations, or because the IC&I sector may be
a source of desirable waste (e.g., carbonaceous
wastes to balance out high-nitrogen food wastes
from residential sources). Often, IC&I waste
contains fewer contaminants than residential
wastes, simply because it can consist of uniform
industrial by-products, such as food processing
wastes or "off-spec" material (e.g., expired food).
A distinct advantage of including IC&I
wastes in a composting system is that the private
waste generators are likely to provide their own
shipping to the composting facility, and will still
pay a tipping fee. An unlimited range of wastes
can be received under such programs, including:
Paper mill sludge;
Other, low-solids sludge, such as from food
processing;
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 185
Off-spec food products, such as jams, jellies,
ravioli;
Slaughterhouse wastes;
Non-recyclable paper grades.
Mixed-waste Composting
Mixed-waste composting refers to:
Composting of the whole municipal waste
stream without recyclable source separation
(Medina, Ohio, and other U.S. communities,
but not in Canada);
Composting of MSW from which recyclables
are removed (Town of Tracy, Que., or the City
of Edmonton, Alta.).
In this approach, essentially no special col-
lection system is used. The entire waste stream
is collected as recyclables and garbage. The
garbage bag is delivered to a composting facility
equipped with intensive systems for pre-processing
and post-processing. These "clean up" the mixed
waste so that a useable compost product can be
produced. Often, the pre-processing system is
designed to recover some marketable recyclables
from the waste stream as well.
Note: This equipment and approach are
used where organics are collected as part of the
"wet" stream in a two-stream wet/dry system,
such as in the City of Guelph and Northumberland
County, Ont., and the Regional Solid Waste
Commission of Westmorland-Albert, N.B.
A problem with this approach is that the
final compost product is inferior, may include a
higher level of visible contaminants, such as
glass and plastic, and may be characterized by
higher levels of heavy metals. Given the types of
compost quality standards prevalent in the U.S.,
facilities of this type have been able to meet reg-
ulatory standards for compost, if not necessarily
market-driven standards.
In Canada, where provincial standards exist,
such plants cannot meet Canadian compost
standards. Some notable exceptions are the
Comporec facility, which operates in the Town
of Tracy, Que., and Edmonton's facility. The
Comporec plant compost does not currently
meet federal compost guidelines developed by
the CCME for unrestricted use compost,
because of elevated levels of copper, but meets
restricted use guidelines. Edmonton's facility
co-composts sewage biosolids with mixed waste
after source separation of recyclables, and
produces compost that is sold. The market
may be affected by some public distaste for
co-composting with sewage sludge.
Landspreading
Landspreading is the placement of organic mate-
rials on the ground for decomposition under
uncontrolled conditions. Where circumstances
allow (usually only for fall leaf wastes), land-
spreading can be significantly cheaper than
composting, since no facility needs to be con-
structed. Simple interventions, such as reducing
feedstock particle size or periodically turning
materials with a plough, can help accelerate
decomposition.
Organic waste used on agricultural land
must benefit crop production and pose minimal
risks to plant growth, crop quality, long-term
land productivity, public and animal health, and
local environment quality.
This approach is most applicable to shredded
leaf wastes. The Regional Municipality of
Waterloo, Ont., discovered that landspreading of
shredded leaf wastes costs about $2/tonne, com-
pared to $8/tonne to compost at their own site.
In a research project in 2000 to explore the via-
bility of expanding their program, the region
found the greatest challenge was identifying
sufficient farmers willing to take the material.
Some provincial jurisdictions may still
require that a permit be procured before a land-
spreading program can proceed.
186 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Technologies
COLLECTION
Collection - Service Level
There are a number of options available to
collect organic wastes, including:
Public drop-off only;
Seasonal, unscheduled curbside service;
Weekly or biweekly curbside service.
The latter two need to be evaluated in the
context of recycling and garbage collection carried
out by the municipality, to assess if the addition
of organics warrants a complete collection
redesign where the benefits of co-collection or
reduced collection frequency are viable.
Public Drop-off Only - Is used by many municipalities,
and provides the most basic level of yard waste
programs. Residents self-haul most of the yard
waste to central locations. Even in municipalities
that have full-service, weekly curbside collection
of yard waste, self-haul is often left in place as an
option for those waste generators producing
more yard waste that the system is designed to
collect (e.g., large quantities of brush), or who
simply prefer to self-haul.
Public drop-off is generally the system of
choice for municipalities where low cost is more
important that achieving significant waste diversion.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 187
Generally lowest level of waste diversion, since
inconvenience to residents is highest
Potential for problems with contaminants if
drop-off area is not well supervised
Potential odour issues, particularly with grass
clippings, since grass may have to sit for some
time before processing
Lowest-cost option; most of the work is done by
residents
Potential for good policing of contaminants, if
drop-off area is well supervised
Disadvantages
Advantages
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF PUBLIC YARD WASTE DROP-OFF SYSTEMS
TABLE 3.1
Weekly or Biweekly Curbside Collection of Organics:
Is most common in large municipalities offering
comprehensive yard waste diversion. It is also
the only system used if a municipality is collect-
ing a broad range of residential organics. An
approach that parallels garbage and recycling
collection is created--i.e., organic waste is
collected on a regular basis, on the same day
each week (or every other week) in a given part
of the municipality, during the entire year (or
growing season, if only for yard waste). This
system is used by municipalities seeking maximum
waste diversion, for which they are willing to
pay. Additional collection resources must be
made available when demand peaks (at addi-
tional cost). Some municipalities reduce collection
frequency in the winter, because there is less
organic waste and cooler temperatures mean
fewer odour or insect concerns.
Seasonal Curbside Service: Is generally used in
spring and fall, coinciding with maximum pro-
duction of yard waste by municipalities with
dedicated curbside leaf collection programs.
Residents set out leaf and yard waste curbside
(in plastic or paper bags, plastic or metal
reusable bins). Generally, the municipality will
publish a start and end date for the service.
Seasonal service is the system of choice for
municipalities seeking to offer good-quality
leaf and yard waste collection service, without
collecting summer yard waste.
188 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Higher cost than public drop-off
Dedicated curbside service means higher waste
diversion
Generally less expensive than weekly collection
through whole season
Disadvantages
Advantages
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SEASONAL CURBSIDE SERVICE
TABLE 3.2
Highest cost
Weekly collection can lead to inefficient use of
vehicles during low-growth seasons, volume of
materials to be collected at peak seasons can
overwhelm collection fleet and create problems
if material is not picked up when expected
Generally produces highest levels of waste
diversion
Regularity of collection makes participation easy
for residents
Streets are tidy because waste is not at curb for
long
Disadvantages
Advantages
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF WEEKLY OR BIWEEKLY CURBSIDE COLLECTION
TABLE 3.3
Plastic Bags Debagged at Site: Collection of organic
waste in plastic bags is common, but can result in
compost quality problems since all plastic cannot
be removed. Plastic bags are a convenient and
low-cost packaging system, readily acceptable to
residents. As well, bag makers have promoted
this option to municipal officials. The decision
to collect bagged waste and deal with the
bags later is driven primarily by maximizing
public convenience. Debagging curbside takes
roughly twice as long per tonne collected as
getting the bags off the street. It costs a lot to
have a truck idling at the curb while staff debag.
There is considerable debate between the propo-
nents and opponents of using plastic bags in
organic waste programs.
Many municipalities tried debagging yard
waste by hand, at the composting site, using
their own or contract staff. With leaves, this can
be back-breaking work, which is carried out late
in the season, in unfavourable weather condi-
tions. If plastic bags containing grass sit in the
hot sun at curbside, odours are generated
because of anaerobic conditions. If these bags
sit on-site for days or weeks it creates odour
problems and a poor work environment.
Several proprietary debagging machines and
systems have been invented, but they tend to
only capture some of the plastic, and are expen-
sive to purchase and operate. A satisfactory,
all-mechanical system for debagging remains
elusive. Because of problems marketing compost
that contains plastic remnants, several Canadian
Collection - Organic Waste Set Out
The methods for curbside collection or to package
organic waste for drop-off include:
No packaging (yard waste only);
Plastic bags (debagged at site);
Plastic bags (debagged at curb--yard waste only);
Compostable paper bags (yard waste only);
Compostable paper bags (for food waste as well);
Rigid plastic containers.
Loose Material: Collection can include Christmas
trees, seasonal brush, or leaves collected using
vacuum equipment. In a City of Ottawa, Ont.,
pilot project, staff determined that vacuum
collection is more costly per tonne than regular
curbside pick up. Curbside brush chippers or
large-volume, grapple-equipped trucks are used
to handle brush in particular. Compost facility
operators can easily process vacuumed leaves, as
they are clean, pure, dense, and partly shredded.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 189
Does not work with grass clippings
Requires use of specialized equipment in many
cases--vacuums, chippers, grapples
Vacuums also pick up gravel and litter, which
are problematic
Lowest cost and effort level for residents
Tends to mean low contamination, since there is no
packaging source of contamination, and residents
can not hide litter inside bag or other containers
Generally lower cost than de-bagging leaves
by hand
Disadvantages
Advantages
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF LOOSE MATERIAL SET OUT
TABLE 3.4
Debagged Organic Waste at Curb (Yard Waste
Only): Curbside debagging avoids some of the
challenges of debagging at the composting site.
This approach is used by the City of Barrie,
Ont., during the entire yard waste season. In
return for reduced truck productivity, a clean
product can be produced, eliminating problems
at the composting facility. Crews hang jute or
similar sturdy bags at the back of the truck. As
plastic bags are removed from yard waste, they
are placed in the jute bags. When full, the jute
bags can simply be added to the truck hopper
for later recovery. As an incentive for truck
crews, it is best to inspect each incoming load as
it is dumped, and require collection crews to
clean up and remove any missed contaminants
at that time. Municipalities that have abandoned
other approaches, and who are committed to
producing high diversion and a quality compost,
have adopted this approach.
municipalities (Toronto, Peel) no longer collect
yard waste in plastic bags. This material must be
set out in paper bags or plastic and metal
reusable bins.
Some collection systems designed for a
broad range or organics, including residential
food wastes, continue to use plastic bags, but
debagging is difficult since it can be wet and
odorous. As well, frozen food waste collected in
the winter cannot be debagged, since the bags
tend to fold into the waste.
The only option in this event is to shred the
waste, including bags, and to try to recover as
much of the plastic as possible during subse-
quent pre- and post-processing steps, which can
be challenging.
190 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Plastic bag removal is problematic. No simple,
effective system exists
Plastic bags can be used to hide other garbage,
especially in a user pay collection environment
Plastic and other contaminants left in compost
can complicate marketing
Plastic bags tend to increase odour problems
with grass clippings and food wastes
Regardless of its content, a plastic bag at the
curbside does not promote diversion
Lowest-cost collection among curbside options
which use bags
Plastic bag is cheap, familiar to residents
Existing collection fleet (packer trucks) well-suited
using plastic bags
Disadvantages
Advantages
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF PLASTIC BAGS, DEBAGGED AT SITE
TABLE 3.5
Compostable Paper Bags (Yard Waste Only): First
adopted as the exclusive method used by the
City of Ottawa, Ont., for its comprehensive
curbside system, and subsequently by the City
of Toronto and the Regional Municipality of
Peel, Ont., to address compost quality problems.
All three municipalities allow residents to put
yard waste in reusable bins or cardboard boxes.
Yard waste bags need to be shredded to acceler-
ate their decomposition, but otherwise create no
special operational problems. However, these
bags are more costly than plastic bags and need
to be made especially available to residents--the
best approach is for the municipality to encourage
local retailers to stock them, however, at the
outset of the program, the municipality is well
advised to distribute free samples to each house-
hold (bag manufacturers will help interested
communities with this effort). Ongoing use is
enforced by collection crew refusal to collect
targeted materials set out in an undesirable
manner.
Compostable Paper Bag (for Organic Waste):
In recent years, paper bags for wet food waste
have been developed and tested in a number of
Ontario communities, including Ottawa, Simcoe
County, and Sarnia. The Food Waste Bag is pro-
duced in a large or small format and is virtually
leak proof as a result of its biodegradable cellulose
lining. The small bag has proven to be particularly
popular for moving food waste from the kitchen
to an outdoor bin. While the bag is relatively
expensive at this time (10 small bags for $4), as
sales increase the price of the bags is certain to
fall (as was the case with the larger yard-waste
paper bag).
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 191
Significantly higher truck and crew cost than
debagging at site
Reduced collection productivity
Produces clean product, while allowing resident
convenience
Households that mix non-targeted materials with
organics can be identified and educated
Disadvantages
Advantages
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF PLASTIC BAGS, DEBAGGED AT CURB
TABLE 3.6
Relatively high cost of the bags. Either resident
or taxpayer will have to absorb cost
Provides for easy collection and tidy packaging,
without any of the downside of having to debag
No specialized equipment required
Organic waste will not go anaerobic because of the
bag's ability to "breathe"
Disadvantages
Advantages
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF COMPOSTABLE PAPER BAGS
TABLE 3.7
Rigid Plastic Containers: Used in programs that
collect a broad range of organic wastes, including
food. The large carts are intended to contain res-
idential food wastes, and most yard wastes.
Relatively large, wheeled carts have been
used for this purpose in central Europe for many
years, where regular curbside collection of
organic wastes for composting was first devel-
oped. The carts are relatively easy to move
because they are on wheels. Since they are
closed containers, they can effectively seal
in odours, and resist attack by animals.
Mechanized systems are widely available to facil-
itate the rapid lifting of such carts for emptying
into collection vehicles. It has been argued that
rigid containers (much like the blue, grey, black,
or green box used in recycling programs) tend
to encourage participation, since the physical
presence of the container at the curbside is a
constant program reminder.
Some Canadian municipalities have also
experimented with smaller rigid containers,
designed to contain food waste only, as demon-
strated in the City of Toronto.
The chief problem with rigid containers is
cost, and this is partly why more municipalities
have not moved to adopt this system. However,
this situation is in constant flux as new containers
are developed (the Toronto bin plus a kitchen
catcher is approximately $20, but cost depends
on the number being ordered).
Collection - Collection of Brush
Should brush be collected with or separately
from other organic wastes? Many municipalities
have not considered the possibility that brush
can be collected on its own and commingle
brush with other yard wastes, which leads to
one of the following problems:
Windrows contain unground brush, which
does not compost, and has to be removed from
the windrow at the end of the process;
All combined waste has to be ground, at signifi-
cant increased cost (from $15 to $20 per tonne);
Combined yard waste that is left unprocessed
while waiting for a grinder can result in odour
problems. However, it can still be composted
if the larger woody material and brush is
screened out and chipped. The brush can
increase the porosity of the pile, which
enhances the composting process.
Brush (branches, hedge trimmings,
Christmas trees, stumps) is unique among yard
wastes in that it needs to be ground or chipped
192 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Cost higher than any other system
Well-established system to collect all types of
organic waste neatly, while controlling odours and
preventing animal access
With some modification, existing types of waste
hauling vehicles can be used
Visibility of container tends to promote participation
Disadvantages
Advantages
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF RIGID PLASTIC CONTAINERS
TABLE 3.8
before processing. To minimize the capital and
operating costs of grinding or chipping, the
brush can be separated from the other organic
waste material before it is collected.
Grass and residential food wastes need to
be processed ideally on the day they are received
at the compost site, and many provinces have
specific requirements on this. Leaves should be
processed into a windrow within a week of
receipt. Brush and other woody wastes can be
accumulated for an indefinite period before pro-
cessing, because they will not begin to compost
and create odours. The brush can be accumulated
and stockpiled for long periods of time to justify
bringing in grinding equipment.
Brush should generally be managed separately
from other yard wastes via:
Some element of resident self-haul, if this is
practical in local circumstances;
Periodic collection of loose brush waste
perhaps in the last week of each month during
the growing season. This could be done using
either conventional equipment (packer trucks)
or specialized equipment (such as dump
trucks with chipper trailers).
Since most residents can store brush without
creating odour problems on their own property,
the key is to limit collection, and to keep from
commingling brush wastes with other materials
that do not need to be ground.
PROCESSING
Processing - Centralized Composting
Processing
All centralized composting technologies typically
include three major components:
Pre-processing;
Composting; and
Post-processing.
Pre-processing: Involves turning the source-
separated organic waste into a suitable, refined
feedstock, ready for introduction to the com-
posting process. Pre-processing techniques
include particle size reduction, screening, and
addition of amendments. Pre-processing opera-
tions include bag opening (if required), shred-
ding, mixing, and manual inspection. The
amount and cost of pre-processing required is
dependent on the nature of the organic waste
stream and the technology used.
Every composting process requires hard,
carbonaceous wastes, such as wood, brush,
and large cardboard boxes, to be shredded.
Technologically, simple composting facilities that
process relatively uncontaminated feedstock may
need no pre-processing other than the size-
reduction of one or a few components of their
total input stream. Some enclosed composting
technologies also require that all of the feed-
stock be fully shredded before composting,
and/or blended with amending materials, such
as wood chips. Generally, the more contaminat-
ed the feedstock wastes, the greater the need for
pre-processing technologies to ''clean up" the
material before composting. Pre-processing sys-
tems can be quite capital-intensive, and some--
involving hand-picking of contaminants from
conveyors--can also be highly labour-intensive.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 193
It should be noted that one of the challenges
in designing an organics diversion system is to
decide whether the advantages of collection
systems that produce a more contaminated
waste stream are worth the much higher pre-
processing cost of removing those contaminants
at the facility, and the lower quality of end product.
Composting: Includes many technologies and
vendors, all of which work in a range of applica-
tions and scales. All systems are designed to
provide an environment in which the natural
process of aerobic degradation of the organic
waste is optimized, so that a stable product
(compost) can be produced. For a composting
equipment and technology supplier list in
Canada, see the Composting Council of
Canada's Web site at www.compost.org.
Technologies can be categorized as:
Turned-windrow composting: waste is formed
into long piles called "windrows" and regularly
mixed and manipulated to achieve a number
of purposes;
Aerated static pile composting: similar to
windrow composting waste is not moved and
is aerated either actively or passively while
remaining in place;
Enclosed channel composting: waste is con-
tained, usually between parallel walls of some
type, and regularly moved and turned by some
form of suspended machinery;
In-vessel composting: any technology where
the waste is sealed into a chamber, where the
environment is closely controlled, and facility
personnel do not normally enter. In-vessel sys-
tems include vessels that are fixed, portable,
and even non-rigid. In-vessel systems may or
may not include internal systems for agitation
or maceration while in process, and commonly
include internal systems for monitoring and
addition of oxygen.
The first three can take place inside or out-
side of buildings (generally channels are inside
buildings, static piles and windrows outside).
In all cases, composting occurs in an environment
194 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
The Regional Municipality of Niagara, Ont., facility at Port Colborne is an approach to open windrow
composting applicable to many Canadian communities. The region owns a composting facility located at
a landfill that is operated by a private sector contractor with specialized expertise. Originally established
in 1990 as a 300-tonne-per-year leaf-composting site, the facility has gradually grown to process
25,000 tonnes per year of a diverse range of organic materials. The site operates with an active composting
area of four acres of asphalt, plus several acres of adjacent land used to store finished compost and
soils for blending. The entire operation takes place outdoors, six days per week, 52 weeks per year.
Range of wastes processed includes: yard wastes, food wastes from restaurants and major
food processing industries, paper mill sludges, etc. Most originates in the IC&I sector, and much of
that originates from outside of the Niagara Region. Bringing in such wastes offsets the region's own
operational costs. The facility operates with five full-time staff and seasonal staff. Although located on
a landfill property, the site is within 150 metres of a local trucking firm, and 0.5 km of a residential neigh-
bourhood. It has successfully processed a diverse organic waste stream and operates within provincial
regulations.
that is open to and accessible to machinery,
facility staff, and the atmosphere.
Turned-windrow and aerated static pile
systems tend to use public-domain technology,
albeit sometimes with the aid of specialized
equipment provided by various vendors.
Enclosed channel and in-vessel systems tend to
be available only from vendors of proprietary
technologies.
Turned-windrow Composting
The term windrow refers to a pile of material
that is characterized by a generally triangular
cross-section and a length that may vary signifi-
cantly depending on available space. What
defines turned-windrow composting is that the
material being processed is formed into a standing
pile, and is regularly and completely moved or
"turned" (once a day to once a month), usually
by mobile heavy equipment. This aerates the
material, macerates it, blends it, and often
gradually moves it through a processing area.
Turned-windrow composting includes facili-
ties that pile the material in much larger piles,
and includes facilities in which all composting
operations are carried out inside an enclosed
building. Most windrow facilities,however,are
located outdoors.
Commonly, windrows are between two and
four metres in height, since smaller windrows
would not retain the requisite heat involved in the
process,and larger ones are hard to move and aerate.
Regular turning of material can result in
a finished, stable (fully degraded) product in
approximately 13 weeks, though some facilities
choose to take longer, and save operating costs.
Some mechanism to apply water to the material
is often required.
The greatest advantage of turned-windrow
composting is its flexibility. Many facilities dra-
matically vary windrow size, turning frequency
(from several times daily to once a month) and
how space at the site is used, to accommodate
wide fluctuations in incoming waste tonnages
and composition.
Windrow composting sites process leaf and
yard wastes and can be used to process materials
collected by SSO programs, although this is less
common and requires an experienced operator
to avoid odour problems.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 195
OPEN WINDROW COMPOSTING SYSTEM
FIGURE 3.2
Three Open Windrow Piles
Source: www.cfe.cornell.edu
Outdoor, turned-windrow composting is
the most widely used system for centralized
composting in North America. It can deal with
a wide variety of organic wastes at almost any
operating scale. Windrow composting has been
successfully operated in the range of 5 tonnes/
day to 100 tonnes/day (1,000 tonnes/yr to
25,000 tonnes/yr); large mechanized windrow
operations may go up to 100,000 tonnes/yr.
Given low demand for capital equipment,
and low operating costs, windrow systems are
widely recognized as a lowest-cost composting
approach. Windrow composting has rather large
land requirements if more than modest quantities
of organic materials are processed. It is a non-
proprietary technology that is most viable in
rural sites or areas with large buffer zones.
A properly managed turned-windrow com-
posting facility does not pose a greater odour
problem than more capital-intensive, enclosed
facilities. Odour problems are managed through
facility design and management expertise, with
on-site staff well-trained in compost biochem-
istry and trouble-shooting when problems arise.
However, there have been a number of cases in
Canada where windrow facilities have failed due
to poor or inconsistent management.
Capital costs of open windrow composting
facilities are highly variable, yet tend to
be relatively low. For example, a facility of
30,000 tonnes annual capacity should cost
approximately $2 million, exclusive of land costs.
Operating costs tend to be $20 to $30 per tonne
(including amortized capital). This facility could
process leaf and yard waste from 300,000 house-
holds, at a cost of $3.00/household for processing
only. Collection would be an additional $8 to
$10/household/year or $80 to $100 per tonne.
Placing piles out-of-doors exposes them to
precipitation, which can result in runoff, which
must be collected and treated, or added to
incoming feedstock to increase its moisture con-
tent. Piles can be placed under a roof, although
this adds to capital costs, and can make it more
difficult to move material around.
Many channel and in-vessel composting
systems use windrow (or aerated static pile)
composting to complete the composting process
after the initial composting using the more
capital-intensive channel or in-vessel technology
is completed.
196 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Large area required
May have odour management problems if not
managed well
Siting any outdoor facility may be difficult
politically
Great flexibility to vary feedstock and capacity
Relatively low capital costs
Relatively low operating costs
Disadvantages
Advantages
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TURNED-WINDROW COMPOSTING
TABLE 3.9
Aerated Static Pile Composting
This type of composting is similar to turned-
windrow composting except the windrows or
piles remain stationary for most of the composting
process.
In an actively aerated system, a fan (or air
supply blower) forces air into the pile or draws
air out of it. The air is circulated through the
pile via a diffuser (a pipe with holes to allow
distribution of air). A timer or temperature feed-
back system similar to a home thermostat controls
fans. Air circulation in the piles provides the
needed oxygen for the composting microbes and
also prevents excessive heat build-up. Removing
excess heat and water vapour cools the pile to
maintain optimum temperatures for microbial
activity. A controlled air supply enables con-
struction of large piles, which decreases the need
for land as compost and does not need to be
moved. Odours from the exhaust air can be
substantial, so biofilters are generally used.
When the composting process is nearly
complete, the piles are broken up. The compost
is then taken through post-processing, possibly
including turned-windrow composting for further
product stabilization. Producing finished com-
post usually takes approximately 12 weeks.
Aerated static pile composting systems have
been used successfully for municipal solid waste,
leaf and yard waste, biosolids, and industrial
composting.
Because the compost mass is never disturbed,
the mix and ratio of waste feedstocks must be
correct from the start.
One advantage of aerated static pile com-
posting over turned-windrow composting is the
management of odorous materials in an undis-
turbed mass, until they have stabilized. This is
one reason the technology has been popular in
the processing of sewage biosolids (in the U.S.,
but not so common in Canada).
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 197
AERATED STATIC PILE COMPOSTING SYSTEM
FIGURE 3.3
Source: www.cfe.cornell.edu
AERATED STATIC PILE
Blower
The infrastructure necessary to provide for
forced aeration requires higher capital costs,
although staffing needs are lower as the compost
piles do not need turning.
Enclosed Channel Composting Systems
This composting system tends to be constructed
inside buildings. The "windrow" is laid down
between two long, parallel walls, usually con-
structed of concrete. These walls are commonly
approximately two metres high, (about the same
height as most turned windrows) and may be
constructed a few metres apart, or many metres
apart. Instead of the windrows forming a natural
triangular cross-section, they fill the space
between the walls.
The material is mechanically turned by a
machine riding on rails along the tops of the
walls, or suspended over the composting mass.
Usually, aeration is supplemented by a forced
aeration system in the floor of the channel, not
unlike that used with some static pile systems.
As the turning mechanism passes repeatedly
down the channel, it gradually moves the waste
from one end to the other. Primary composting
process is largely completed by the time the
waste is discharged from the end of the channel.
Outdoor turned windrow or aerated static pile
approaches are then used to complete the
composting process.
Channel composting systems currently in
operation in Canada accept a wide range of
annual tonnage scales. Waste can only be added
once, and consequently must be in a perfectly
proportioned blend with each application. This
can create problems when unusual surges of
waste occur. One feature that most channel
systems share with static pile and turned-
windrow systems is that different sources of
waste can remain segregated. In each case, a
given waste stream can be kept in an independent
windrow, pile, or channel, if needed.
Since most channel systems are constructed
inside buildings, odours can be controlled more
easily. Enclosed channel systems are generally less
costly than in-vessel systems. Since most of the
technology associated with the turning system is
suspended over the biomass, servicing and repair
of equipment tends to be straightforward.
198 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Higher capital cost than windrow
Does not deal well with fluctuating waste
composition
Forced air may not be evenly dispersed through
the pile
Forced aeration reduces area requirement and
helps avoid odour problems
Piles do not require turning (low maintenance
requirements)
Lower space requirements than windrow
Good odour control with problem wastes
Lower operating costs
Disadvantages
Advantages
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF STATIC PILE COMPOSTING
TABLE 3.10
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 199
Photo: Janet R. Woodruff
Like in-vessel, system lacks flexibility in dealing
with variable feedstock
Large volume of air to be managed in odour
control system
Off-site odours are possible if the system is
poorly operated
Moderate capital and operating costs
Usually in buildings, so usually no odour problems
Lower space requirements than windrow
Disadvantages
Advantages
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CHANNEL COMPOSTING
TABLE 3.11
CHANNEL COMPOSTING SYSTEM
FIGURE 3.4
This 175-foot in-channel composter is used for research at Lower Eastern Shore
Research and Education Center--Poplar Hill Facility, Maryland, U.S.
In-vessel Composting Systems
In this system, the composting process itself is
conducted inside a sealed container or chamber
where the environment is highly controlled and
access restricted. These tend to be the most
capital-intensive approaches available. The big
advantage is that they take up less space and
may be viable where others are not. These systems
are usually installed inside sealed buildings.
Some in-vessel technologies are designed to
have a continual (albeit slow) flow of waste,
while others process one complete batch of com-
post at a time, and then are emptied before
receiving a fresh batch.
Early in-vessel composting systems had
chambers permanently installed within build-
ings, and were constructed of concrete and/or
corrosion-resistant metals. This type of "fixed"
vessel can come in a wide range of sizes, shapes
and design. All include a mechanism to feed raw
waste into the vessel, another to remove com-
post from it and a monitoring system for at least
temperature and oxygen content within the ves-
sel, and a forced-aeration mechanism to amend
the oxygen content.
A second family of in-vessel systems, com-
monly called "container" systems, uses a number
of modular composting vessels that may be
moved around the facility. A 6,000 tonne/year
facility in Halifax, N.S., and a 30,000 tonne/year
facility in P.E.I. use this technology. The con-
tainers are filled with raw, pre-processed organic
waste, sealed, and then moved to a composting
area where they are attached to air handling
manifolds and monitoring equipment. In this
way, each vessel is provided with the same sup-
port facilities common to the fixed-vessel sys-
tems. At the end of the primary composting
process, the container is disconnected from air
and monitoring systems, emptied, and then
made available for another cycle. All operations
are totally enclosed, limiting contact with the
organic material, thus minimizing occupational
health and safety concerns.
A unique variant by a U.S. company called
Ag-Bag Environmental is based on technology
used to wrap and seal large, round hay bales,
creating a flexible "vessel." Pre-processed waste is
forced into a long, heavy-gauge plastic bag, of
either 1.8 metre or 3 metres (6 or 10 feet) in
diameter (and virtually any length), which is laid
200 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING SYSTEM
FIGURE 3.5
EXHAUST TO BIOFILTER EXHAUST FAN
Supply Fan 1
Supply Fan 2
Supply Fan 3
Loading Conveyor
Mixer
Spinners
Zone 1
Air Chamber 1
Unloading Conveyor
Spinners
Augers
Zone 2
Zone 3
Shaker Screen
Air Chamber 2
Air Chamber 3
Ram
on the open ground. A ventilation hose provid-
ing forced aeration is installed as the bag is
filled. Once completed and sealed, the bag is
outfitted with blowers to provide oxygen. The
Ag-Bag system's novel approach avoids the cost
of constructing a building. The Ag-Bag system is
presently not used in Canada.
Virtually all in-vessel systems rely on either
turned-windrow or aerated static pile systems to
complete the composting process after the waste
has undergone primary composting in the vessel.
Odours can be managed reasonably well,
because all operations are sealed in a building
and exhaust air passes through biofilters.
However, a number of in-vessel composting
facilities in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, and
B.C. have experienced off-site odour despite the
high technology, so regardless of the system,
operational expertise is key. These systems are
designed to create ideal composting conditions
within the vessel at all times, and so should be
able to process compost at the fastest rate. As
a consequence, these facilities tend to consume
the least amount of land of all composting tech-
nologies. However, they also tend to be the most
expensive approaches to centralized composting.
Processing - Post-processing
Post-processing involves preparing the end
product from the composting operation for mar-
ket and may include drying, screening, blending,
or bagging. Post-processing will depend on end-
market requirements, and the degree to which
contaminants are still present. Most operations
include screening compost to homogenize it and
remove oversize materials. Given generally strin-
gent compost quality standards in Canada, it is
more effective to try to remove most contami-
nants during the pre-processing stage.
Compost, in its pure form, is not a particu-
larly good growth medium for plants. It is most
effective when combined in significant amounts
with other soil materials, such as sand, loam, or
peat. Consequently, compost facilities relying on
product sale revenues often blend their product
on site before releasing it for sale.
Compost produced in Canada is generally sub-
ject to regulation by provinces. While details differ,
most standards require that attention be paid to:
Levels of 11 heavy metals and PCBs in the end
product;
Presence of visible contaminating materials,
such as glass, plastic, or pieces of metal;
Organic matter content;
Proof that the compost has experienced
sufficient temperatures for enough time to
achieve "pathogen reduction"--the significant
elimination of weed seeds, and plant and
animal pathogenic organisms;
Stability, since unstable compost is actually
harmful to plants.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada also reg-
ulates compost sold in Canada through the feder-
al Fertilizers Act, when specific claims are made
regarding a company's utility in plant growth.
The CCME has also worked to establish national
guidelines for compost quality for reference in
those provinces without standards.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 201
In-vessel container systems
Halifax Regional Municipality: treats approxi-
mately 6,000 tonnes/year of SSO waste from
110,000 households at two separate facilities.
Meaford, Ont.: an in-vessel fixed system treats
approximately 180 tonnes/year of SSO from
a small town, at a rate of approximately
500 kg/day.
Region of Peel: eight Herhof Rotteboxes at its
Caledon Landfill Site. Each box can process
1,500 tonnes per year of organic material for
a total capacity of 12,000 tonnes per year.
In addition, Le Bureau de normalisation
du Québec (BNQ), a member of the Standards
Council of Canada, has developed national,
voluntary industry compost quality standards.
Compost that meets this standard can bear a
BNQ label as an indication of quality.
NEW AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
Composting vendors are always inventing new
ways of doing the same thing, which is compost-
ing organic waste in the presence of oxygen.
Different vendors adjust airflow rates, some
leave the waste in one place, whereas others
move the waste around or agitate the waste,
whichever approach is considered to reach the
objective of waste stabilization in the fastest
time. (See Composting Council of Canada's
Web site at www.compost.org)
Some provinces have turned to regulations
to compel municipalities to achieve the 50 per
cent diversion target--effectively mandating
organics diversion, (e.g., Nova Scotia, Prince
Edward Island).
Due to some composting facility failures in
the past 15 years, and to the obvious potential
for odour production, the siting of new com-
posting facilities has become the object of public
resistance. Bringing such facilities on line may
take years and involve consideration of several
sites. This adds significantly to the cost of devel-
oping the system, makes startup dates difficult
to predict, and makes private-sector vendors
nervous about accepting the full risk of develop-
ing facilities to a municipal schedule.
Municipalities have responded to the cost
issue by experimenting continuously with new
collection strategies. No obvious solution to the
need to provide low-cost and effective collection
has yet appeared for broad adoption of organic
matter content.
Evaluation
Despite the growing popularity of composting,
communities face several challenges in develop-
ing and operating successful composting
programs:
Lack of experienced designers, operators,
and technical staff;
Difficulty of choosing from different
technologies, many of which claim to be
uniquely superior;
Siting of a composting facility can be as
politically challenging as the siting of any
waste management facility.
General Systems Performance
Composting can process about 25 per cent of
the residential waste stream in a SSO program,
where 40 to 50 per cent of the residential solid
waste is organic. Current SSO programs show
variable residue rates of one to 20 per cent of the
incoming waste stream depending on participa-
tion, contamination, etc. In general, however,
the possible net diversion through composting
is approximately 20 per cent of the residential
waste stream. Mixed waste composting (after
source separation of recyclables) can process up
to 55 per cent of the residential waste stream.
Residue rates for a mixed program are 35 to
40 per cent of the incoming tonnage, therefore
mixed waste plants can divert approximately
33 per cent of the residential waste stream.
Composting systems will operate successfully
and produce a stabilized end product as long as
they are operated by well-trained staff.
Composting is a biological process that requires
tweaking on a regular basis by an experienced
professional.
202 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Community Characteristics
A composting facility sited in or near a large
urban, downtown area must be different than
one serving a small town with surrounding rural
lands, and again different from a remote north-
ern community.
If the only available land is highly urbanized,
then a composting technology should be con-
structed inside a sealed building to control
odour. There are successful Canadian examples
of turned-windrow, aerated static pile, channel,
and in-vessel systems, all in sealed buildings.
Alternatively, transferring and hauling waste to
more remote (and potentially outdoor) sites
should be explored, since this may be less expen-
sive than building a capital-intensive urban facility.
Locale will also affect cost of waste manage-
ment alternatives--particularly disposal. In
some parts of Canada, the cost to dispose of
solid waste in landfills is extremely low--in the
range of $10/tonne after collection--and is
expected to stay at this level for the foreseeable
future. In this financial environment, municipalities
may find it hard to argue for a capital-intensive
composting approach. Other Canadian jurisdic-
tions are burdened with high disposal costs,
which can make a broader range of composting
technologies attractive. Cost has been the pre-
vailing reason why more Canadian municipalities
are not composting.
All four general technologies described--
turned-windrow, aerated static pile, enclosed
channel, and in-vessel--are in operation in
North America at scales from well below
100 tonnes per annum to 100,000 tonnes per
annum. None of these approaches is associated
with a given scale.
One might think that climate is a significant
issue, particularly with outdoor technologies.
But the one facility in the Yukon is an outdoor
turned-windrow, and the technology is used
throughout the coldest Canadian winters.
Costs
It is very difficult to establish specific dollar
ranges for the systems that have been discussed
in the preceding pages. Local circumstances and
firm quotes for composting operations need to
be taken into consideration. Roughly speaking,
program collection costs are $20 to $25 per
household per year for 250 kg/year/household
of SSO (approximately $80 to $100/tonne). In
comparison, garbage collection costs for house-
holds are $35/household/year for collection of
approximately 700 kg/year/household (approxi-
mately $50/tonne).
Open windrow composting costs $20 to
$30/tonne, excluding land costs; enclosed channel
facilities-- $45 to $60/tonne, and in-vessel
systems--$60 to $80/tonne. These costs convert
to $10 to $20 per household/per year for
processing of SSO, for an overall cost of $30
to $45 per household/per year. A mixed-waste
composting program handles a greater propor-
tion of the waste stream, and costs around $70
to $120/household/year (including collection).
Factors Influencing System Choices
These factors must be considered before
developing a composting system:
Is there a strong municipal policy to mandate
greater diversion from landfill? High landfill
diversion can rarely be achieved without an
organics program.
Is a composting system demonstrably cheaper
than alternative systems for waste manage-
ment previously used (e.g., local cost of
disposal is high)?
Is there a provincial mandate compelling the cre-
ation of a composting system, regardless of cost?
A number of Canadian jurisdictions
explored developing a full organics diversion
system, and at least temporarily abandoned the
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 203
idea after comparative costs were found to be
too high. However, many large Canadian commu-
nities are pursuing a comprehensive organics strat-
egy--it all depends on local circumstances.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Composting ensures that organic waste is diverted
from landfill. This has a number of important,
beneficial effects:
Keeps organic waste out of landfill where it
generates an acidic leachate. This precipitates
metals from landfilled waste into the leachate,
resulting in an acidic, metal-laden leachate
which must be treated prior to discharge;
Organic waste generates methane gas as it
decomposes. In well-engineered landfills, this
gas is collected and in some cases recovered for
energy. However, in many landfills the gas is
lost as it is flared or simply escapes to the
atmosphere as methane, which is a powerful
GHG (21 times more powerful than CO2);
Composting produces a material that can be
spread on soil to add nutrient value and to
return carbon and structure to the earth.
The IWM Model was used to compare the
environmental effects of composting versus land-
filling the same waste. A high-end engineered
landfill design with a leachate collection system,
a landfill gas (LFG) recovery system, and a gas-
to-energy conversion system was assumed for
the analysis.
A total of 1,000 tonnes of typical composting
waste (50 per cent yard, 30 per cent food, 20 per
cent paper) was considered for each run of the
model. The energy emissions for residential col-
lection of the waste were not included. Residue
rates of 15 per cent were assumed.
Results are given in qualitative terms only, as
the actual values will vary throughout the coun-
try, and need to be estimated using IWM, and
inputting local numbers and conditions. Where
an offset value is shown, it indicates that energy
was recovered or emissions were avoided.
204 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Overall, composting produces fewer tonnes of eCO2 when compared to landfilling the same waste.
Higher
Lower
CO2 Equivalents
GHG Emissions
Highly Engineered LF
Composting
(tonnes)
(tonnes)
ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSTING 1,000 TONNES
OF ORGANIC WASTE COMPARED TO LANDFILLING
TABLE 3.12
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 205
Higher
Lower*
Lower*
Similar
Higher
Lower
Higher
Higher
Similar
Lower
ACID GASES
NOx
SOx
HCI
SMOG PRECURSORS
PM
VOCs
Acid Gas and Smog Precursor Emissions
Highly Engineered LF
Composting
(Kg)
(Kg)
ACID GAS AND SMOG PRECURSOR EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSTING
1,000 TONNES OF ORGANIC WASTE COMPARED TO LANDFILL
TABLE 3.13
Lower*
Lower*
Lower*
Higher
Lower*
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Negligible
Higher
Negligible
Lower
Lower
Lower
AIR
Pb (kg)
Hg (kg)
Cd (kg)
Dioxins (TEQ) (g)
WATER
Pb (kg)
Hg (kg)
Cd (kg)
BOD (kg)
Dioxins (TEQ) (mg)
Toxic Emissions
Highly Engineered LF
Composting
TOXIC EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSTING 1,000 TONNES
OF ORGANIC WASTE COMPARED TO LANDFILLING
TABLE 3.14
* Indicates an energy offset or avoided emission.
In this model run, landfilling produces more NOx emissions than composting. The landfilling option results in a
reduction in SOx and HCl emissions (through energy offsets, identified with *). The higher composting emissions
result from the transportation of the residue from the composting process to a nearby landfill. The landfill option
produces more VOCs but somewhat less particulate matter (PM) than composting.
* Indicates an energy offset or avoided emission.
Air and water emissions were considered in Table 3.14. Landfill generated fewer air
emissions, except for dioxins. Landfill had more water emissions, except for lead.
ENERGY IMPLICATIONS
Energy usage at composting facilities is low,
because only simple motors or vehicle use is
required. A 1996 report to Environment Canada
by Resources Integration Systems Ltd., suggests
that composting energy requirements are estimated
to be in the range of 20 to 40MJ/tonne. In the
absence of detailed estimates, it is assumed that
collection of organics requires similar inputs to
the collection of recyclables, at 475MJ/tonne.
Collection of mixed waste for processing at a
mixed waste composting plant is assumed to be
the same as garbage collection at an energy
requirement of 167MJ/tonne.
The upstream benefits of composting, in
terms of saving the production of some fertilizers,
are reflected in the environmental benefits
estimates presented in the previous section.
Lessons Learned
If municipalities want to achieve the 50 per
cent target to divert waste from landfill, adopted
by the federal and most provincial govern-
ments, they must make provision to collect
and process organics.
Source separation, collection, and composting
of the organic stream are some approaches--
and the most commonly adopted to date--to
process municipal and commercial organic
solid wastes. Other technologies, such as
anaerobic digestion, are emerging, but so far
have played a small role.
Programs to collect and compost organic solid
wastes tend to be more costly than conven-
tional waste collection in most Canadian juris-
dictions. Part of the cost issue stems from the
need to continue to offer a parallel system to
collect non-compostable wastes for disposal,
unless a "two-stream" waste management
system is adopted. While used successfully in
some areas, the two-stream approach has not
been widely adopted. Given recent trends in
broad cutbacks of tax-supported core services,
the cost of new organics diversion programs
has been a major barrier to adoption by
Canadian municipalities.
Municipalities tend to implement full-scale
organics collection and composting programs
where it is legislated provincially, or where cost
structures make it attractive.
The design of an organics diversion system
is complex. Unlike the blue box system for
recyclables, no single approach dominates.
The lack of a simple system endorsed by all
complicates the problem of trying to roll out
more programs.
Successful programs for diverting organics
(and for diverting material from disposal to
recycled use) focus on identifying specific
markets for the intended product first, then on
designing a system to meet that market specifi-
cation, and finally on designing a collection
system that will collect the materials in a form
needed by the processing system. Historically,
system designs that start with collection con-
venience as the primary objective have had
sustainability problems.
Well-designed collection systems for house-
hold and commercial organics sustain partici-
pation rates that are equal to the best blue box
programs.
Well-designed and well-managed composting
facilities are capable of processing the materials
collected by any type of residential and
commercial organics program on a sustained
basis. More capital-intensive enclosed facilities
tend to have higher operating costs (inclusive
of amortized capital), but tend to have a better
206 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
track record on odour management. Still,
many good outdoor windrow facilities exist
across Canada, and there have been failures
of enclosed facilities.
Compost that can pass prevailing Canadian
standards tends to be produced from waste
materials collected from source-separated,
rather than mixed waste. Compost that has
been produced by competent facility man-
agers, using a clean feedstock, and then mar-
keted in an entrepreneurial fashion, is always
readily sold to markets that can absorb any
quantity produced.
Other lessons learned include the:
Importance of well trained staff, particularly
when a plant receives an unusual load of waste
which puts the system out of balance;
Importance of developing good relationships
with site neighbours;
High cost of odour problems in terms of
community relations;
Importance of keeping tight control over the
process at all times to avoid odour development;
Importance of removing as much contamination
as possible from the feed stream to improve
the quality of the finished compost;
Critical importance of markets for the end
product, to make the composting operation
economically viable;
Difficulty of locating an open windrow site
near built-up areas, and the fact that an
enclosed composting facility with a biofilter for
odour control is required near built-up areas.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 207
Complex process; low technology.
Three components: pre-processing (shredding, bag breaking); composting;
post-composting (drying, blending, bagging)
Composting:
Open windrow: low tech; least cost; significant amounts of land (including
buffer zones); most suited to rural locations
Enclosed channel: medium tech; much less land; more costly because of the
buildings and equipment required; suitable for rural and urban areas
In-vessel composting: high tech; highest cost; most tightly controlled; smallest
amount of land; urban areas
Can divert approximately 50% residential waste stream, depending
on the process
Source-separated organics: residue rates and capture rates lower but
the finished compost is of higher quality, readily sold
Mixed-waste composting: diverts up to 50% residential waste stream;
high residue rates; 100% participation; lower market demand
100 to 100k tonnes/yr for any technology
(continues on page 208)
DESCRIPTION
GENERAL PERFORMANCE
Summary
Factor
COMPOSTING SUMMARY
TABLE 3.15
208 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Composting technologies can operate in all Canadian climates, although
active composting in open windrow only occurs in warm temperatures
Open windrow sites are not suitable for location in urban areas
Enclosed channel and in-vessel facilities can be located at the edge of
or in urban areas
Backyard composting most cost-effective (e.g., $32 to 45/t)
Pre-processing: depends on source and composting technology; fairly costly
$10 to $20 per household per year (open windrow composting at the lower
end of this range, excluding land costs)
Big challenge to drive costs out of collection
50% diversion target infers targeting the organic, biodegradable waste
that is half the waste stream
Yearly operation requires costly equipment
New approaches frequently introduced, generally optimize one operational
variable
Reduction in acidic leachate, metal precipitation; reduced gas generation.
Excellent source of carbon and some nutrients when compost land applied
Low energy
No single approach dominates in Canada, many different approaches work
Essential elements:
Markets for finished compost
Well-trained staff
Avoidance and early correction of odour problems
Continuous education of homeowner
COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
COSTS
FACTORS THAT
INFLUENCED ACQUISITION
NEW AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
ENERGY IMPLICATIONS
LESSONS LEARNED
Summary
Factor
(continued from page 207)
General Description
A
naerobic digestion (AD) is a biological
process using microbes to break down
organic material in the absence of oxygen.
Digestion takes place in a special reactor, or
enclosed chamber, where critical environmental
conditions, such as moisture content, temperature
and pH levels, can be controlled to maximize
microbe generation, gas generation, and waste
decomposition rates.
AD can work well in Canada although
there have been some technical difficulties that
require adjustments to the mixtures. The main
deterrent is one of economics. It is expensive
compared to other options for the volumes of
waste produced by most Canadian municipalities.
AD is more viable in Europe, where there is little
landfill space and environmentally sound incin-
eration is very costly.
The biological and engineering principles
of AD are well understood and have been imple-
mented extensively worldwide. AD is used at a
household and community level in China and
India, where low-tech digestion systems are
used to generate heating and cooking fuel for
local households. The most common municipal
application is the treatment of biosolids from
wastewater treatment plants. Globally, some
100,000 wastewater treatment plants use AD to
process sludge generated by their operations.
Historically, wastewater solids were digested
anaerobically in Exeter, England, in 1895, to
recover methane gas, which was then used as an
energy source for lighting the area around the
treatment plant. Still, the potential application
of this technology as a waste diversion method
for municipal solid waste is a relatively recent
development.
Virtually all examples of AD facilities treating
municipal waste (SSO or mixed waste) are in
Europe, with commercially available technologies
primarily in Denmark, Belgium, France,
Germany, and Switzerland. High capacity systems
to treat mixed waste are under construction in
Spain and Italy, but have no operational experi-
ence to date. New construction of plants in
Europe experienced exponential growth between
1990-1995 (with capacities of processing 30,000
tonnes of organic waste per year) and 2001-2002
(capacities of 300,000 tonnes per year).
The majority of European AD plants--
many of which are 10 to 15 years old--process
relatively little organic waste, in the range of
8,000 to 15,000 tonnes/year. Facilities con-
structed recently tend to have larger design
capacities, in the range of 40,000 tonnes/year.
The trend towards larger processing plants is a
reflection of engineering advancements, which
have enhanced the technical and financial viabil-
ity of AD in municipal applications. However,
the financial viability of these European systems
is predominantly the result of:
High landfill tipping fees ($150 to $200/tonne),
making AD economically competitive;
The European Union Landfill Directive
prevents the landfilling of unstabilized organic
waste, therefore requiring stabilization by
either incineration, composting, or digestion;
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 209
4
S E C T I O N
Anaerobic Digestion
210 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Some European countries (Switzerland and
Belgium) have renewable energy policies in
place that require local utilities to buy all
"green" power from AD plants at prices of
15 cents per kilowatt hour, therefore helping
the economics of the systems.
Canada
There are three AD plants in Canada. The
Canada Composting Inc. facility in the Town of
Newmarket, Ont., uses BTA (a German technol-
ogy) and can process up to 150,000 tonnes/year
of SSO, plus some mixed waste loads. A second
facility using BTA was constructed at Toronto's
Dufferin Transfer Station and has been opera-
tional since September 2001. The facility is
designed to process 25,000 tonnes of SSO per
year, but can be expanded to 165,000 tonnes
per year. It is being used to test system perform-
ance with different loads of mixed and source-
separated waste.
A facility in the City of Guelph, Ont.,
developed by the Super Blue Box Recycling
Corporation (SUBBOR), uses a unique two-
stage design with a steam explosion process after
the first stage to increase gas production in the
second stage. Negotiations between SUBBOR
and potential customers have been largely
unsuccessful so the plant has announced its
forthcoming closure.
Key Elements of AD Facilities
The operation of an AD plant generally involves
three steps:
Pre-treatment;
Digestion; and
Aerobic curing.
Pre-treatment converts incoming organic
material into a raw material that is fed into the
digestion reactor. Pre-treatment can include size
reduction, screening to remove oversized materials,
and mechanical and manual sorting of contami-
nants and recyclables. Residue (metals, wood,
plastic) is removed for proper disposal, while the
remaining clean and pulverized organic waste is
mixed with water to create an organic-rich slurry
with the physical properties required to optimize
digestion inside the reactor. Pre-treatment of
incoming SSO generally relies on mechanical
separation techniques to remove metals and
oversized contaminants. Plants designed to
process mixed MSW require a relatively elaborate
pre-treatment scheme that involves extensive
mechanical and manual processing to maximize
the removal of materials, such as reyclables,
wood and other contaminants, to improve the
quality of the finished digestate.
Equipment required for an AD pre-treatment
system is similar to that found in a MRF
that processes dry recyclables (see Section 2),
including a series of platforms, conveyors, sliding
belts, and chutes to move material from the
tipping floor to various sorting stations that
employ magnetic separators to remove ferrous
metals and eddy current separators to remove
aluminum. Size reduction equipment, such as a
hammermill, is used to reduce the particle size
of the organic waste stream according to the
digester's specifications. Equipment to separate
incoming waste on the basis of particle size,
such as a trommel screen, is used to mechanically
remove inorganic contaminants (plastic, glass,
and metal) or pieces of organic material too
large to be processed. A series of elevated plat-
forms and chutes that allow manual sorting of
the incoming waste may also be required in a
plant that processes mixed MSW. Depending on
the way organic waste is collected and the
amount of waste to be processed, a mechanical
debagger may be required to open all incoming
bagged waste.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 211
TYPICAL SCHEMATIC OF AN AD PLANT
FIGURE 4.1
Digestate
Post-processing
Biogas Cleaning
Waste In
Biogas to
Energy
Tipping
Floor
Curing at Aerobic
Composter
Pre-processing
Post-processing
Weigh Scales
Recyclables
to Market
Excess Wastewater
Treatment to Remove
N, P, BOD
Residue to Landfill
or Incineration
Residue to Landfill
or Incineration
Compost
to Market
Anaerobic
Digester(s)
Residue to Landfill
or Incineration
Dewater
Digestate
Once the organic waste is loaded into the
reactor, digestion takes place. In the first stage
of digestion, generally referred to as hydrolysis
and acidification, organic material is broken
down by a group of microbes called acid formers.
Fatty acids are one of the end products of this
stage. In the second stage, generally referred to
as methanogenesis, a group of microbes called
methane producers convert fatty acids into a
biogas, which consists of 55 per cent methane,
45 per cent carbon dioxide, and other trace
gases. Once the organic material has been
digested, fresh organic waste is loaded into the
reactor while an equal volume of digested mate-
rial is removed and pumped to a dewatering
machine where excess liquid is collected for
treatment.
In some AD designs, the reactor is heated,
which uses a portion of the biogas.
Dewatered digestate is not fully stabilized
and usually requires 60 to 120 days of aerobic
curing, during which pathogens are killed by
high temperatures in the compost pile. In this
third step, drying and stabilization can be carried
out in an outdoor aerobic composting facility
or an in-vessel aerobic composting system (see
Section 3). The dried digestate is screened to
remove remaining impurities and is ready to
blend with other materials, such as sand or peat,
to produce a marketable soil conditioner.
Feedstock
AD can be used to process a variety of feed-
stock, including sludge from municipal waste-
water treatment plants and livestock manure
as well as mixed waste from residential sources
(mixed MSW) and SSO from residential and
non-residential sources. Mixed MSW is generally
defined as residential and small-scale commercial
solid waste that excludes material captured by
waste diversion activities, such as recycling and
composting. SSO is a stream of municipal waste
collected and stored by household residents for
separate management from garbage and includes
food waste plus a range of other organic materials,
including soiled paper, diapers, and leaf and
yard waste.
AD does not compete with traditional
recycling systems, because commonly recycled
materials, such as metal, glass and plastic con-
tainers, can not be digested. The one exception
is paper, which is biodegradable, but also
digestible, and therefore can be recycled or
digested. The preference for paper is, where pos-
sible, to recycle it so that it can displace the need
to harvest new virgin sources of paper.
Feedstock selection is a key decision when
designing an AD system because it affects every
step in the planning process, including plant
design capacity, waste diversion potential, and
the existing residential garbage collection system.
The design capacity of a mixed MSW plant is
largely determined by the size of the community
and the amount of garbage currently set out by
local residents for regular waste collection,
though some additional processing capacity
should be anticipated if local commercial
establishments participate in the program.
Statistics Canada research indicates that
330 kg/capita/year of waste is currently gener-
ated, 100 kg/capita/year is currently diverted
and 230 kg/capita/year is currently disposed.
The average Canadian household generates
approximately one tonne of residential waste per
year, and disposes of approximately 700 kg/
household per year. If a mixed MSW AD plant
were implemented in an average community,
approximately 550 kg/hh of this total would
be sent to the AD plant for processing.
Based on data from a number of SSO
programs operating in Canada, recovery estimates
of 250 to 350 kg/single family household/year
can be expected from SSO programs. Recovery
rates vary depending on a number of factors,
including range of organic materials targeted
212 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
for collection, participation rates, and the
extent of promotion and education programs.
One challenge associated with the implementa-
tion of a SSO program is how to incorporate
multi-family dwellings into the collection system.
Lack of outside storage space and uncertainty
about resident participation are two barriers
often cited when planning any source separation
program for apartment buildings and condo-
miniums. Given these challenges, municipalities
may choose to implement a SSO program for
the single-family housing sector first, while
investigating cost-effective methods for separat-
ing, storing, and collecting organics in multi-
family dwellings. SSO programs therefore can
expect to handle less tonnage compared to
mixed MSW operations, because fewer house-
holds are provided with the service (at least dur-
ing the initial stages of implementation), and
because only the organic portion of the waste
stream is targeted for collection and processing.
Diversion and Residue Rates
Feedstock selection will also affect a community's
overall waste diversion rate because of the
amount of residue recovered at the AD facility.
As a general guide, 10 to 20 per cent of all waste
delivered to an AD facility processing SSO will
require disposal, assuming an appropriate level
of investment in promotion and education pro-
grams, and mechanical separation techniques at
the plant to remove contamination. The remain-
ing 80 to 90 per cent will be diverted from
disposal through the production of finished
compost from digestate (a humus-like material
that can be used to produce a soil conditioner),
liquid waste (the amount will vary depending on
the technology used) and dry recyclables.
The residue rate at an AD plant processing
mixed MSW (i.e., residential waste from which
recyclables have been removed) will likely be
25 to 40 per cent of all incoming waste depending
on the quality of the feedstock, and the type of
mechanical and manual sorting systems used. The
City of Edmonton, Alta., and the Town of Tracy,
Que., process mixed MSW (after source separa-
tion of recyclables by residents) in composting
facilities and report residue rates of approximately
35 per cent. Therefore, as a planning guide, a
mixed MSW AD plant could expect to divert
approximately 60 to 75 per cent of all incoming
waste, although this material cannot be consid-
ered diverted unless markets can be found for the
composted mixed waste digestate produced. The
incoming material is likely to contain non-organic
material, such as plastic and glass, which ends up
in the final product and causes a marketability
problem. Also, some metals may be at a high
enough concentration to limit the uses to which
this material can be directed. This is the toughest
challenge facing municipalities considering mixed
waste processing using composting or digestion.
Public perception against the use of"biosolids"
also causes challenges in establishing co-digestion
approaches.
The capacity of AD to reduce the amount of
disposed garbage is dependent upon the quality
of the system's by-products. If the compost pro-
duced as a result of stabilizing the plant diges-
tate cannot be marketed, treated for reuse, or
dedicated to beneficial uses, the comparative
advantage of AD is reduced. Finished digestate
(after composting) in particular will need to
meet provincial standards for unrestricted use if
its market potential as a blending material for a
soil conditioner is to be realized. Experience
suggests that provincial standards, particularly
for trace element concentrations, can be
achieved by source separating organics prior to
digestion. A successful mixed MSW AD plant
will likely require extensive mechanical systems
complemented by manual sorting to remove
materials that contribute to trace metal concen-
trations, such as batteries, plastics and light
bulbs, among others.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 213
Technologies
Fundamental Features of the Digestion
Process
Generally, AD technologies can be categorized
broadly on the basis of three variables:
Amount of water added to the incoming waste
during pre-treatment;
Reactor's optimal operating temperature; and
Number of digestion stages in separate
reactors.
The amount of water added to the feedstock is
an important distinction among AD systems.
"Dry" systems mix enough to produce an
organic slurry that consists of 15 to 40 per
cent solid waste. Examples of commercially
available dry digestion systems: Dranco,
Kompogas and Valorga.
A "wet" system processes a more diluted
organic slurry with 10 to 15 per cent solids.
BTA and Wassa are two examples.
Operating Temperatures: Thermophilic
and Mesophilic Systems
Regulating the temperature inside the digestion
reactor is central to the chemical reaction
process that unleashes the stages of microbe
development. Commercial AD reactors are
generally operated at either a mesophilic
temperature (approximately 35°C), or a ther-
mophilic temperature (approximately 55°C).
Operating temperatures do not appear to
affect subsequent composting of the digestate.
A mesophilic AD plant generally requires a
retention time of 12 to 25 days; a thermophilic
reactor can achieve the same results in approxi-
mately six days. The time required to fully
convert the organic slurry into a partially stabi-
lized digestate depends on the amount of organic
material in the feedstock, seasonal variations
affecting the quantity and composition of the
waste stream, and the chosen technology.
One-stage and Two-stage Systems
Wet and dry AD facilities can be operated as
one- or two-stage systems. In single-stage sys-
tems, hydrolysis and methanogenesis take place
in one reactor. This is the oldest and most com-
mon approach to AD processing in Europe.
In the newer approach of two-stage systems,
one reactor is dedicated to the acidification
process and another to methanogenesis.
According to some sources, the principal
advantage of the newer two-stage systems is
the opportunity to control two separate environ-
ments, which is an important separation for
research institutions.
When processing municipal solid waste,
separating biological processes into two or more
reactors does not appear to yield significant
advantages. According to some sources, both
systems perform equally well when processing
municipal waste in terms of the amount of
waste that can be processed on an annual basis
and the rate of biogas production. Approximately
90 per cent of all European AD plants process-
ing municipal organic waste use one-stage tech-
nologies. The predominance of one-stage
systems is in part due to this technology's rela-
tively simple design, less frequent technical failures,
and lower capital costs.
The full-scale demonstration SUBBOR
plant in the City of Guelph, Ont., consists of
two digesters. After the first stage, partially
digested organic waste is removed, dried, and
subjected to elevated temperatures and pres-
sures. The goal is to break down some of the
complex chemical bonds and improve the
digestibility of the material going into the
second-stage digester. The final step is to pre-
pare a slurry in preparation for loading into the
second reactor to complete the digestion and
biogas recovery process.
214 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
BTA is a German digestion technology
licensed to Canada Composting Inc. (CCI) in
the Town of Newmarket, Ont. A unique aspect
of BTA is that organic waste is mixed with
water (hydropulping) to remove small particles
of contamination, such as glass and plastics not
removed during the mechanical pre-treatment
process. The organic slurry then passes through
a hydrocyclone, which removes minute particles
of glass shards, sand, and small stones. BTA
operates one- or two-stage digestion systems.
According to published sources, the one-stage
BTA system, which includes mechanical and wet
preparation, is suited for facilities using an existing
digestion reactor.
NEW AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
There are many variations on the AD process
design for SSO or mixed MSW. Generally, they
are wet or dry, one- or two-stage, thermophilic
or mesophilic. Trends in Europe are towards:
Thermophilic systems, because of increased
pathogen kill;
Dry digestion systems;
Discontinuation of the conventional two-stage
digestion system design. Experience has
shown that gains in optimizing operating
conditions in two reactors are not worth the
extra cost.
Evaluation
General Systems Performance
AD is used in Europe for processing SSO and
mixed MSW. There is little operational experi-
ence in Canada. This technology works well at
scales of 10,000 to 20,000 tonnes/year of SSO.
Larger plants are currently being constructed.
Supportive renewable energy policies and the
relatively high costs of landfilling in Europe
make the economics more favourable than in
Canada.
AD has a significant benefit from a GHG
point of view. It produces methane from the
degradation of organic waste in a controlled
environment. The methane can be used to
displace fossil fuels. In addition, it avoids the
production of this methane over a much longer
period in a landfill, where its maximum energy
potential would not be realized.
Advantages of AD technology include:
Increased diversion of waste from disposal - AD
technology offers the potential to increase
municipal waste diversion rates to 40 to 70 per
cent by diverting the organic component of
the waste stream from disposal. (The digester
converts the materials to solid and liquid
streams and biogas, which must be produc-
tively used to achieve real diversion.)
Reduced GHG emissions - Proper digestion
converts a portion of the organic waste to
methane, which is converted to carbon dioxide
(CO2) when combusted, thereby considerably
reducing GHG emissions from landfills.
Methane gas is 21 times more powerful than
CO2 as a GHG.
Net energy production - AD is a net energy-
producing process that produces sufficient
energy to meet in-plant needs, and can export
50 to 80 per cent of the energy produced to
off-site energy users.
Disadvantages of AD technology include:
Anaerobic digestion has a higher cost per
tonne compared to landfilling or composting
in Canada;
AD cannot process the entire waste stream.
AD systems process and treat only the
biodegradable organic fraction;
The markets for bi-products, such as soil
conditioner and liquid fertilizer, are somewhat
uncertain; and
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 215
216 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
AD of mixed waste is an emerging practice in
North America, and is therefore not considered
fully proven.
Community Characteristics
Table 4.1 has been developed assuming an average
recovery of 250 kg/household/year for SSO
programs, and that mixed waste programs
would process an average of 550 kg/house-
hold/year, when recyclables have been source
separated, and material, such as bulky waste, is
removed from the waste stream before delivery
to the AD plant. The table also assumes an
average household size of 2.7 people for Canada
(based on a population of 28.8 million and
10.82 million households).
The minimum throughput required to
justify the cost of an AD facility is at least
10,000 tonnes/year, or the amount of SSO
produced by 40,000 households or up to
110,000 people, according to a 2001 Biocycle
article. The rationale for this minimum design
capacity is partly based on the range of commer-
cially available technologies and cost, given that
small-scale facilities tend to have relatively high
per tonne operating budgets. The population
base that could support this minimum level of
operation depends on feedstock, amount of
material generated by each household, and the
mix of single and multi-family dwellings. For
mixed waste, a 10,000 tonne per year plant
would process waste from about 18,000 house-
holds (assuming mixed waste to the digester
would be approximately 550 kg/household/year)
As a general planning guide, a service area
with a population of more than 100,000 resi-
dents could generate enough material to justify
an investment in a 10,000 tonne/year SSO AD
system. A service area could include a single
municipality or a group of urban and rural com-
munities working together. The actual number
of households required in a service area could
depend on:
The number of single-family households;
Whether or not multi-family and local com-
mercial establishments will be required to
separate organics;
The average amount of SSO set out at the
curb for collection each year.
AD FACILITY SIZES REQUIRED FOR DIFFERENT FEEDSTOCK
AND COMMUNITY SIZES (TONNES PER YEAR - TPY)
TABLE 4.1
40,000
18,000
200,000
90,000
400,000
180,000
Households Served
Feedstock
Plant Size (tpy)
Population Served
SSO
Mixed MSW
SSO
Mixed MSW
SSO
Mixed MSW
110,000
50,000
550,000
250,000
1.1 million
500,000
10,000
10,000
50,000
50,000
100,000
100,000
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 217
Implementation of a mixed MSW AD pro-
gram would require a considerably smaller service
area because the amount of waste collected from
each household is greater than that for a SSO
system. Depending on the local waste manage-
ment conditions of any given municipality, a
service area with a population of approximately
50,000 (18,000 households) could expect to gen-
erate enough material to feed a 10,000 tonne per
year facility that processes mixed MSW, exclud-
ing bulky items (see Table 4.2 on page 218).
Costs
Net System Costs: The general lack of AD
experience in North America makes it difficult
to estimate net system costs based on practical
experience here. Based on conversations with
AD systems manufacturers, ballpark costs can
be modeled for dry, single-stage thermophilic
facilities by calculating the cost of the opera-
tional components. These include the approxi-
mate level of capital investment required for the
AD equipment and building as well as annual
operating expenses, annualized capital costs, and
projected revenue from the sale of finished
digestate and energy.
It is important to note the key assumptions
regarding what is and is not included in the
calculation of planning budgets. The following
budget items have not been included in the cal-
culation of costs developed for this report, but
require careful attention:
The purchase and preparation of serviced land;
Costs associated with implementing a SSO
curbside collection program;
The cost of purchasing and distributing bins
so that residents may store SSO;
Potential avoided disposal savings that may be
incurred by reducing waste sent for disposal
after implementing an AD system.
Capital Costs: Economies of scale favour large
facilities when comparing capital costs measured
on the basis of per tonne of design capacity.
Estimates include the cost of digestion reactors,
buildings, and pre-treatment equipment
(see Table 4.2 on page 218).
The capital cost of processing equipment for
MSW and SSO are comparable. A municipal
program generating 100,000 tonnes/year of SSO
requires a reactor that can digest approximately
80,000 to 90,000 tonnes/year after residue is
removed, while 100,000 tonnes/year of mixed
MSW requires a reactor that can digest approxi-
mately 70,000 to 80,000 tonnes/year after
residue has been removed. The mixed MSW
plant will require a smaller reactor, and a greater
investment in pre-treatment capital and operating
costs.
Generally, the capital cost of a wet system is
comparable to a dry AD plant design. A wet AD
system requires a larger and, therefore, more
expensive reactor because the large quantity of
water added to the incoming organic waste
stream increases the volume of material to be
digested. This higher reactor cost may be offset
by relatively lower costs for material handling
equipment. Dry AD systems require more
robust equipment to handle bulky dry organic
feed. However, wet technology also has a higher
parasitic load of energy (energy required for
internal plant uses), and less energy available
for export. Some of these assumptions may be
tested at a wet AD facility, which began opera-
tion at Toronto's Dufferin Transfer Station in
September 2001.
Net Annual Operating Costs: Annual oper-
ating expenses include annualized capital costs,
operation and maintenance of the plant and
building, residue disposal, and digestate curing.
The following assumptions were used:
Cost of residue transfer and disposal has been
assumed at $55 per tonne;
Cost of curing is $15 per tonne of unfinished
digestate at an open windrow facility located
close to the AD plant, so transportation costs
are minimal;
Plants processing mixed MSW require additional
expenses to cover costs of manual sorting of
incoming feedstock;
Cost figures for SSO options exclude the
purchase of vehicles and household bins, bags,
or other receptacles used for the separate
collection of the SSO stream;
Figures for each SSO option include a
$7 per tonne design capacity planning estimate
to develop, produce, and staff a promotion and
education program that would need to accom-
pany any significant changes to a municipality's
current residential curbside collection system
The net annual operating cost to digest
mixed MSW, assuming an efficiently operated
facility, is approximately 10 per cent higher than
for a SSO plant on an annual cash flow basis.
Actual costs incurred could vary depending on
local disposal conditions and competitively
priced access to private sector firms that provide
aerobic curing services.
218 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS FOR "GENERIC"
AD PLANTS (TONNES PER YEAR DESIGN CAPACITY)
TABLE 4.2
CAPITAL
CAPITAL INVESTMENT
CAPITAL COST/DESIGN
TONNE
NET OPERATING COSTS
ANNUALIZED CAPITAL
OPERATING EXPENSES
SUBTOTAL GROSS
OPERATING
REVENUE
NET ANNUAL COSTS
HOUSEHOLDS SERVED
COST/TONNE FEED
COST/HOUSEHOLD/YEAR
Budget Item
10,000 tpy
50,000 tpy
100,000 tpy
MSW
$10,000,000
$990
$1,100,000
900,000
$2,000,000
200,000
$1,800,000
18,000
$180
$100
SSO
$10,000,000
$920
$1,000,000
900,000
$1,900,000
300,000
$1,600,000
40,000
$160
$40
SSO
$33,000,000
$330
$3,600,000
6,600,000
$10,200,000
3,000,000
$7,200,000
400,000
$75
$18
MSW
$35,000,000
$350
$3,800,000
6,000,000
$9,800,000
2,000,000
$7,800,000
180,000
$80
$44
MSW
$23,000,000
$465
$2,600,000
3,200,000
$5,800,000
1,000,000
$4,800,000
90,000
$100
$54
SSO
$22,000,000
$440
$2,400,000
3,500,000
$5,900,000
1,500,000
$4,400,000
200,000
$90
$22
Revenue: AD plants produce two types of
marketable products that can generate revenue:
finished digestate (as a blending agent to produce
a soil conditioner) and surplus energy. These
facilities also produce a nitrogen-rich liquid that
could be used as a fertilizer, although the market
value of this product in Canada is unknown.
Assuming that a SSO plant product meets
CCME and provincial guidelines for unrestricted
use, a market value of $25 per tonne from the
sale of finished digestate is possible based on
the experience of many Canadian municipalities
producing soil conditioners in aerobic compost
facilities. At this price, average revenue potential
measured on the basis of incoming feedstock is
approximately $10 per tonne of incoming SSO,
assuming the plant is operating at full capacity.
For plants processing mixed MSW, an average
market price of $25 per tonne of finished diges-
tate is equal to approximately $6 per tonne of
feedstock delivered to the facility. This compara-
tively low revenue potential is due to the higher
residue rate anticipated for this feedstock. The
revenue potential of any soil conditioner made
with finished digestate from a mixed MSW
plant is dependent upon the production of a
digestate that meets guidelines for unrestricted use.
A second potential source of revenue is the
sale of surplus energy (see Section 5). There are
basically four market options:
Clean the biogas to extract methane gas,
which can then be exported and sold as a
substitute for natural gas;
Burn methane gas in an internal combustion
engine to produce electricity for sale off-site
while collecting a small amount of heat from
the engine's exhaust and cooling system to
produce steam;
Burn the methane gas to produce steam and
generate a small amount of electricity, both for
sale off-site;
Convert methane gas into compressed natural
gas (CNG) to fuel light and heavy-duty
vehicles. Vehicles powered by CNG, such as
municipal buses, offer several environmental
benefits, including reduced noise levels and
cleaner emissions compared to diesel-powered
vehicles. CNG-powered vehicle operators have
also reported that vehicle maintenance costs are
40 to 50 per cent lower compared to diesel fuel.
The production of surplus methane gas also
assumes that methane represents 55 per cent of
the biogas gas (with the remaining 45 per cent
consisting largely of carbon dioxide) and that
20 per cent of the gas generated by the AD
facility is used for on-site energy needs. Based
on these assumptions, an AD plant processing
SSO could generate a stream of revenue equiva-
lent to approximately $20 per tonne of incoming
feedstock assuming the plant operates at design
capacity. Facilities processing mixed MSW
should generate a revenue stream of approxi-
mately $15 per tonne of incoming feed.
Estimated Net Per Household Cost of AD:
The per household cost varies between SSO
systems, where only 250 kg/household/year is
processed by the plant, and mixed MSW systems,
where we have assumed that 550 kg/household/
year is managed at the AD plant and little waste
requires landfilling.
Cost differences for SSO plants are dramatic as
plant size increases.There is not a significant cost
reduction between 50,000-tonne and 100,000-
tonne AD plants when measured on a per
household basis ($22/hh vs. $18/hh).The large
economies of scale occur between the 10,000-tonne
and 50,000-tonne plants.The same significant
economies of scale are clear when moving from a
mixed waste system (10,000 tonnes/year) serving a
community of 18,000 households ($100/hh/yr), to
a facility serving 90,000 households to $54/hh/yr.
A doubling of capacity from 50,000 to 100,000
tonnes/year results in a 20 per cent reduction in
per household costs (from $54 to $44/hh).
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 219
Factors that Influence Decisions on
Choosing AD Technology
While it is difficult to estimate accurately the
cost of these systems in Canada, figures devel-
oped for this analysis (which includes avoided
disposal costs) indicate that AD costs more than
landfilling. From a broader economic perspective,
an AD plant offers the potential of supporting a
number of public policy objectives, including:
Reduced reliance on traditional waste disposal
methods, the cost of which may not always
reflect broader environmental effects;
Development of emergency power applications;
Conversion of collection and transfer vehicles
to natural gas;
Production of "green" power;
Avoidance of GHGs produced in a landfill;
Capture and use of this gas to displace non-
renewable fuels.
AD and Existing Collection System
Implementing an AD system that processes
mixed MSW likely requires few changes to a
community's existing municipal waste handling
system. In most Canadian municipalities, mixed
MSW is set out curbside by residents of single-
family homes and in dumpsters for multi-family
dwellings and small commercial establishments.
As material separation occurs in the plant,
household residents are not required to change.
SSO implementation programs could
require significant changes to the existing waste
handling system, though careful planning may
mitigate effects. The central planning challenge
is determining the most cost-efficient method of
adding a new service while ensuring that all col-
lection systems are compatible with downstream
processing operations. Although the simplest
solution is to implement a dedicated fleet
providing curbside SSO collection services, the
capital and annual operating costs could be
considerable.
Another option is co-collection. Curbside
collection of two or more waste streams has been
implemented in several Canadian municipalities,
including the Regional Municipality of Halifax,
N.S., and the cities of St. Thomas and Guelph,
Ont. The specific features of each municipal co-
collection program vary depending on number of
sorts at the curb, container provided to house-
holds and truck technology, which highlights the
importance of identifying and evaluating options
that address a community's unique political,
social, and financial characteristics.
Availability of Land
A number of technologies employ a tall, vertical
digestion reactor, which can be quite economical
in terms of land use. Some estimates suggest
that a 50,000 tonne/year reactor that processes
a dry stream of organic waste will require a foot-
print of 400 square metres while the entire site
can be implemented on 10,000 square metres.
Other technologies employ modular
10,000 tonne/year horizontal reactors, each
requiring approximately 2,000 square metres.
Although a modular system offers a number of
advantages--including ease of capacity expan-
sion--land requirements may be considerable.
The provision of 50,000 tonnes/year digestion
capacity with modular units would require
a total reactor footprint of approximately
10,000 square metres in addition to other site
uses, such as roads for truck circulation and
loading/unloading, pre- and post-processing
equipment, material transfer, and setbacks.
220 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Environmental benefits of AD include:
Diversion of organic waste from landfill or
incineration to a technology where the gas
potential of the waste is realized in three
weeks rather than 30 years or more in a landfill;
Methane produced by AD plants is collected
and managed in an environmentally sound
manner and is converted to CO2, which is less
damaging as a GHG than methane;
Methane produced in the digester is used as a
fuel and, if it displaces oil, natural gas or coal,
has significant GHG benefits;
AD plants need small footprints, therefore do
not cause significant displacement of land;
AD of organic municipal waste lowers the
requirement for landfill capacity and preserves
existing landfill capacity for other wastes
where diversion options are less viable, thereby
resulting in reduced environmental displace-
ment effects of landfill;
Organic waste is stabilized outside of a land-
fill, reducing effects on landfill leachate
production and quality;
Some wastewater is produced by AD plants,
but is easily treated to bylaw limit require-
ments by currently available technologies.
Greenhouse Gas Effects
AD facilities are designed to promote rapid
anaerobic decomposition of solid waste. The
resulting methane (and other gases) is used as
an energy source, from which electricity (and
sometimes steam) is recovered. Relatively little
information is available on the GHG emissions
and sinks from AD for SSO and other wastes.
Categories of potential GHG emissions or
sinks/offsets from AD facilities:
Methane emissions;
Electricity offsets;
Soil carbon sequestration. (The AD process
also generates CO2 emissions but it is not
counted in emission inventories using
International Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]
protocols and methods, and is therefore not
addressed in this analysis.)
AD facilities are designed and operated to
capture methane, thus it is reasonable to assume
methane emissions are negligible.
The effect of soil carbon sequestration in
the AD emission calculations was taken from
the 2001 Environment Canada report,
Determination of the Impact of Waste Management
Activities on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. After
digesting MSW anaerobically, AD facilities use
aerobic composting to further stabilize the
organic materials. The resulting compost would
then be applied to soils as a soil amendment.
Assumptions used to estimate GHG effects of
AD were:
For yard trimmings, the residual carbon
content remaining after the AD/aerobic
sequence is the same as the residual carbon
after centralized composting (previously
estimated by various USEPA studies); and
Because neither newsprint nor yard trimmings
generate much methane, their soil carbon
benefits exceed the carbon dioxide emissions
avoided through electricity offsets from AD.
When AD facilities generate electricity, they
can offset fossil fuel use at other electric generat-
ing units. For purposes of evaluating the effect
of energy efficiency, renewables, or other offsets,
it is Canada's policy to assume that the marginal
fuel offset by electricity generators (as a result of
using gas generated by AD facilities) is natural
gas. The key steps in estimating the magnitude
of electricity offsets are to:
Estimate yield of methane in AD facilities, on
a material-specific basis;
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 221
Estimate the conversion efficiency (or heat
rate) of methane to electricity.
The biogas from anaerobic digesters is
upgraded for energy use by removing moisture,
CO2, and other by-products. This gas can be
used as a substitute for natural gas, either in
boilers producing hot water and steam for
industrial processes or to generate electricity.
Energy is needed for the process (heating, mix-
ing, drying, etc.) and is usually supplied from
the biogas product. Values quoted by suppliers
varied from 15 to 20 per cent of in-plant energy
generation needed to meet in-plant needs, and
up to 80 per cent available for export or sale.
Waste Diversion Effects
AD can ideally be applied to any biodegradable
fraction of the municipal waste stream.
Counting paper, food, and leaf and yard waste,
the total biodegradable fraction of the waste
stream handled by Canadian municipalities is
more than 60 per cent. How much is realistically
divertible depends on the system collecting and
sending the waste to the digester, combined with
end-market availability. SSO systems provide a
cleaner feedstock (below 10 per cent contamina-
tion), and high-end markets are available to
absorb the finished materials. Mixed waste
streams are more contaminated with non-
biodegradable materials (up to 30 per cent), and
the resulting finished compost may not be as
readily absorbed by high-end markets.
Wastewater Discharge Effects
While of high strength, wastewater produced by
AD plants is easily treated on-site with currently
available technologies to meet typical Canadian
city sewer use bylaw limit requirements.
It is estimated that a 10,000 tonne per year
AD facility would discharge 9 m3/day of
wastewater if a dry AD technology is used and
17 m3/day if a wet technology is used. Typically
dry AD systems generate the most wastewater
due to the extraction of moisture from the input
material. In wet AD systems, moisture is added
to facilitate the digestion process. However,
the wastewater from the dewatering process is
222 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
1,730
1,840
1,550
1,865
NO CARBON SEQUESTRATION
CARBON SEQUESTRATION INCLUDED
WASTE STREAM PROCESSED
SSO
Mixed MSW
GHG REDUCTIONS OF A 10,000 TONNE/YEAR AD PLANT WITH AND
WITHOUT CARBON SEQUESTRATION (TONNES ECO2/YEAR)
TABLE 4.3
Reduction of eCO2 emissions in tonnes/per year for a 100,000 tonnes/per year AD plant, when treating SSO and mixed waste,
including and excluding the effect of carbon sequestration.
recirculated through the plant for reuse in the
incoming waste stream, and relatively small
amounts are discharged.
ENERGY IMPLICATIONS
AD is a net energy-producing process. The
plant's internal energy needs (parasitic load) is
approximately 20 per cent of the energy produced
for dry AD technologies, and approximately
50 per cent for wet AD technologies. In both cases,
considerable excess energy is available for export
as either a natural gas substitute or other forms.
Estimating potential value of surplus energy
is dependent on many variables, including:
Feedstock selection - SSO contains a higher
proportion of easily digested organic waste,
but mixed waste contains more paper, which,
depending on quality, is also a digestible
source of gas (e.g., fine papers are readily
digestible and high gas producers).
Seasonal variations - Spring and summer
seasons lead to leaf and yard waste, two types
of organic waste that do not break down easily
and can reduce the rate of biogas production.
Plant operation - High rates of annual biogas
production depend on the digestion reactor's
efficiency.
Local market conditions - Access to potential
buyers and a distribution system, as well as
local prices for methane gas, steam, and
electricity will affect revenue potential.
Reported biogas production for SSO and
mixed MSW AD facilities is in the range of
100 to 110 cubic metres of biogas per tonne of
incoming feedstock. Estimating production rates
for any given community requires a detailed
evaluation to estimate the amount of digestible
organic material in the local waste stream and,
therefore, biogas gas production potential.
A proper assessment requires a detailed
technical and financial analysis of local market
conditions. For instance, connections to the elec-
trical system, steam and/or hot water piping,
biogas piping, and to natural gas lines may be
possible but require extensive review for optimal
energy performance. This illustration assumes
the sale of methane gas to an industrial consumer
located close to the AD plant. The market value
of methane is assumed to be 45 cents per cubic
metre, which includes a price of 28 cents per
cubic metre plus an avoided natural gas trans-
mission cost of 17 cents per cubic metre (both
figures are indicative of prices in the City of
Toronto as of December 2001). If a sales contract
with an industrial consumer located close to the
AD plant cannot be secured, transmission costs
will likely be incurred, thereby lowering the
revenue potential of the AD plant.
The production of surplus methane gas also
assumes that methane is 55 per cent of the bio-
gas (with the remaining 45 per cent consisting
largely of carbon dioxide) and that 20 per
cent of the gas generated by the AD facility is
used for on-site energy needs. Based on these
assumptions, an AD plant that processes SSO
could generate a stream of revenue equivalent
to approximately $20 per tonne of incoming
feedstock assuming the plant operates at
design capacity. A facility processing mixed
MSW could be expected to generate a revenue
stream from the biogas of approximately $15 per
tonne of incoming feed.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 223
Lessons Learned
With the exception of the CCI plant in the
Town of Newmarket, Ont., and the SUBBOR
plant in the City of Guelph, Ont., there is no
experience in AD of SSO or mixed MSW in
North America.
Various European vendors have successfully
run AD plants which process 10,000 to
20,000 tonnes per year of SSO. Designs have
been modified based on operational experience.
These vendors have recently started to build
larger plants, in the 50,000 tonne/year range
(e.g., Valorga has a 50,000 tonne/year plant in
Tilburg, The Netherlands; DRANCO has
recently expanded its original Brecht plant in
Belgium to process 50,000 tonnes/year). Time
will tell if these operate successfully.
Can these plants process mixed waste suc-
cessfully? One fundamental difference between
Europe and Canada is that the European plants
do not depend on compost revenues. In virtually
all cases, compost is given to farmers or soil
blenders. Canadian plants would need compost
revenues for the economic viability of AD
plants, and there are many unanswered ques-
tions about compost quality at the end of the
mixed waste digestion design.
AD of MSW or SSO on a large scale is also
unproven. Large plants are currently being con-
structed in Europe, and it would be prudent to
observe them.
Some key lessons for any organics diversion
program:
Establish measurable targets to assess overall
program performance;
Anticipate seasonal variations in material
collected and build capacity into the
processing plant;
Consider implementing bylaws requiring
mandatory participation and the hiring of
bylaw enforcement officers to promote the
program and help maximize participation rates;
Consider implementation of a collection pilot
to assess potential SSO recovery rates. This
information can then be used to adjust plan-
ning assumptions about the plant's design
capacity;
Strike a volunteer steering committee to help
secure public support and participation;
Informal workshops to disseminate informa-
tion on new collection programs were held in
one Canadian community, but did not achieve
expected results;
Compare fully AD of SSO vs. composting
of SSO.
224 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 225
Organic biodegradable waste broken down without oxygen (anaerobic)
to produce methane gas, carbon dioxide, water, and digestate (which is
composted). Can be wet or dry AD
Can divert all or most organic and biodegradable products (food, yard
waste, some papers)
Anaerobic digestion is a high-tech system that requires skilled technical
operators. It is most suited to reasonably large urban areas with at least
18,000 to 40,000 households as a minimum threshold to justify the
construction of the system
Costs require a plant of at least 10,000 tonnes/year
Costs decrease dramatically towards 50,000 tonnes/yr
Greatest economies of scale at 100,000 tonnes/yr (mixed waste from
180,000 households or source-separated waste from 400,000 hhlds)
Availability of local energy
Methods to digest mixed waste effectively are currently being explored
Diverts organic waste from landfill, minimizing generation of acidic
leachate and methane
Generates methane under controlled conditions, as an energy source,
displacing other sources of power
Net energy generator, with 50% (wet plants) to 80% (dry plants)
available for export
Plants of 10,000 to 20,000 tonnes/yr source-separated organics work well
in Europe. Little track record for larger plants currently in operation
DESCRIPTION
GENERAL PERFORMANCE
COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
COSTS
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED
ACQUISITION
NEW AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
ENERGY IMPLICATIONS
LESSONS LEARNED
Summary
Factor
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION SUMMARY
TABLE 4.4
General Description
T
hermal technologies involve high-
temperature processing to reduce the
quantity or to stabilize material requiring dis-
posal, and to recover energy and potentially
material resources. Thermal technologies are
designed to process wastes with a heat value, but
can handle most wastes. Glass and metal have
no heat value and are generally collected in a
recycling program. Large items, such as bulky
goods (sofas, fridges), are also generally removed
ahead of the thermal unit.
Although individual facilities may vary,
the process of thermal treatment/destruction
generally involves:
Physical processing equipment (mechanical
and manual) to recover recyclable materials
contained in the incoming waste stream;
Thermal treatment/destruction unit (e.g.,
combustion or gasification chambers);
Heat and/or energy recovery system;
Air pollution control system;
Ash management system.
Overall, thermal treatment/destruction
facilities are designed based on:
Site-specific needs;
Energy consumer needs;
Applicable regulatory requirements,
(in particular, air emissions performance
standards).
226 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Thermal Treatment
5
S E C T I O N
GM Autoplex, Oshawa, Ont.
50 t/d
$125 to $150 /t
Ash quality must be controlled by removing non-combustible
or large-size material from the feed waste
Heat recovery is possible, however, economic study is
recommended for decision-making regarding investment
Typically for towns of approximately 25,000 hh
Facility processes non-hazardous solid wastes, reasonably
typical of the garbage component of municipal residential
three-stream waste programs. Higher operating maintenance
costs than other conventional technologies
Canadian Example
Capacity
Cost (Capital and
Operating Costs)
Environmental Effects
Energy Implications
Community
Characteristics
Other
ROTARY KILN
INCINERATOR
Details
Technology
CANADIAN EXAMPLES OF THERMAL TREATMENT/DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
TABLE 5.1
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 227
Burnaby Incinerator, Burnaby, B.C.
720t/d
$65/t
Facility exceeds existing requirements and proposed new CCME
metals and organics emission concentration guidelines
Facility has excellent efficiency as steam is used by nearby paper
recycling facility to replace natural gas use
Large cities, typically 250,000 hh or greater
Well established technology, more than 50 years old.
State of the art technology for large facilities
KMS, Brampton, Ont.
140 t/d
$100/t
Facility has consistently incorporated state-of-the-art air pollution
control technology upgrades and, as a result, enjoys strong support
from the host community
Heat recovery can be economically advantageous.
An economic study is recommended
Typically for small towns to medium-sized cities, 5,500 to
20,000 hh, although can serve larger communities with
multiple units
Extensively used. Well-known technology and stable operation.
Sensitive to operating conditions
EcoWaste Solutions, Burlington, Ont.
0.5 to 3 t/d
$72 to $200 /t
Long residence time yields good ash quality. May require
additional air pollution control equipment to meet future air
emission regulations. Or community education programs could
result in removal of significant amounts of contaminant precursors
from incoming waste streams
Electrical energy production not generally economical given
small facility size. Heat recovery for heat energy use in industrial
applications adjacent to facility can make energy recovery viable.
Canadian Example
Capacity
Cost (Capital and
Operating Costs)
Environmental Effects
Energy Implications
Community
Characteristics
Other
Canadian Example
Capacity
Cost (Capital and
Operating Costs)
Environmental Effects
Energy Implications
Community
Characteristics
Other
Canadian Example
Capacity
Cost (Capital and
Operating Costs)
Environmental Effects
Energy Implications
MASS BURNING
STARVED AIR
INCINERATOR
(Two-staged
Combustion)
Continuous Feeding
STARVED AIR
INCINERATOR
(Two-staged
Combustion)
Batch Operation
Details
Technology
CANADIAN EXAMPLES OF THERMAL TREATMENT/DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES (CONT'D)
TABLE 5.1
(continues on p. 228)
228 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Small towns, typically 2,500 hh
Extensively used
Well-known technology
Enerkem, Sherbrooke, Que.
0.1 to 3.5 t/d (European facility capacity: 100 t/d)
NA
Potential significant net environmental life cycle
benefits of resources recovery
Significant benefits may be achieved through the use of
synthetic gas, including in fuel cells
Typically for towns ranging from 5,500 to 20,000 hh
Completion of Sherbrooke pilot testing and ability to scale up and
receive typical MSW under current and forecast project application
specific energy and landfill tipping fee circumstances requires address
HUWS, Caledon, Ont.
10 to 30 t/d
N/A
Potential for net life cycle environmental benefits of displacement
of conventional fuels used in heat-intensive industrial applications,
such as cement manufacture
No commercial applications established for RDF produced by
current technology/facility
Enerkem, Sherbrooke, Que.
Refer to Enerkem - fluidized bed, above
RCL, Ottawa, Ont.
To date, only bench scale applications to selected waste streams.
Ability to scale up to process typical MSW streams must be established
Eli Eco Logic, Rockwood, Ont.
No demonstration of commercially viable application to municipal
solid waste streams
Community
Characteristics
Other
Canadian Example
Capacity
Cost (Capital and
Operating Costs)
Environmental Effects
Energy Implications
Community
Characteristics
Other
Canadian Example
Capacity
Cost (Capital and
Operating Costs)
Environmental and
Energy Effects
Other
Canadian Example
Comments
Canadian Example
Comments
Canadian Example
Comments
Batch Operation
(con'td)
FLUIDIZED BED
REFUSE DERIVED
FUEL (RDF)
PYROLYSIS/
GASIFICATION
PLASMA
TECHNOLOGY
THERMO-CHEMICAL
REDUCTION
Details
Technology
CANADIAN EXAMPLES OF THERMAL TREATMENT/DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES (CONT'D)
TABLE 5.1
To achieve waste volume reduction, physi-
cal/chemical stabilization and energy and
recyclable material recovery from thermal
destruction, the following are required:
Waste Pre-processing and Feed Rate
Control
Incoming waste is inspected to isolate unaccept-
able materials (e.g., hazardous or oversized
materials) and mixed to create a blend that is
homogenous in physical, chemical, and heat
value characteristics. Wastes may be mechani-
cally processed (e.g., shredded and screened) to
create a uniform practical size, protecting the
integrity of and optimizing the utilization of the
design capacity of the technology. Incoming
waste can be mechanically and/or manually
processed to recover recyclable materials that
were not captured in curbside recycling pro-
grams. Once "pre-processed," waste is fed into
the thermal treatment/destruction units.
Careful control of feed rates, often via comput-
erized weight/volume measures, is necessary to
protect and optimize the design capacities to the
"downstream"elements (thermal units, air pollution
control systems, energy recovery and power
generation systems) of the facility.
Thermal Treatment/Destruction
Waste is treated and/or destroyed via application
of temperature under various chemical environ-
ments (principally oxygen concentrations).
Temperature drives various physical/chemical
transformations of the waste. Generally, waste is
either rapidly oxidized to convert carbon/hydro-
gen molecules into carbon dioxide and water, or
is reduced to convert complex carbon/hydrogen
molecules into simpler elements, such as con-
stituent oils, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen
gas. In both cases, the waste materials remaining
are substantially reduced--some being converted
from solid to gaseous states--and are of a sim-
pler, stable chemical composition. Thus the
remaining solid waste material is more amenable
to landfill disposal.
Energy Recovery
Municipal solid waste contains substantial
heat energy. Unprocessed, unprepared MSW
has a heat value of approximately 12 giga-joules/
tonne (5,500 Btu/lb). The heat energy contained
in five tonnes of waste, released through thermal
treatment/destruction and subsequently cap-
tured and converted into electricity, can supply
the annual power needs of a typical Canadian
home. Actual heat values depend on specific
composition of the waste, including the circum-
stances of its collection and delivery to a facility,
and the extent to which it is pre-processed to
remove inert and high moisture content materials.
To illustrate this point, consider the differ-
ence between a load of yard waste--principally
grass collected after a week of rain--and a load
of waste collected from a strip-mall--principally
comprised of plastic materials from fast-food
outlets. In the latter case, the non-recyclable
plastic generated over one year by a municipality
of one million has been calculated as sufficient
to "fuel" a five megawatt power facility, at an
assumed energy recovery/conversion efficiency
of 37 per cent.
Heat energy recovery systems have histori-
cally involved boilers. The heat energy released
from waste is transformed to steam that is then
converted to electricity via turbine/generators.
Energy recovery/conversion efficiencies of
20 per cent to 30 per cent are associated with
conventional thermal treatment ("incineration")
and boiler technologies. Steam and/or hot water
can be used directly, as in the case of district
heating systems or applications in industrial
manufacturing processes. In recent years,
combined-cycle gas turbines (combustion
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 229
exhaust gas powers a gas turbine and at the
same time, excess heat is captured to power a
steam turbine) have substantially improved
energy efficiencies. Use of newer gasification
treatment and combined cycle gas turbine tech-
nologies can yield energy efficiencies of 40 to
60 per cent. In some gasification technologies,
synthetic gas is produced that can be fired in
internal combustion engines or used to drive
hydrogen fuel cells. Energy efficiencies of 80 per
cent plus can be achieved where refuse derived
fuel (RDF) is used to fuel existing industrial
thermo-chemical applications, such as clinker
production in cement kilns.
Air Pollution Control
An air pollution control system is used to treat
gaseous products (typically flue gas) from the
thermal treatment/destruction units. The design
is a function of the composition of the in-feed
waste, the treatment/destruction technology,
and the environmental performance regulations
applicable to the facility. The latter parameter
includes consideration of the thermal technolo-
gies' generic environmental track record and the
circumstances of site location where thermal
treatment is to occur (surrounding land use
context and ambient air quality). Typical air
pollution control systems are comprised of:
Flue gas cooling for subsequent physical/
chemical capture and removal;
Acid gases scrubbing (neutralization by lime
injection), heavy metals capture (bag house
filtering and activated carbon and/or catalytic
reactor adsorption);
Trace organics (e.g., dioxins and furans)
destruction and/or avoidance of substance
formation (via temperature greater than
1,000ºC to 1,200ºC exposure and avoiding
formation of free chlorine by use of low
oxygen reducing conditions);
Capture (bag house filtering and activated
carbon and/or catalytic reactor adsorption);
Particulate collection (bag house filtering
and/or electrostatic precipitators).
Air pollution control systems include
equipment to continuously and/or periodically
monitor emissions performance, and to report
performance for process control and regulatory
compliance purposes. Modern systems are inter-
linked to the waste in-feed control, thermal
treatment/destruction units, and energy recovery/
conversion units of a facility, so that trends in
emission performance are discerned and appro-
priate adjustments made to ensure emissions meet
or exceed regulatory standards.
Ash Management
The solid residue remaining after thermal treat-
ment/destruction is typically termed "bottom
ash." It is mechanically collected, cooled, magnet-
ically/electrically screened to recover recyclable
ferrous/aluminum materials, and removed for
"ultimate" management, typically landfilled. The
material can, depending upon its chemical com-
position and physical state, be used as a form
of aggregate substitute. Air pollution control
systems generate the other solid residue from
a facility (fly ash), which is made of fine particu-
late contaminants captured from the flue gas and
the reagents (e.g., lime) used to effect capture.
Fly ash is classified as hazardous waste and is
usually managed via further chemical stabiliza-
tion and ultimate disposal in secure hazardous
waste landfill sites. Certain thermal technologies
employ extremely high temperatures to convert
ash into inert vitrified substances, either as an
integral element of converting the waste into gas
and recoverable chemical elements or as a dedi-
cated ash management process.
230 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Technologies
Thermal technologies considered "proven tech-
nologies" and used or under consideration for
use in the management of municipal solid waste
include:
Rotary kiln incineration;
Mass burn incineration;
Starved air incineration;
Fluidized bed combustion;
Pyrolysis and gasification;
Plasma technology;
Thermo-chemical reduction; and
Refuse derived fuel.
Differences among these technologies relate
to process temperature, process oxygen concen-
tration, point of application of gas cleaning/air
pollution control, and physical location where
energy is recovered.
Rotary kiln, mass burn, starved air incineration
and fluidized bed units have been used extensively
for the past 50 years in Europe and North America
to treat municipal solid waste. Canadian exam-
ples include the City of Charlottetown, P.E.I.;
the City of Sydney, N.S.; Quebec City, Que.; the
Region of Peel, Ont.; and the Greater Vancouver
Regional District, B.C.
Pyrolysis/gasification, plasma arc, and
thermo-chemical reduction technologies have
historically been utilized in Europe and North
America for the management of special wastes
(hazardous wastes--such as PCBs, biomedical,
nuclear--and homogeneous industrial waste
streams--such as petrochemical and paper pulp
sludge wastes). Canadian examples include
technology developers located in the City of
Montreal, and the Cities of Ottawa, Kingston
and Rockwood, Ont. These technologies are
now actively being considered for application to
municipal solid waste as new and emerging tech-
nologies. Commercial scale facilities are now in
the commissioning and/or full operation stages
in Europe. Commercial-scale applications to
municipal solid waste in Canada are not, as yet,
in existence. However, a pilot-scale gasification
facility is being tested in the City of Sherbrooke,
Que., and vendors of these types of technologies
are in discussions with a number of municipalities
across Canada.
SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGIES/EVALUATION
Rotary Kiln Incineration
Rotary kiln incineration has been used for the
thermal destruction of MSW since the 1950s and
is also widely used for the disposal of a variety of
solid and liquid hazardous wastes, including ther-
mally stable compounds, such as PCBs. Rotary
kilns are suitable for management of wastes for
municipalities of approximately 25,000 households.
Operation
These incinerators are computer-controlled, two-
stage combustion systems with a primary rotary
kiln and a secondary combustion chamber. Waste
is fed into the kiln, and burned for approximately
30 minutes at a typical temperature of 850°C.
Solid wastes are batch fed into the kiln by a ram
feed system, or screw fed through a rotating air
lock. Liquid wastes can be blended with solids or
injected into the primary (or secondary) chamber
through atomization with steam or air. The sec-
ondary combustion chamber is between 30 and
60 per cent of the size of the primary kiln, where
combustion temperatures range between 1,000º
and 1,200ºC at two seconds residence time.
Cost and Capacity
Rotary kiln incinerators have typical capacities
ranging from 10 to 50 tonnes per day. The tech-
nology is relatively capital intensive. Combined
annualized capital and operating costs (net of
recovered energy revenue) range from $125 to
$150 per tonne of waste processed, estimated
over a 25-year capital payback period.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 231
Environmental Effects and Energy
Implications
Rotary kiln incinerator technology applications
can meet all Canadian environmental regulatory
requirements. However, due largely to a relatively
short combustion residence time, the quality
of ash can be disadvantageous from a life cycle
management cost standpoint. To improve the
ash quality, feed waste may be pre-processed to
remove non-combustibles and the combustible
portion of the feed may be shredded prior to
incineration to reduce residence time required
for complete burning.
Rotary kiln incinerators involve relatively
high operating costs. It has been shown that
high operating temperatures periodically destroy
the seals in the rotary unit and cause leakages,
which result in poor combustion and energy
recovery performance. The tumbling action
caused by rotation can also result in dense waste
particles cracking the refractory brick, leading to
frequent and expensive shutdown and repair.
Again, pre-processing the waste can solve this
problem.
Heat recovery is possible, however, economic
cost-benefit studies are required to identify the
level of capital investment required.
Mass Burn Incineration
Mass burn incineration is a well-established
technology developed more than 100 years ago
for energy generation from municipal solid
waste. The units are large in capacity and involve
operations that can range from single-stage
combustion to a form of two-stage combustion.
Mass burn incineration is used in cities of at
least 250,000 households. At this size and
greater, economies of scale are experienced.
Operation
Waste is fed "as received" into a single combus-
tion chamber onto one or more grates (multi-
grate systems) where the following functions
occur:
Drying--water content is reduced to prepare
material for burning;
Primary burning--the more readily
combustible materials are oxidized;
Finish burning--fixed carbon is oxidized.
Depending on temperature and oxygen
content of operations, and design of the internal
physical configuration of the combustion chamber,
waste can either be oxidized in a single- or two-
stage function. The latter is more typical as
it yields better control of combustion, more
complete "burn-out" (less ash of a more inert
nature), and more optimal energy recovery capa-
bility. Waste is burned on the grate(s) in what is
commonly referred to as sub-stoichiometric con-
ditions, where sufficient oxygen is not available
for complete combustion. The available oxygen
is approximately 30 to 80 per cent of the
required amount for complete combustion,
resulting in the formation of pyrolysis gases
(flue gas). These gases rise in the combustion
chamber where they are combined with excess
air and complete oxidation occurs. The remain-
der of the system (energy recovery via boiler, air
pollution control, and ash management systems)
is similar to that for the rotary kiln incinerator.
Cost and Capacity
Mass burner facilities range in capacity from
100 to 1,000 tonnes per unit per day. Facilities
with a total unit capacity of 5,000 tonnes per
day are in operation in North America.
However, in Canada, typical facilities have a
total capacity of between 400 and 850 tonnes per
day. Combined annualized capital and operating
232 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
costs (net of recovered energy revenue) range
from $65 to $85 per tonne of waste processed,
estimated over a 25-year capital payback period.
Environmental Effects and Energy
Implications
Mass burn technology applications meet all
Canadian environmental regulatory require-
ments. They produce good ash quality due to
long residence times on the grate(s). Heat recovery
and electricity generation are possible and, with
modern boilers, a high level of energy efficiency
can be achieved. Mass burn facilities have excel-
lent energy efficiency and generally export their
energy as either steam or electricity. Example:
steam produced at the Greater Vancouver
Regional District, B.C., incineration facility is
used by a nearby paper recycling facility to
replace the use of natural gas.
Starved Air Incineration
("pure" two-stage combustion)
Starved air incinerators, also known as con-
trolled air incinerators, have been used exten-
sively for municipal solid waste and hospital
waste treatment. The primary difference with
mass burn incineration lies in the control of
oxygen: there is a higher degree of oxygen control
in a starved air system. The technology evolved
from mass burn units, which were operating in
two-stage combustion mode. The distinction is
that the newer "pure" two-stage technology
"guaranteed" a separation of the first and second
stages for even better combustion control, ease
of air pollution control, and improved energy
recovery potential. Starved air incineration has
been relatively continuously developed to
achieve increased reliability through improved
design of component functions/equipment.
Today, it is a well-established technology with a
stable and reliable process.
Operation
Starved air incinerators are two-stage combus-
tion systems. The primary chamber burns carbon
to produce carbon monoxide. Solid waste is
fed, in an as-received state, into the chamber
and volatilized on a stationary hearth in a sub-
stoichiometric, or low-oxygen environment.
Volatile gases enter the secondary chamber for a
more complete burn, where auxiliary fuel burners
and combustion air blowers provide supplemental
heat and excess air to maintain temperatures up
to 1,200°C. The secondary chamber is designed
for a residence time of one to two seconds.
Two types of starved air incineration systems
are available for use in the treatment of munici-
pal solid waste: semi-continuous incinerators
and batch units.
Semi-continuous Starved Air Incinerators:
These systems are appropriate for smaller
municipalities as their design capacity is in the
10- to 100-tonne-per-day range, or a population
of 4,000 to 40,000, assuming residential waste
and limited IC&I waste collection.
The stepped hearth is a common type of
starved air incinerator, containing two to four
stationary hearths. Waste is injected onto the
first hearth about every 10 minutes, with each
successive charge of waste moving the previous
charge through. When the charge gets to the
end of the first hearth, it free-falls 30 cm to
60 cm onto the second hearth. This allows
the waste to mix with the combustion air and
exposes new surfaces to the high temperatures.
Waste is burned at approximately 850°C
under sub-stoichiometric conditions in the pri-
mary chamber, producing ash (fixed carbon) and
flue gas, which contains the gaseous products of
incomplete combustion (such as carbon monox-
ide). Flue gas from this stage feeds into the sec-
ondary stage, where it is heated to approximately
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 233
1,000°C and injected with excess air to complete
the combustion process. The post-incineration
portion is similar to that used in mass burner
and rotary kiln systems.
Batch Process Starved Air Incinerators: Batch
starved air facilities are suitable for small
communities of as few as 2,500 households.
Waste is fed into the primary chamber of the
unit as a one-time function at the start of the
batch operation, and is burned at a temperature
of 850°C under sub-stoichiometric conditions.
Products of this stage are ash, fixed carbon and
flue gas, which contains the gaseous products of
incomplete combustion.
Flue gas feeds into the secondary stage and
is heated to 1,000ºC, where it is injected with
excess air to assist in completing the combustion
process.
The post-incineration portion of the system
is somewhat different from the previous inciner-
ators, with considerably less equipment. The flue
gases are cooled and treated in a low-tech acid
scrubber to lower acid content. Stack gases are
then continuously monitored for the concentra-
tions of air pollutants as they are released into
the atmosphere.
Cost and Capacity
Semi-continuous Starved Air Incinerators:
Typical capacities range from 10 to 100 tonnes
per day. Combined annualized capital and oper-
ating costs (net of recovered energy revenue)
from $100 to $150 per tonne of waste processed,
estimated over a 25-year capital payback period.
Batch Process Starved Air Incinerators: Typical
capacities range from 0.5 to 3 tonnes per day.
Combined annualized capital and operating
costs (net of recovered energy revenue) are in
the range of $75 to $200 per tonne of waste
processed, estimated over a 25-year capital
payback period.
Environmental Effects and Energy
Implications
Semi-continuous Starved Air Incinerators:
This incinerator technology can meet all
Canadian environmental regulatory require-
ments. The low levels of turbulence in the primary
chamber reduce particulate carry-over in the flue
gas stream. As a result, particulate matter emis-
sions are lower than those for other types.
Heat recovery and electricity generation are
feasible and can be economically advantageous.
Generally, heat recovery is not economical for
small facilities, but is worthwhile for larger facil-
ities. In all cases, a cost-benefit study is required
to assess feasibility.
Batch Process Starved Air Incinerators: The
advantages of this system include good ash quality
and relatively small amounts of particulate emis-
sions. Low levels of turbulence in the primary
chamber reduce particulate carry-over and, as
a result, particulate matter emissions from this
incinerator are lower than for other incineration
technologies.
The drawback of the technology now in
commercial operation, is the absence of air
pollution control systems for mercury and other
heavy metals emissions, and for trace organics
emissions (dioxins, chloro-benzene, chlorophenol).
In the absence of such systems, it cannot be
generally stated that this technology meets
all Canadian environmental regulatory require-
ments. This is compounded by the fact that
there are two Canada-wide standards for air
emissions from incinerators (i.e., for mercury
and for dioxins and furans). Provinces are in
various stages of implementing new standards.
234 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Solutions include retrofitting air pollution
control equipment into the operations of exist-
ing facilities or facility designs. Also, the compo-
sition of incoming wastes can be influenced
through public education, waste set-out and
collection specifications, as well as pre-processing
prior to feed, to produce a composition that
minimizes air pollution effects.
Eco Waste Solutions of the City of
Burlington, Ont., manufactures a batch process
starved air unit that has been used in a number
of MSW management applications at military
installations and eco-sensitive contexts, such as
destination tourism locations in Canada and the
U.S. These applications have been associated
with relatively remote geographic locations,
where waste management options are limited
(e.g., prohibitions against landfill disposal in the
high-north); higher costs have simply been
absorbed.
Electrical energy production is not generally
economical given the small facility size. Heat
recovery for industrial applications at adjacent
facilities may be viable.
Fluidized Bed Systems
Fluidized bed systems are capable of destroying
a wide range of wastes. While the technology is
commercially used for material of homogeneous
nature (sewage sludge, petroleum waste, paper
industry waste), fluidized beds can also be used
for municipal solid waste treatment. They are
suitable for use in communities ranging from
5,500 to 20,000 households.
Operation
A fluidized bed is a large incineration chamber
with silica sand at the bottom. Air is injected
and dispersed into the sand through a series of
air dispersion nozzles, decreasing the density of
the sand mass to enable it to transport air and
heat to the particles of waste substance to be
treated (combusted). A burner at the bottom of
the bed raises the sand mass' temperature to
approximately 850ºC.
Pre-processed waste is moved into the body
of the sand bed by the convection current move-
ment of the air and sand particles. The waste is
burned to produce carbon monoxide and other
volatiles. These gases undergo further combus-
tion in the upper section of the incinerator
chamber, above the surface of the bed, where
additional combustion air is injected. Flue gases
are then directed into the air pollution control
system. Ash deposited on the bed is evacuated
on the side opposite to waste injection.
Cost and Capacity
Fluidized bed systems range in capacity from
50 to 500 tonnes of waste per day. Combined
annualized capital and operating costs (net of
recovered energy revenue) range from $80 to
$110 per tonne of waste processed, estimated
over a 25-year capital payback period.
Environmental Issues
and Energy Implications
High residence time in the incinerator results
in smaller amounts of trace organics emissions.
Pre-processing the waste to smaller particle sizes
and the physical action of convection movement
through the sand bed medium increases surface
areas resulting in good "burn-out" and better ash
quality (i.e., low unburned carbon content).
However, large amounts of fine ash are
carried by air movement in the furnace into the
flue gases, placing an added burden on the air
pollution control system. Fluidized bed systems
require extensive air pollution control systems
with oversized equipment, including particulate
removal devices in the gas stream, and thus
require intensive maintenance.
Advantages of this technology stem mostly
from the fact that these systems have simple
designs, low capital cost and long service life.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 235
The absence of moving parts means fewer
breakdowns and simpler, less costly maintenance.
Due to high thermal inertia, fluidized bed
systems also are versatile in that they can toler-
ate large fluctuations in waste composition and
rate of feed. However, these systems require
skilled labour, as they involve more sophisticated
electrical components than older technologies.
They are also highly sensitive to particle sizing--
particles too large that stay at the bottom of the
bed unburned. Other special considerations
include bed degeneration, buildup and removal
of residual materials from the bed, and the
formation of eutectic moistures that fuse in
the furnace.
In terms of energy potential, significant
benefits may be achieved through the use of
synthetic gas, including its use in fuel cells.
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)
RDF systems treat waste to produce fuel that
can be used to substitute conventional fossil
fuels, typically coal, in industrial manufacturing
(e.g., cement kilns), utility power generation,
and institutional applications (e.g., district heating).
Refuse derived fuel technology has been
employed principally in Europe. In Canada, a
pilot-scale refuse derived fuel production facility
is in operation in the Regional Municipality of
Peel, Ont. However, commercial use of the facility's
fuel product has yet to occur.
Operation
Pre-processing of waste is carried out to improve
the fuel's combustion characteristics. Pre-processing
converts waste into a fuel with heat values, and
inerts, moisture and contaminant concentrations
approximating those of conventional fossil fuel.
Various levels of processing are possible,
but all involve the same basic operations. Non-
combustibles are removed from the waste to
reduce the quantity of ash per unit of waste,
and increase the heating value of the waste to be
processed by the incineration unit. Also, removing
certain materials containing higher concentrations
of heavy metals and trace organics improves the
effectiveness of the air pollution control system
employed post-RDF combustion. Recyclable
materials may also be captured at this stage and
organic matter removed for composting, or the
moisture content of the organic fraction of the
incoming waste stream may be driven off to ren-
der the organic material more suitable as a fuel.
RDF is particle-sized--usually by shredding to
decrease the residence time and/or the incin-
erator size required to achieve acceptable ash
quality. The RDF can be pelletized through
compression to facilitate transportation to the
point of usage--usually a large industrial or
utility facility (e.g., cement kiln, metals smelter,
electric power generator).
Cost and Capacity
Capacities are defined by the size of energy
customer markets for RDF. A typical cement
kiln could use in the range of 500 tonnes per day
of RDF. The combined annualized capital and
operating costs (net of the energy revenue value
of the RDF) to process waste into RDF are $25
to $100 per tonne of waste processed, estimated
over a 25-year capital payback period. (Costs are
dependent upon scale of operation and extent of
processing activities required.)
Environmental Issues and Energy
Implications
The direct advantages of pre-processing waste
into RDF include reduced greenhouse gas emis-
sions, better ash quality, economic benefits from
recovered marketable recyclable materials, access
to a wider range of potential energy recovery
opportunities (i.e., refuse derived fuel industrial/
institutional applications) given the readily
transportable state of RDF. The indirect advan-
tages lie in the net environmental benefits of
236 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
replacing consumption of fossil fuels. It can also
be used at electricity generating stations (e.g., as
a substitute for coal).
NEW AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
New and emerging technologies are discussed
here in some detail, as there are frequent mis-
understandings over terms, the potential for
technology applications and performance capa-
bilities. New and emerging technologies do not
yet have a history of commercial application to
municipal solid waste streams upon which
understandings of performance can be based.
To date, knowledge of the technical design, and
environmental and economic performance of
these technologies, generally lies with a relatively
few proprietary technology vendors.
A number of new and emerging technologies
exist in concept, bench-scale or as pilot-scale
demonstration units, with theoretical advantages
over conventional thermal treatment/destruc-
tion technologies. Potential advantages include
low contaminant emissions (particularly trace
organic substances), and the possibility to
recover material resources, such as synthetic oils
and gases. In general, these technologies involve
creating more sophisticated environments in
which thermal treatment occurs. Despite the
potential advantages, the complexity of new and
emerging technology system operations, coupled
with the varying and highly heterogeneous com-
position of MSW, has been a significant eco-
nomic barrier to commercial applications to
municipal waste streams. To date, their use has
been limited to processing industrial sludge,
wood wastes, and select hazardous wastes of
homogeneous composition. However, due to
their potential environmental and net energy
generation advantages over conventional sys-
tems, these technologies are being actively
considered for municipal waste treatment.
Pyrolysis/Gasification
Both pyrolysis and gasification systems convert
solid waste into gaseous, liquid, and solid fuels.
There is some confusion in the literature and
within industry practice between "true" pyrolysis
systems and sub-stochiometric, starved air com-
bustion systems and gasification systems. Many
of the latter two systems are called pyrolysis
systems by mistake.
Principal differences:
Pyrolysis uses an external source of heat to
derive the endothermic (heat-requiring) pyrol-
ysis reactions in an oxygen-free environment.
Synthetic liquid fuels (oils) and carbon char
are produced as the desired output;
Starved air and gasification systems consist of
exothermic (heat generating) processes, and
are self-sustaining. Some oxygen may be used
for the partial combustion of solid waste.
Combustible gases are produced as the desired
output. In the case of starved air, these gases
are combusted integral to the system. In the
case of new and emerging gasification systems,
these gases are cleaned and become a resource
output product--synthetic gas.
As a general statement, if gaseous fuels are
desired, gasification is a simpler and more cost-
effective technology than pyrolysis.
Plasma arc and thermo-chemical reduction
technologies have historically been used in
Europe and North America to manage special
wastes (hazardous wastes--PCBs, biomedical,
nuclear, and homogeneous industrial waste
streams, such as petrochemical and paper pulp
sludge wastes). Canadian examples are found in
the City of Montreal, Que., in the Cities of
Ottawa and Kingston, Ont., and in the Town of
Rockwood, Ont. Commercial-scale facilities are
now in the commissioning and/or full operations
stages in Europe. Commercial-scale applications
to municipal solid waste in Canada do not exist.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 237
However, a pilot-scale gasification facility is
being tested in Sherbrooke, Que., and vendors
of these types of technologies are in discussions
with several Canadian communities.
Pyrolysis, and new and emerging gasification
systems have yet to be successfully commercially
applied to the management of municipal solid
waste. However, if the economics associated
with the production of synthetic liquid fuels
(oils) and gases (including monetization of
environmental credits) change, these systems
may become economically viable.
Pyrolysis Systems (or Destructive
Distillation Systems)
Pyrolysis systems refer to the thermal processing
of waste in the complete absence of oxygen. The
process is highly endothermic, requiring an
external heat source.
Major component fractions result from the
pyrolysis process:
A gas stream containing primarily hydrogen,
methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
and various other gases depending on the
organic characteristics of waste material being
pyrolyzed. This gas is consumed internal to
the process of generating the desired liquid
and solid product fractions;
A liquid fraction of an oil stream containing
acetic acid, acetone, methanol, and complex
oxygenated hydrocarbons (tars). The liquid
fraction may be further processed for use as a
synthetic fuel oil as a substitute for conventional
No. 6 fuel oil;
A char consisting of almost pure carbon plus
any inert material originally present in the
solid waste.
The only full-scale pyrolysis system operating
on MSW was built in the U.S. in El Cajon,
California. The system failed to achieve its pri-
mary operational goal (production of a saleable
pyrolysis oil). The facility was shut down after
two years of operation.
Pyrolysis is still widely used for industrial
purposes. However, the pyrolysis of municipal
solid waste has not been successful apparently
due to the inherent complexity of the system,
and a lack of appreciation by system designers
of the difficulties of producing a consistent feed-
stock from MSW. Pyrolysis may be a new energy
user or producer, depending on factors, such as
the nature of the waste, feedstock, and scale of
operation. A product of pyrolysis, synthetic gas,
can offer significant energy benefits, including
use of the gas in fuel cells.
Gasification Systems
Gasification systems have been used since
the 19th Century. By the early 1900s, gasifier
technology was used on certain industrial waste
streams to produce "synthetic" natural gas fuel
for stationary and portable internal combustion
engines. The gasoline shortages of World War II
provided an impetus for the development of
gasifier technology. However, with the return of
relatively cheap and plentiful gasoline and diesel
oil after the end of the war, gasifier technology
was all but forgotten.
Gasification is the general term used to
describe the process of partial combustion
where a fuel is combusted with a quantity of
air that is deliberately set below the amounts
required for complete combustion. It is an energy-
efficient technique for reducing the volume of
solid waste and for energy recovery. The process
involves the partial combustion of carbonaceous
fuel to generate a fuel gas that can be combusted
in an internal combustion engine, gas turbine,
or boiler under excess-air conditions, or used as
238 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
feedstock for hydrogen fuel-cell electricity
generators. The generated fuel gas has an energy
content of approximately 5.5 mega-joules/cubic
metre3, if air is used as the oxidant. Use of pure
oxygen can yield gases with twice that energy
content. The use of oxygen has obvious safety
and economic implications. The operation of
air-blown gasifiers is quite stable, with a fairly
constant quantity of gas produced over a broad
range of air input rates. Gasifiers have the
potential to achieve low air pollution emissions
with simplified air pollution control devices.
The emissions can be comparable to or less
than those from excess-air combustion systems
(incineration technologies) employing far more
complex emission control systems.
Enerkem Technologies Inc. of Montreal, Que.,
has built a demonstration gasification unit in
Sherbrooke, Que., modelled on a full-scale unit
existing in Spain. The Sherbrooke unit is cur-
rently being tested on waste feed rates in the
range of 5 kg/hr. It employs fluidized bed tech-
nology, is targeted at receiving an RDF type
waste feed of high heat value (as may be associ-
ated with MSW waste streams in the future),
and is being used to drive a hydrogen fuel-cell
for electricity production. As the composition of
MSW changes, particularly the substitution of
plastic for glass and metal containers, and as
high moisture content kitchen food organics are
increasingly removed at source for central com-
posting programs, high heat value, non-recyclable
residual "garbage" is expected to become more
readily available at lower cost than thermal
treatment processors. Further, if fuel-cell tech-
nology advancement brings power generation
costs down in relation to conventional generation,
this gasification technology could become com-
mercially viable for typical Canadian municipal
applications.
THERMOSELECT S.A. has a full-scale
technology application in Europe that is
responding to Canadian municipalities' requests
for waste management facility development
proposals. The THERMOSELECT process
converts waste to clean synthetic gases, and
recoverable metals and minerals. High tempera-
tures (2000ºC) and oxygen concentrations are
used in the gasification stage. Subsequent rapid
cooling is used to prevent formation/reforma-
tion of trace organic contaminants in the syn-
thetic gas. A 225,000 t/y THERMOSELECT
plant in Karlsruhe, Germany, has been in the
commission stage since 1999. The plant gener-
ates electricity and supplies heat energy for
district heating. Information provided by the
technology's business development representative
indicates that net costs for this size of facility in
Canada, would be in the range of $100/tonne.
This price is generally disadvantageous under
current landfill tipping fee circumstances. If
landfill capacity availability and operating costs
change and/or if the circumstances of energy
prices (and related monetization of environmental
life cycle costs/benefits) change, this technology
could be attractive.
Plasma Technology
Industrial applications of plasma arc technologies
are well established, and include electric arc fur-
naces used in the steel industry and arc-welding
units used in the construction industry. Plasma
technology is also used for treating hazardous
waste. The technology involves relatively high
capital and operating costs, but can offer some
environmental advantages, including the
destruction of highly problematic hazardous
materials, such as PCBs and complex stable
volatile organic compounds, due to the applica-
tion of extremely high operating temperatures,
and the resultant production of an inert ash.
Plasma arc processes use extremely high
temperatures in an oxygen-starved environment
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 239
to pyrolyze waste into simple molecules. A thermal
plasma field is created by directing an electric
current through a low-pressure gas stream,
thereby creating a stream of plasma at tempera-
tures of 5,000ºC to 15,000ºC. By-products are
slags and combustible gases. The combustible
gases are subsequently either combusted in an
afterburner or treated by catalytic conversion.
Despite considerable research into the envi-
ronmental applications of the technology, it is
still at the developmental stage. Currently, there
are no commercial-scale units managing municipal
solid wastes in North America. There are, how-
ever, different patented plasma arc systems
proposed for the treatment of hazardous wastes.
Modification of these processes to potentially
treat municipal solid waste has been proposed
but not commercially realized as yet.
For example, a plasma arc process known as
PLASCON, developed by SRL Plasma Limited,
in Australia, has been in commercial use for the
destruction of chlorinated organic wastes from a
pesticides production facility since 1992. In that
process, liquid and/or gaseous waste is injected
directly into a plasma torch, attaining extremely
high temperatures. The waste stream must be a
liquid or gaseous stream. If this technology is to
be applied to municipal solid wastes, the waste
must first undergo pre-processing (such
as desorption, gasification) upstream from the
PLASCON process unit. The capacity limita-
tions and economic costs of this operation are
significant.
Resorption Canada Ltd. has proposed to use
plasma technology to treat the municipal solid
waste of Mississippi Mills, Lanark County, in
Eastern Ontario. The process of considering this
proposal may contribute to a more general
understanding of whether plasma technology
can be used on MSW at a commercial scale and
at costs approximating other thermal treatment
technologies.
Plasma may be either a net energy user
or producer depending on factors, such as the
nature of the waste, feedstock, and scale of
operation. The sythetic gas produced by plasma
technologies can be used in many applications,
including fuel cells.
Thermo-chemical Reduction
Thermo-chemical reduction is a well-known
technology for treating hazardous wastes. With
lower operating temperatures than conventional
technologies, this process has the environmental
advantage of smaller rates of emissions. The
following is a description of a patented thermo-
chemical process, developed in Ontario.
The Eco Logic process was developed by Eli
Eco Logic International Inc., of Rockwood,
Ont. It is a process for destroying hazardous
wastes. Eli Eco Logic has developed the process
through bench-scale, lab-scale, and pilot-scale
demonstration tests, and has recently begun
operating commercially.
The process is based on the gas-phase
thermo-chemical reaction of hydrogen with
organic and chlorinated organic compounds
at elevated temperatures. At 850°C or higher,
hydrogen reacts with organic compounds, in
a process known as reduction, to produce
methane and other light hydrocarbons.
Chlorinated organic compounds are reduced to
methane and hydrogen chloride. This reaction is
enhanced by the presence of water, which can
also act as a reducing agent, and is essentially
the opposite of incineration (oxidation). The
process differs from pyrolysis due to the addi-
tion of an active reducing agent, hydrogen,
which also prevents the formation of heavy
hydrocarbon products.
Approximately 40 per cent of the methane
produced can be subsequently converted to
hydrogen via the water/gas shift reaction; thus
240 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
the process, under pre-defined conditions, may
operate without an external supply of hydrogen.
Thermo-chemical processes can be net energy
users or producers, depending on the circum-
stances. The synthetic gas produced can be used
in a number of applications, including fuel cells.
Costs and Capacities
Generic data on capacities and costs related
to commercial-scale applications, relevant to
Canadian waste management, environmental,
and energy contexts, are not available. This data
is often proffered in business development and
proprietary contexts by vendors.
As a general rule, the relatively low cost of
alternative waste disposal technologies, principally
landfills (at approximately $12 to $30 per tonne
tipping fees), and low utility electricity energy
price ($0.025 to $0.05 per kWh), precludes all
but potential niche applications of new and
emerging technologies. This circumstance is in
flux. Landfill capacity is becoming more difficult
to permit due to community responses and
landfill operating, closure and perpetual care
costs are increasing with more stringent envi-
ronmental control standards. One can speculate
that the value of indigenous sourced "green-power"
with its environmental benefit "credits," will even-
tually result in energy pricing which reflects
prices paid for waste-derived energy in European
communities, where preferential price structures
result in subsidies in the range of $0.05/kWh, or
total prices of $0.10/kWh and higher.
Environmental Effects and Energy
Implications
In principle, the relatively high operating tem-
peratures of many of these technologies are
expected to generate reduced trace organics
emissions. In principle, recovery of materials,
such as metals, oils and synthetic gases, can
result in raw material and energy resource
consumption avoidance credits, including energy
credits. The generation of synthetic fuels, which
can be readily transported for off-site consump-
tion (including uses in internal combustion
engines, existing industrial thermal processes
and/or fuel cells), should significantly broaden
these technologies' ability to supply future energy.
Evaluation
Volume Reduction
Thermal treatment reduces the amount (by
volume) of waste that requires landfilling by
90 per cent. (Volume and not weight is the princi-
pal operating parameter when considering impli-
cations of reducing the amount of waste sent to
landfills.) Accounting for the requirement to
manage thermal treatment process residues (i.e.,
ash), the technology can net a reduction in land-
fill requirements of approximately 70 per cent
(by weight) of the total waste stream.
There is no consistent approach in Canada
on how to account for reductions from thermal
processing. However, in all Canadian provinces
and territories, this reduction in landfill require-
ments is counted as resource (materials and
energy) recovery, not waste diversion from dis-
posal. In a number of Canadian provinces, from
time to time, thermal processing is/has been
considered "pure" disposal, and is not counted
towards diversion targets. In the extreme cases,
thermal treatment of municipal solid waste has
been prohibited by provincial regulation. The
rationale against thermal technologies is that
thermal treatment will compete with waste
recycling and/or composting programs or dis-
courage improvements in product design that
will facilitate recycling.
Even after the best source-separation pro-
grams, combustible materials that cannot be
composted or recycled remain in the waste
stream. Recent waste composition studies have
indicated that thermal treatment can manage a
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 241
portion (typically 30 to 40 per cent by weight)
of the municipal solid waste stream without
competing for or being a disincentive to waste
diversion (recycling/composting) programs. In
addition, analysis of the full life cycle implica-
tions of various waste management practices
indicates that, in some circumstances (in terms
of energy resource values and recovered material
markets), thermal treatment of certain wastes
can be preferable to landfilling.
Waste Capacity
Thermal treatment technologies are commercially
available in capacities ranging from a few hundred
tonnes to more than one million tonnes per year.
Thus, thermal treatment can be a component of
any municipality's integrated waste management
system, regardless of the community's size.
However, once the financial commitment is
made to use thermal treatment, there is rela-
tively limited flexibility to reduce the role the
technology plays within the system. The highly
engineered design and relatively complex opera-
tions means that the capacity of a facility is rela-
tively fixed. Coupled with high capital costs, this
means that a facility must, over its life, actually
receive (on a daily rate basis) close to the
amounts of waste that were predicted at the
time of the facility's original design. This relative
inflexibility can be problematic if it discourages
other waste management practices, such as recy-
cling or composting programs. This problem can
be addressed if firm commitments to realizing
diversion program targets are achieved and the
quantity of waste allocated to thermal treatment
is clearly defined.
In addition, certain thermal technologies can
be designed to deliver a defined total capacity via
a number of "modules." This approach allows
these technologies to operate on a reasonably
flexible in-feed waste quantity, by shutting down
or firing up additional modules in response to
changes in waste quantities driven by changes in
diversion program capacities and performance.
Costs
The method used to consider thermal treatment
technology costs is to assume capital costs are at
the rate of $150,000 to $200,000 per tonne per
day capacity. A facility serving a municipality of
200,000 to 300,000 population would be in the
200 tonnes per day range, or have a capital cost
of $30 to $40 million. Operating costs are signif-
icantly defined by the costs of managing process
residues both non-hazardous bottom ash and
potentially hazardous fly ash (air pollution
control residues) and the revenues from energy
sales. Typical net operation costs are in the
$25 to $45 per tonne range. Total costs (annual-
ized capital cost and operation costs, net of recov-
ered energy revenue) are $65 to $150 per tonne
of waste processed. As discussed above, capital
and operating costs vary widely with the specific
thermal technology, the scale of operation and
the characteristics of the waste stream.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The operation of thermal waste processing
systems involves gaseous and particulate air
emissions, solid residues (ash) management, and,
in the case of certain thermal technologies and
related air pollution control systems, liquid efflu-
ents management. In general, properly designed
and operated facilities can meet all Canadian
environmental regulations. These
regulations set limits on the quantities of pollu-
tants that a facility can emit. It is noted that the
complexity of the pollution control systems
necessary to achieve such performance can be
242 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
significant. Environmental control systems on
average constitute between one third and one
half of a facility's total capital and operating cost.
Specifically, air emission performance for
thermal technologies is defined by a combination
of federal-provincial guidance and provincial
regulation. The CCME established and main-
tains guidelines for the environmental
performance of municipal waste incineration
facilities. The guidelines identify limits for the
concentrations of contaminants in stack emis-
sions from facilities, as well as describing current
"best available" technologies and practices,
including methods of monitoring and control-
ling air emissions. The CCME has recently
decreased allowable concentrations for trace
organics--dioxins and heavy metals, such as
mercury--in light of emission control perform-
ance being achieved by current best available
technology (activated carbon injection and
catalytic reactor technology).
Provinces are responsible for regulating air
emissions for MSW thermal treatment facilities.
These regulations are equal to or more stringent
than the CCME guidelines. Provinces have vari-
ous regulations pertaining to stack emission
contaminant concentrations, ambient air quality
standards, and maximum point of stack plume
impingement contaminant concentrations. One
or more of these is considered when an applica-
tion to discharge contaminants to the air is
made in conjunction with an application for
approval to establish and operate a thermal
treatment facility. Certificates of Approval (Air)
normally specify minimum facility design and
operating parameters, including requirements
for continuous and periodic air emission
monitoring and reporting.
Ontario has the most comprehensive guide-
lines and regulatory standards for thermal treat-
ment technologies in Guideline A-7 (Combustion
and Air Pollution Control Requirements for
New Municipal Waste Incinerators). These
replaced the provincial ban of the 1990s of
MSW thermal treatment after a comprehensive
review of other jurisdictions' policies and regula-
tory regimes, the state of best available technolo-
gies' performance capabilities, and the health
risks of air emissions from MSW incineration.
Thus, Guideline A-7 and the most recent
CCME proposals for dioxin and mercury stack
emission concentrations can be viewed as the
benchmark. Again, the thermal treatment tech-
nologies reviewed in this report can meet this
benchmark.
The Integrated Waste Management Model
was used to determine the environmental effects
of energy from waste (EFW) processing versus
landfilling waste. A high-end landfill design,
with leachate collection system, a landfill gas
(LFG) recovery system, and a gas-to-energy
conversion system was used for the comparison.
Results are presented in qualitative terms only,
as the IWM model needs to be run by munici-
pal staff using local conditions.
The model runs were carried out using
1,000 tonnes of typical municipal waste after
source separation of some recyclables. Ash residue
equal to 30 per cent of incoming waste tonnage
was assumed, with 28 per cent being bottom ash,
directed to municipal landfill, and two per cent
being fly ash, sent for secure disposal. The energy
emissions for residential collection of the waste
were not included in the analysis.
Results from the IWM model are given in
terms of net energy emissions. A positive number
indicates that energy was consumed or an emis-
sion was released. A negative number indicates
that energy was recovered or emissions were
reduced. In the following tables, negative numbers
are shown with an asterix, indicating an offset.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 243
244 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Higher
Lower
CO2 Equivalents
GHG Emissions
Highly Engineered LF
EWF
(tonnes)
(tonnes)
ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS FROM EFW COMPARED
TO LANDFILL OF 1,000 TONNES OF WASTE
TABLE 5.2
Overall the EFW process produces less eCO2 when compared to landfilling the waste.
Lower
Lower*
Lower*
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Lower
Lower
NOx
SOx
HCI
PM
VOCs
Acid Gas and Smog Precursor Emissions
Highly Engineered LF
EFW
(Kg)
(Kg)
ESTIMATED ACID GAS AND SMOG PRECURSOR EMISSIONS FROM EFW
COMPARED TO LANDFILL OF 1,000 TONNES OF WASTE
TABLE 5.3
*Indicates an energy offset or avoided emission.
The landfill produces less NOx compared to EFW, but EFW produces less SOx and HCl,
primarily through energy offsets.
ENERGY IMPLICATIONS
Thermal treatment of solid waste converts waste
to energy, which may be recovered to increase
the overall energy efficiency of the thermal treat-
ment facility and, in turn, to partially offset the
economic costs and environmental effects of
waste management practice. Combusting the
waste converts it to thermal energy (heat), which
can be captured in the form of steam. Pyrolysis
and gasification convert waste to chemical energy
in the form of liquids or gases. Once solid waste
has been converted to thermal or chemical
energy, it may be used directly or it may be
converted to mechanical or electrical energy:
Steam can be used either directly for industrial
purposes or space heating, or for producing
mechanical or electrical energy via a steam
turbine;
Degraded steam/hot water, can be used for
low-temperature industrial or space-heating
applications;
Gases and liquids can be used either directly
to fuel reciprocating engines, gas turbines and
fuel cells, or to fuel boilers to produce steam.
Refuse derived fuel (RDF) converts waste
to fuels that can be substituted for conventional
fossil fuel use. Net energy efficiencies range from
20 per cent for conventional thermal technologies
(incineration) fired with "as-received" waste and
employing conventional boilers/steam turbines
to 60 per cent in cases of modern gasification
units, fired with processed waste (RDF) and
employing combined cycle turbines and subse-
quent applications of degraded steam/hot water
in district heating or industrial process applica-
tions. Eighty per cent-plus efficiencies can be
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 245
Lower*
Lower*
Lower*
Lower
Lower*
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Lower*
Lower
Lower
Lower
AIR
Pb (kg)
Hg (kg)
Cd (kg)
Dioxins (TEQ) (g)
WATER
Pb (kg)
Hg (kg)
Cd (kg)
BOD (kg)
Dioxins (TEQ) (mg)
Toxic Emissions
Highly Engineered LF
EFW
ESTIMATED TOXIC EMISSIONS FROM EFW
COMPARED TO LANDFILL OF 1,000 TONNES OF WASTE
TABLE 5.4
*Indicates an energy offset or avoided emission.
There are fewer air emissions (Pb, Hg, Cd and dioxin emissions) for the landfill option compared to the EFW process.
The comparative toxic emissions to water vary depending on the parameter considered. In all cases, the numbers are very small.
achieved where RDF is used to fuel thermo-
chemical reactions in industrial processes, such
as cement clinker production.
Lessons Learned
There are no insurmountable regulatory, technical-
design, environmental, or related economic barriers
to establishing proven thermal treatment facilities.
However, opposition to thermal treatment facilities
from local community and environmental interest
groups can be a problem. It would be instructive
for a municipality planning a resources and
waste management system to review the circum-
stances of the failures of the Cities of Halifax
and Montreal's thermal treatment project
proposals, the Ontario Government's banning
MSW incineration juxtaposed with the success
of the KMS Peel Region EFW facilities' bid for
expansion. Some strategic measures to manage
barriers:
Counter the fear that waste disposal through
thermal treatment will be a disincentive to
recycling, composting, and other diversion
programs, by clearly establishing the maxi-
mum role to be played by the thermal facility
within a municipality's integrated system of
waste diversion and disposal practices.
Develop the definition of such a system
through a process of long-term waste manage-
ment planning, which incorporates consulta-
tion with stakeholders, including community
and environmental interest groups.
Set clear targets for the diversion programs
component. These targets should then define
the role for the thermal facility as being the
ultimate disposal of residual waste. Invest
authority in these targets, including the
maximum role for disposal by adopting the
long-term plan at the highest levels--munici-
pal works committee and council. Publicly
report progress in achieving the targets at least
annually and undertake periodic reviews of the
targets in light of progress.
Address concern that thermal treatment has a
significant adverse effect on the environment
by: publicly reporting the results of monitoring
emissions from other municipalities' facilities,
and comparisons of performance to regulatory
standards; committing to use only the best
available technology; and annually reviewing
and implementing where technically feasible,
advancements in operational practices. Quantify
the life cycle environmental performance of
your municipality's waste management practice
options, including potential role for thermal
treatment. Tools such as IWM model
(www.iwm-model.uwaterloo.ca) may help.
Address concerns of the immediate local
communities by undertaking a comprehensive
comparative analysis of prospective sites and
selection processes that integrates considera-
tion of community effects as well as technical/
financial costs as part of facility planning.
Establish a Host Community Liaison
Committee, with authority to oversee per-
formance of the operation of any facility,
including implementation of environmental
management system disciplines. This commit-
tee can be invested with authority to direct the
application of community impact mitigation
funds derived from levies on waste processing
fees. Typically these funds are $0.50 to $2.50
per tonne of waste processed. Property Value
Protection Agreements can be used in place of
or in conjunction with these funds.
246 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 247
Waste is broken down to produce heat. There are numerous different
thermal technologies
Thermal treatment can divert 70 per cent of waste from landfill
Thermal treatment is a high-tech system that requires skilled technical
operators. Depending upon the specific technology, it is suitable for
communities ranging from small villages to large urban centres
Costs will vary depending upon the specific thermal technology used
and the operating capacity required
The availability of local energy markets is a critical factor in the decision
Thermal treatment has the benefit of diverting waste from landfill and
therefore minimizing generation of acidic leachate and methane. It has the
added benefit of generating energy, therefore displacing the need to use
other sources of power
Thermal treatment is a net energy generator
Although technically sound and proven in Canada in terms of
environmental and energy considerations, public perception/opposition
is such that the siting of new facilities is difficult
DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY
GENERAL PERFORMANCE
OF THE SYSTEM
COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
COSTS
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED
ACQUISITION
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
ENERGY IMPLICATIONS
LESSONS LEARNED
Summary
Factor
THERMAL TREATMENT SUMMARY
TABLE 5.5
General Description
C
anadians dispose of approximately 23 million
tonnes of non-hazardous wastes annually,
according to a 2000 Statistics Canada survey.
Landfill disposal is a necessary element of an
integrated approach to waste management and
will be for the foreseeable future to dispose of
residual waste, even after maximum recycling
and diversion efforts.
Landfill waste disposal has evolved signifi-
cantly from historic practices, driven largely by
public concerns regarding potential environ-
mental effects and public interest in adopting
more sustainable waste management methods.
This has led to increasingly rigorous regulations
pertaining to landfills and more extensive com-
munity consultation programs associated with
waste management planning and landfill siting
processes. Similarly, public demand for innova-
tion in waste management has also been a key
motivator for developing new and emerging
technologies, such as bioreactors.
Landfills established within the past 25 years
have been permitted within a regulatory frame-
work that did not address as many environmental
issues or considerations as today's framework.
Current regulatory approaches pertaining to
planning and siting of landfills vary across
Canada, ranging from broad performance-based
environmental protection regulations to regulations
defining minimum standards for specific technical
elements. In some jurisdictions, combinations of
performance-based and prescriptive regulations
are applied. Regulatory processes may also
include alternative procedures or applications
that vary dependent upon the site and/or site
location.
Municipal solid waste landfills receive a wide
variety of non-hazardous wastes, dependent
upon the context of the landfill within the over-
all waste management approach. There is a
trend towards excluding or banning disposal of
some materials. Disposal of liquid wastes is no
longer acceptable at many sites due to concerns
about possible increased leachate effects.
Hazardous wastes are managed at specifically
designed landfills, which are different from
municipal landfills.
In some areas, materials that can be dealt
with by other means are banned from landfills.
In communities where recycling is available, it is
generally not acceptable to dispose of recyclables
in landfills. Other examples: drywall, auto hulks,
construction/demolition debris, organic wastes,
and other materials dependent upon availability
of alternative material management options.
These bans generally aim to ensure that wastes
are managed properly and that landfill disposal
is reserved for materials that cannot be managed
by other means.
248 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Landfilling
6
S E C T I O N
Technologies
A landfill is a facility in which solid waste is
buried. There is wide variety of approaches
to siting, design, construction, operation, and
post-closure landfills management. This stems
from the specific community-based context
defining the needs for a landfill as an element of
a larger waste management program, as well as
the site-specific requirements of each facility to
minimize environmental effects within applicable
regulatory frameworks.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 249
RANGE OF PRINCIPAL TECHNICAL ELEMENTS OF A LANDFILL
FIGURE 6.1
Landfills consist of a complex system of
interrelated excavations, components and sub-
systems that act together to break down and
stabilize disposed wastes over time.
Some key factors to consider in the siting
and design of contemporary non-hazardous
waste landfills:
Site setting - geology, land use, local effect
potential, i.e., groundwater, surface water, noise,
traffic, dust, visual effects, odour, air quality;
Public consultation;
Hydrogeology and groundwater protection -
natural attenuation capacity;
Ecology;
Site design - disposal capacity, soils balance,
configuration, site infrastructure needs;
Leachate containment and collection systems;
Leachate disposal/treatment requirements;
Storm water management;
Landfill gas collection;
Daily, interim cover materials;
Environmental monitoring and performance;
Operational and maintenance protocols;
Health and safety;
LANDFILL
GAS BLOWER
GAS COLLECTION
SYSTEM
COVER
SYSTEM
LEACHATE
INJECTION
SYSTEM
LEACHATE
RECIRCULATION
WASTE LIFTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING
LANDFILL
GAS FLARE
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
- Natural Attenuation
- Leachate Containment
- Leachate Collection
LEACHATE
REMOVAL
DAILY / INTERIM
COVER
ENERGY
GENERATION
Cap systems;
Closure and end use;
Post-closure management.
Landfill cells are constructed either by excava-
tion or by construction of cell containment berms.
Once prepared, wastes are placed and compacted
into the landfill cell and are generally covered with
soil or other alternative material at the end of each
day. Cover reduces windblown litter, limits odours,
and prevents scavenging and burrowing by animals
and insects. Waste filling continues in this manner
until final grades are achieved.
Groundwater protection priorities may be
addressed by the natural attenuation characteris-
tics of a site, use of leachate collection systems,
and/or use of leachate containment systems.
The approach to groundwater protection is
based on site-specific considerations and can
involve detailed assessment of the hydrogeologic
conditions, potential for effects, anticipated con-
taminating lifespan of a site, and the capability
of the environment to effectively manage it. Site
characteristics, such as configuration, waste
depths, landfill daily cover materials, cap design,
etc., have a profound influence on groundwater
protection at landfills.
Natural attenuation includes the inherent
characteristic of a site and its geologic setting to
dilute, disperse, degrade, and adsorb contami-
nants in soils and groundwater. Most sites have
some degree of natural attenuation. Natural
attenuation may prove to be an acceptable pri-
mary method of ensuring groundwater protec-
tion or may need to be combined with other
measures.
Leachate containment systems may consist
of soil liners constructed from native and/or
imported materials, synthetic membrane liners,
or composite liner systems using soil and syn-
thetic liners. Leachate containment systems may
be included in the design of a site to limit the
flux of leachate from the wastes into the ground.
Leachate collection systems are incorporated
into some contemporary landfills to prevent
build-up of liquid within the wastes. This assists
with groundwater protection and prevents seep-
age of leachate from the above-ground side
slopes of the landfill surface to avoid potential
surface water contamination as well as exposure
of people and animals to contaminants. These
systems can be designed and constructed in
conjunction with development of landfill cells
or, if suitable conditions exist, installed after
landfilling has taken place.
Approaches for management of collected
leachate:
Off-site transport (via truck or sewer) to
a suitable sewage treatment facility;
On-site treatment to meet acceptable
discharge criteria;
Leachate evaporation;
Leachate recirculation.
Selection of the preferred leachate manage-
ment approach is complex and must consider
the anticipated range in leachate quantities and
characteristics as well as the technical feasibility
of treatment, proximity and availability of suit-
able off-site treatment facilities, transportation
costs, capital and operating costs for on-site
treatment, and the regulatory context for
leachate treatment and discharge. Biological,
physical, and chemical methods are available
for the treatment of landfill leachate. Use of
engineered wetlands as an ecologically based
treatment process is also gaining recognition as
a potentially viable component of an overall
treatment system. Determination of the exact
processes required for effective leachate treat-
ment is site-specific and requires detailed bench
testing and pilot-scale implementation to verify
its suitability.
Evaporation of leachate using landfill gas
(LFG) utilization as a fuel has been applied in
some locations. Important considerations
250 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
include availability of sufficient gas supply,
acceptability of emissions, management of waste
sludge, and the capital and operating costs of the
technology relative to other options.
Recirculation of leachate into landfilled
wastes has been applied as a liquid management
technique for years at a number of sites.
Leachate recirculation has been demonstrated
to enhance rates of waste stabilization, increase
landfill settlement and LFG generation rates,
and provide some treatment effect on the
leachate. Leachate recirculation has contributed
to development of the bioreactor landfill, a new
technology discussed on pages 252 to 254.
Landfill gas, composed primarily of
methane, CO2, and trace organic compounds,
is produced by the decomposition of landfilled
wastes. Emissions of landfill gas to the atmos-
phere can raise concerns related to odours, air
quality, and potential adverse health effects.
Landfill gas is also a potent greenhouse gas.
Migration of landfill gas into the soil surround-
ing a site can create safety and health concerns,
particularly if allowed to accumulate at explosive
concentrations within enclosed or low-lying spaces.
There are numerous methods to mitigate
these potential effects. Control of landfill gas
emissions to the atmosphere, when required, is
often accomplished by actively extracting landfill
gas from wastes. The collected gas is then com-
busted or used as an energy resource. Sub-
surface migration of landfill gas can be mitigated
through active collection or by other methods,
including passive venting of gas from below
ground. Care must be taken when venting land-
fill gas to protect against local adverse effects,
such as odour or air quality problems.
Collection and flaring of landfill gas is effec-
tive in mitigating its potentially harmful effects.
Utilization instead of flaring landfill gas provides
additional benefits, primarily the potential to
generate revenue. This may defray some costs
of operation and maintenance of a landfill site.
There is growing public awareness of energy
conservation issues. Landfill gas, as a relatively
clean-burning fuel, can offset consumption of
other non-renewable resources whose production
and use may be more detrimental to the
environment.
Numerous successful landfill gas utilization
projects have been carried out in Canada and
the U.S. There are many technologies available
for utilization of landfill gas, including:
Generation of electricity;
Space heating;
Process heating;
Production of pipeline quality gas.
Generation of electricity and heating appli-
cations are the most common. The feasibility of
landfill gas utilization is dependent on availability
of markets and market pricing, and the costs
of implementing landfill gas utilization at a
particular site.
Research and development of emerging
technologies--such as small-scale generation of
electricity using micro turbines, production of
vehicle fuel derived from landfill gas or of
methanol from landfill gas, and cryogenic pro-
cessing of landfill gas into a compressed liquid
fuel--offers promise for future landfill gas
utilization ventures.
The primary impediments to landfill gas uti-
lization are related to the perception of risk due
to a lack of knowledge of the potential resource,
current low energy rates, the absence of a
renewable energy industry in Canada, and limi-
tations on access to energy markets. This state
of affairs is in flux. Growing public awareness
of the value of renewable energy, combined with
progressive energy sector deregulation, will
contribute to overcoming some of the current
obstacles.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 251
Landfill Capping Systems
Landfill capping systems are applied to isolate
wastes from the environment when cells or
portions of a landfill reach design final grades.
As a fundamental component controlling the
moisture content of the wastes, landfill caps can
have a strong influence on the processes involved
in decomposition and stabilization of wastes
over the long-term. Until recently, conventional
approaches to landfill cap design were based
primarily on minimizing the amount of mois-
ture entering the wastes, thereby limiting the
generation and build-up of leachate within the
site. Moisture limiting caps are generally con-
structed from low permeability soil materials
and/or synthetic membranes.
Landfill caps are one element that may be
included in plans for landfill closure. When
implemented, landfill closure plans can define
the method of closure and provide a basis for
establishing end use of a site, including require-
ments for site security, post-closure manage-
ment, maintenance, and monitoring. Many sites
do not have formal end-use programs, while at
some Canadian landfills innovative end uses,
such as passive recreational and golf course
development, have been successfully applied.
Within the last decade, there has been a
growing recognition of the merit of an alterna-
tive approach to cap design that encourages
infiltration of moisture into the landfill, thereby
enhancing biodegradation and speeding the rate
of decomposition and stabilization of the
wastes. Moisture infiltration caps are generally
constructed from highly permeable sandy soils.
Observations indicate that significantly
increased rates of settlement and gas generation
are realized. Subsequent studies have strength-
ened the understanding that leachate recircula-
tion and addition of moisture enhances the
biological decomposition process and may
provide some leachate treatment effect, poten-
tially shortening the contaminating lifespan of a
site. The evolution of leachate recirculation has
led to a landfill design approach that is generally
referred to as the bioreactor landfill.
Typical Vendors of Equipment
Landfills are custom designed and constructed
to suit specific site and waste disposal applica-
tions. The design process generally involves
adaptation and synthesis of many existing and
innovative technological approaches for the ele-
ments making-up a landfill. While this process
may include identification and selection of a
number of specific products, there is no single
vendor of "pre-packaged" landfills.
NEW AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
The bioreactor landfill is a new technology
evolved from contemporary landfill design in
response to demands for more sustainable
approaches to waste disposal. Bioreactor treat-
ment of solid wastes involves design, construction,
and operation of a landfill cell that is specifically
engineered to enhance the decomposition of
wastes through careful manipulation of site
conditions. In essence, bioreactor technology
provides a method of processing or treating
wastes within the confines of a tightly controlled
landfill cell.
Many elements of a bioreactor are similar
to the components of a modern, engineered
sanitary landfill site. The primary differences
lie in the increased level of process control.
The primary benefits of bioreactor treatment:
Rapid stabilization of wastes resulting in the
shortening of a site's contaminating lifespan
during the period of time when engineered
controls are most effective;
252 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Faster landfill settlement allowing for optimal
use of existing approved waste disposal
capacity and forestalling the need for new sites;
In-situ treatment of leachate to reduce the
contaminant loading; and
Enhanced landfill gas recovery potential,
thereby improving the feasibility of energy
generation and engaging market forces to
motivate even greater levels of emission
reductions.
Some suggest that typical waste stabilization
periods in a bioreactor might be in the range
of 10 to 15 years, as compared to more than
50 years expected in a conventional sanitary land-
fill. Another benefit of rapid stabilization
is reduction of the period when post-closure moni-
toring and care are required, which cuts the poten-
tial for long-term effects and environmental and
financial risks often associated with old landfills.
Bioreactor landfills need significant quantities
of moisture that may have to be added to the
wastes to optimize decomposition. It must con-
tain landfill leachate and be evenly distributed
for optimal bioreactor performance. Typically,
horizontal liquid injection pipe galleries are
installed within the wastes as filling progresses.
Alternative methods include vertical injection
wells, infiltration ponds, and surface spray
application systems. Moisture distribution may
also be enhanced by the placing of permeable or
wicking materials in layers as alternative cover
on the wastes during filling.
Extensive in-situ monitoring instruments
and control systems are used to manage mois-
ture injection and optimize waste treatment.
In-situ monitoring may incorporate arrays
of moisture, temperature and/or hydrostatic
pressure sensors located within the wastes.
Sophisticated bioreactor systems provide the
ability to carefully monitor chemical characteristics
of the injection liquids and, if advantageous, to
adjust the liquid chemistry to further improve
bioreactor performance.
By enhancing the rate of waste decomposition,
landfill gas generation rates are also increased.
Landfill gas collection systems are installed at
bioreactor landfills to control potential gas
effects. The increased rates of gas generation
can provide greater landfill gas recovery, thereby
reducing the overall landfill emissions. Increased
early rates of landfill gas recovery improve the
economics of landfill gas-to-energy projects by
providing better economies of scale in power
plant size selection and allowing a faster return
on capital investment during the early years of
operation when maintenance costs are lower.
Enhanced rates of landfill settlement provide
opportunities to increase the effective use of
landfill space, thereby reducing the need for
replacement landfills. In its advanced form, the
bioreactor offers the opportunity to replace
waste disposal with a more sustainable method
of waste treatment.
Public attitudes and perception regarding
bioreactors may be better than conventional
landfills due to its enhanced environmental
performance. The bioreactor can play a key role
in a larger IWM system and is complemented
by current waste diversion and recycling efforts.
In this context, it has been envisioned that
advanced anaerobic bioreactor landfills could be
developed in conjunction with aerobic bioreactor
and/or landfill mining techniques to provide a
sustainable approach to waste management.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 253
Evaluation
GENERAL SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE
Waste input rates, site size, disposal capacity,
and site life all form the basis for determination
of the waste disposal performance of the landfill.
Programs to divert waste materials from
landfill disposal through source reduction, recy-
cling, and organic waste diversion are decreasing
the quantity of wastes requiring disposal. There
remains a defined need for disposal of some
waste materials that cannot yet be dealt with
cost-effectively within the context of existing
proven waste management technologies.
Innovation and ongoing development of IWM
approaches will continue to reduce the quantity
of waste destined for landfill disposal.
Landfill disposal continues to be a low-cost
alternative when compared to most options on
the basis of short-term costs. However, costs
of landfill disposal are increasing due to more
rigorous regulatory requirements and increasingly
complex approvals processes driven by growing
concerns about the environment. Similarly, there
is a growing recognition of the long-term liabilities,
and their potential costs, associated with landfill.
Despite these trends, landfill disposal remains
among the lowest-cost alternatives, and costs
continue to be a primary factor influencing
waste management decisions.
Regulations governing siting, design, con-
struction, operation, monitoring, and post-
closure management of contemporary landfills
are intended to protect against negative environ-
mental effects. However, poor historic practices
and public perception of landfills, including
concerns over vehicle traffic, visual effects, and
perceived land value effects, often mobilize
opposition to new landfills and influence municipal
decision-making regarding broader waste
management issues.
The availability of alternative waste disposal
capacity at a reasonable cost and within a
reasonable transportation distance is also a key
254 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
TWO BIOREACTOR LANDFILLS APPROVED IN CANADA
TABLE 6.1
BIOREACTOR LANDFILLS
Ste. Sophie Landfill
Lafleche Landfill Site
Site Name
Site Owner
Location
Primary Site Features
Intersan (Canadian
Waste Services)
Lafleche
Environment Inc.
-Partial synthetic liner
-Leachate collection system
-Leachate recirculation/moisture addition
-Landfill gas collection and flaring
-Landfill gas utilization (potential future)
-Process monitoring instrumentation and
controls
-Natural soil liner
-Leachate collection system
-Leachate recirculation (future)
-Landfill gas collection and flaring (future)
-Landfill gas utilization (potential future)
-Monitoring instrumentation and controls
Ste. Sophie, Que.
North Stormont, Ont.
factor in decision-making on landfill disposal of
wastes. Not only does this affect cost, but also
availability of alternative disposal sites, even at
greater costs, often will mobilize public opposition
to local waste disposal options.
Conversely, limited options can direct deci-
sions on waste management choices. This is
particularly apparent in considering the large
number of smaller landfills in Canada in com-
parison to the trend towards fewer, relatively
large regional sites located close to major popu-
lation centres. The unit costs for smaller sites
can be much higher than those for the larger
regionalized sites. Even so, landfill disposal costs
remain lower than the start-up and operation
costs of other waste management alternatives,
which are influenced by economies of scale to an
even greater extent than landfills.
Community Characteristics
All communities in Canada continue to rely on
landfills for final disposal of waste and residual
materials. In areas near major population centres,
there has been a trend towards regionalization of
landfills to share increasing costs associated with
landfill disposal of wastes. Conversely, in areas
with different market conditions, more numerous
smaller sites are in operation and many are being
expanded.
Costs
Costs associated with landfill disposal of waste
are highly variable and influenced by numerous
site-specific factors, market forces, and other
considerations.
The full scope of potential costs include:
Waste management planning and site selection;
Detailed site assessment, including baseline
studies and impact evaluations;
Land acquisition;
Site permitting;
Public consultation;
Detailed design;
Site development and infrastructure
construction, including control systems that
may be required;
Energy recovery;
Site operations labour and equipment;
Administration;
Multi-use facilities (i.e., household hazardous
waste depots, composting);
Site closure;
Post-closure maintenance;
Environmental monitoring and reporting;
Long-term financial assurance;
Implementation of contingency remedial
measures, if required.
Historically, the costs associated with land-
fills have not always been fully accounted for
and assigned to the wastes disposed in a site.
Sites established within the approvals frame-
works of the past 20 to 25 years have generally
applied a more comprehensive approach to
recognizing the costs of landfill waste disposal.
Still, more needs to be done.
Many of these cost elements are dependent
on individual site design and operational para-
meters. There are also a number of cost variables
that are not necessarily specific to a particular
site, but are influenced to a greater extent by
local market forces. The primary market forces
can include:
Regional supply/demand for landfill airspace;
Proportion of public or private ownership of
landfills;
Proximity of available disposal alternatives to
waste generation centres.
Other influencing factors include host com-
munity agreements and public policy decisions
that direct disposal options and/or establish
pricing criteria. Agreements are often estab-
lished whereby a community may receive a
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 255
financial benefit in the form of discounted or
no-charge waste disposal and possibly revenue
from royalties for wastes received at their site.
Public policy decisions, such as bans on certain
waste disposal options, may be made that influ-
ence options for disposal of wastes.
Tipping fees charged at landfills reflect the
site-specific costs, market influences, and other
cost elements, as well as the fundamental busi-
ness decisions of the site owner. Charges over
and above strict costs may include allocations
for anticipated future waste management
expenses, indirect subsidies for dealing with
certain specific waste management tasks other
than landfill disposal (i.e., household hazardous
wastes, recycling of banned materials), return on
investment requirements, and profits.
As a broad generalization, tipping fees for
landfill disposal of waste generally fall within
the range of $20 to $100/tonne. Within the last
20 to 25 years, many site-specific costs for land-
fill disposal have increased due in large part to
implementation of more rigorous regulations
as well as increasingly complex approvals
processes. In some areas, these cost increases
have been realized as higher tipping fees; in
other areas increasing site-specific cost elements
are offset somewhat by market factors, such as
increases in the local supply of landfill airspace,
contributing to increased competition for waste
disposal revenue.
One additional generalization that can be
made is related to the economies of scale that
can be realized at the larger regionalized sites
versus the higher unit costs often prevalent at
smaller sites with lower waste input rates. This
generalization holds true for sites established
within the approvals frameworks of the past
20 to 25 years, given that a similar level of prior-
ity is applied to environmental issues. From this
distinction it can be estimated that many smaller
sites with lower waste input rates may experi-
ence disposal costs nearing, and in some cases
exceeding, the $100/tonne upper bound of the
disposal cost range expressed earlier. Conversely,
the larger regionalized sites located nearer popu-
lation centres may have tipping fees that are
closer to $40 to $60/tonne.
Landfill gas utilization (LFG) has the poten-
tial to generate revenue at some sites. Given the
current energy market in Canada, many potential
LFG utilization projects are not economically
feasible on a stand-alone basis. However, the
energy market is in a state of flux and may
evolve to provide sufficient economic incentive
to undertake more LFG utilization projects.
There is also a growing recognition of the pollu-
tion reduction value of landfill gas collection and
energy recovery that could motivate additional
interest in LFG utilization.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Contemporary landfills are designed and con-
structed to manage environmental risks. Details
of design are generally determined on a site-
specific basis to mitigate potential environmental
effects within the context of regulatory require-
ments. Highly engineered landfills minimize
environmental effects of landfilling.
Potential adverse environmental effects often
associated with landfills include:
Groundwater effects;
Surface water effects;
Odours;
Air quality;
Noise;
Litter;
Dust;
Ecological effects;
GHG emissions;
Competing land use pressures (i.e., habitat);
Inefficient use of materials and resources.
256 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
The extent to which any of these may occur
and/or require mitigation depends on site-specific
conditions and is generally assessed during the
process of site design and approvals. Specific
environmental performance criteria are deter-
mined by the applicable regulatory framework,
within which a given landfill is governed.
Regulatory approaches to landfills in Canada
generally fall to provincial governments and vary
considerably.
ENERGY IMPLICATIONS
The primary energy implication associated
with landfill disposal is the potential to recover
energy from the wastes through collection and
utilization of landfill gas. There are numerous
methods of recovery from landfill gas, including
use of the gas as a heating fuel for industrial
and/or space heating applications, generation of
electricity from landfill gas, and other new inno-
vative approaches, such as use of the gas to pro-
duce vehicle fuel. Use of energy from landfill gas
provides supplementary GHG emission reduc-
tion benefits by avoiding consumption of the
fossil fuels that would otherwise be required to
produce an equivalent amount of energy.
Examples of landfill gas utilization projects in
Canada:
Electricity Generation
Optigaz, Montreal, Que.,
Saint Michel, Montreal, Que.,
Waterloo Landfill, Waterloo, Ont.,
Clover Bar Landfill, Edmonton, Alta.;
Direct Fuel Use
Cambridge Landfill, Cambridge, Ont.,
Jackman Landfill, Langley, B.C.,
Port Mann Landfill, Surrey, B.C.
There are many potential LFG utilization
projects throughout the country. However, given
current energy markets, most are not economi-
cally feasible on a stand-alone basis. The dynamics
of Canada's energy industry, growing interest in
renewable energy resources, and the recognition
of the many significant environmental
benefits associated with LFG collection and
utilization are contributing to increasing interest.
Bioreactor landfill is still being developed
as a widely applicable waste management
option. Currently, the bioreactor landfill does
not fit neatly within standardized permitting
and approvals processes defined for waste dis-
posal sites and, as such, will generally require a
highly site-specific approval methodology. Some
considerations in developing bioreactor landfill
design:
Leachate containment and collection system
design parameters and performance;
Moisture balance requirements and liquid
distribution system;
Active gas collection capacity and
combustion/utilization;
Enhanced in-situ monitoring and control
systems;
Waste stability;
Settlement effects on engineered systems;
Detailed bioreactor management plan,
including: liquid injection program; bioreactor
performance assessment program and
action/response plans; a bioreactor site-
specific waste disposal operations plan,
and comprehensive impact monitoring and
contingency response program.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 257
Lessons Learned
Opposition to landfill establishment from local
community and environmental groups is the
largest single barrier to realizing this component
of a municipality's waste management system.
There are no insurmountable regulatory, techni-
cal design, environmental, or related economic
barriers to establishing and operating a landfill
facility. The concerns can be addressed by a
combination of the following strategies:
Counter fear that landfill will be a disincentive
to recycling, composting, and energy recovery
diversion programs, by clearly establishing the
maximum role to be played by landfill within
a municipality's integrated system of waste
diversion and disposal practices. Define a
system through a process of long-term waste
management planning, which incorporates
consultation with stakeholders, including com-
munity and environmental interest groups. Set
clear targets for the diversion programs com-
ponent of the long-term plan. These targets
should then define the role for landfill as being
the ultimate disposal of "residual waste," i.e.,
quantity of waste, post-diversion. Invest
authority in these targets, including the maxi-
mum role for landfill, by adopting the long-
term plan at the highest levels--municipal
works committee and council.
Address concerns that landfilling has a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment by:
monitoring landfill leachate and gas emissions;
publicly reporting a comparison of perform-
ance to regulatory standards; and periodically
reviewing and implementing, where technically
and economically feasible, advanced landfill
design and operations practices (e.g., bioreac-
tor design).
Address community concerns by establishing a
Landfill Host Community Liaison Committee,
with authority to oversee operations perform-
ance, including implementation of environ-
mental management system disciplines. This
committee can be vested with authority to
direct the application of community impact
mitigation funds derived from levees on land-
fill tipping fees. Property Value Protection
Agreements can be used in place of or in
conjunction with these funds.
258 Review of Waste Technologies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Technologies 259
Waste placed in a landfill breaks down over time due to biological,
physical, and chemical processes
Emerging technologies, such as bioreactor landfills, may offer more
sustainable approaches to landfill disposal of wastes
A wide range of performance is available. Individual facilities are custom
designed and constructed to meet desired waste management objectives
Landfill disposal of waste is a necessary element of an integrated
approach to waste management in all Canadian communities
Costs can vary significantly depending upon waste input rates and
characteristics, site-specific conditions, regulatory requirements, size
of facilities and economies of scale, design and construction requirements,
and local/regional competition from other landfills
Low costs relative to other options. Limitations on availability of
other alternatives
Individual facilities are custom designed and constructed on a site-
specific basis to mitigate potential environmental impacts within the
context of compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and to
meet environmental objectives
The primary energy implication associated with landfill disposal of
wastes is the potential to recover energy from the wastes through
collection and utilization of landfill gas. Use of energy from landfill gas
provides supplementary greenhouse emission reduction benefits by
avoiding consumption of the fossil fuels that would otherwise be required
to produce an equivalent amount of energy
Landfill disposal of waste has evolved significantly from historic practices.
Elements of siting, design, and construction of a contemporary landfill site
are generally determined on a site-specific basis with the fundamental
context being to manage potential environmental risks within the framework
of applicable regulations
Opposition to landfill facility establishment (siting new facilities and/or
expanding existing facilities) from local community and environmental
interest groups is the largest single barrier to realizing this component
of a municipality's waste management system
DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY
GENERAL PERFORMANCE
OF THE SYSTEM
COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
COSTS
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED
ACQUISITION
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
ENERGY IMPLICATIONS
LESSONS LEARNED
Summary
Factor
LANDFILLING SUMMARY
TABLE 6.2
Solid Waste as a Resource
Glossary 261
Glossary
TERM
DESCRIPTION
Anaerobic digestion
A biological process using microbes to break down organic material
(AD)
in the absence of oxygen. Digestion takes place in an enclosed chamber,
where critical environmental conditions (e.g., moisture content,
temperature and pH levels) can be controlled to maximize microbe
generation, gas generation, and waste decomposition rates.
Backyard composting
Composting of residential organic materials by a household, usually in
the backyard. Generally considered a method of source reduction.
Buy-back
A staffed facility that usually purchases post-consumer recyclable
containers and materials, such as aluminum cans, glass, and newspapers
from the public. May consist of mobile units. They seldom perform
materials processing.
Centralized composting
Process using a central facility within a defined area to compost
organic material.
"Clean" recyclable or
Material collected in a source-separated program, where contamination
compostable material
is minimal.
Commingled
Recycling programs where a number of different materials are mixed
together, not collected separately.
Composting
A biological process whereby organic matter is decomposed through
microbial activity, in the presence of oxygen, to produce a peat-like
humus.
Container material
Recyclable materials used in drink and food containers, typically
plastic, metal and glass.
Contamination
Material that is collected as part of a recycling or organics program and
that must be removed before processing or marketing.
Co-collection
The collection of recyclables and organics together with municipal
garbage in one truck; separated later for recycling and
composting/digestion or disposal.
262 Glossary
Solid Waste as a Resource
Collection
The process of picking up waste, recyclables, or compostable material
from a household or business.
Curbside collection
Collection of waste, organics, or recyclables from the curb.
Deposit/refund systems
Systems to collect fees on items when sold; fees are reimbursed when
the used product is returned.
Disposal bans
Regulation prohibiting disposal of materials or products (e.g., yard
waste, or lead-acid batteries) in landfills and/or incinerators; typically
targets items that contribute substantial volume or toxicity to the solid
waste stream.
Drop-off/depot
Facilities (staffed or unstaffed) where the public brings recyclable
materials, organics, or garbage for management by the municipality.
Separate drop boxes may be available for different materials, such as
newspaper, glass, or metal.
Fibre
Paper materials, such as cardboard, newsprint, and mixed papers.
Flow control
Legislation that limits free market access to specific wastes and ensures
their disposal at a particular processing or ultimate disposal facility.
Full cost accounting
Assigning all known waste management costs to the waste manage-
ment program, including those shared with other operations or
programs. May also be applied to landfills.
Grasscycling
Leaving grass clippings on the lawn and allowing them to decompose
naturally instead of collecting them for composting, digestion, or
disposal.
Hierarchy (for waste)
A hierarchical method of solid waste management. The following
practices are ranked in order of preference: source reduction; reuse;
recycling; energy and material recovery; and landfill disposal.
In-vessel composting
Composting involving a closed tank or unit with physical controls.
Landfill mining
Materials are recovered from a landfill by excavation. Organic matter
may be reused as a daily cover, and material, such as wood, metal,
brick, plastics and glass, may be recovered and recycled.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Glossary 263
Landspreading
A procedure whereby organic material is applied directly to land
(usually agricultural) to improve the physical and chemical properties
of soil.
Mandatory separation
A regulation requiring waste generators to separate designated
recyclable or compostable materials from the waste stream for recycling.
Market development
Policies or measures used by organizations or governments to stimulate
demand for secondary materials (i.e., procurement policies, regulations,
or mandated recycled content).
Material recovery facility
A facility that separates and processes source-separated secondary
(MRF)
materials (such as glass, metals, plastics, or paper) into marketable
materials.
Mixed MSW
Mixed municipal solid waste. The residual waste stream after some
recyclables have been removed.
Mixed-waste processing
Through manual or mechanical means, some recyclable material is
removed from waste. The remaining fraction may be used to make a
fuel product, be composted, or both.
Municipal solid waste
The controlled decomposition of municipal solid waste, including
composting
some form of preprocess to remove non-compostable material.
On-site composting
Composting conducted at or near the (generation) source of the
organic material.
Organics
The organic fraction of the waste stream, consisting of material that is
biodegradable, typically food, yard waste, and paper.
Processing
Preparation of solid waste for sale to markets through such activities
as hand sorting, magnetic and/or mechanical separation or shredding,
composting, or digestion.
Procurement
The purchase of goods or services, usually by an organization or
government. Procurement policies or regulations may establish
requirements for purchasing goods that contain a minimum level of
recycled content and/or are recyclable.
Rendering
Processing of animal wastes at high temperatures to produce oil, fats,
or animal feed.
264 Glossary
Solid Waste as a Resource
Reuse
The use of a product, such as a refillable beverage bottle, more than
once, possibly with slight modification.
Source reduction
The conservation of materials and energy by preventing the formation
(also waste reduction
of wastes such that no treatment, reuse, or disposal is required of
at source)
excess or discarded materials. Source reduction is a subset of waste
reduction.
Source separation
The separation of materials suitable for recycling or composting from
solid waste at the source of generation (e.g., households, businesses).
Thermal treatment
Technologies that process waste using high temperatures to reduce the
quantity of material requiring disposal, stabilize the material requiring
disposal, and recover energy and potentially material resources.
Tipping fee surcharges
A surcharge or levy applied on a per-tonne basis to all wastes delivered
to landfill sites, waste-to-energy plants and/or other waste handling
facilities.
User pay
Waste collection system whereby generators pay for disposal according
to tonnage or volume of waste produced. User pay systems may result
in a reduction of the amount of solid waste requiring collection and
management.
Variable tipping fees
Different fees may be charged at waste recovery, processing, and
disposal facilities based on the particular kind of wastes in a specific
load and/or the extent to which waste has been source-separated.
Vermicomposting
Worms digest organic wastes.
Waste composition
The various component materials of the waste stream, typically
described as a percentage of the entire waste stream by weight.
Waste diversion
The redirection of generated wastes away from disposal through reuse,
recycling, or recovery. It does not include source reduction.
Waste diversion credits
Financial incentive provided by municipalities to encourage or to
reward waste diversion based on tonnage diverted from the waste
stream.
Solid Waste as a Resource
Glossary 265
Waste exchange
System for transferring waste material from one company to another
that can use it. For example, packaging foam received by one company
can be transferred to a stuffed toy manufacturer for use as stuffing.
Waste minimization
Measures or techniques, including plans and directives, that reduce
the amount of wastes for disposal to the greatest degree practical.
(Getting as close to zero waste as practical.) Methods to achieve
minimization include source reduction, reuse, environmentally sound
recycling, and recovery.
Waste reduction
The decreasing to some extent of the waste stream, requiring disposal
through source reduction, reuse, recycling, or recovery. It is often
confused with the more limited "source reduction," which deals with
policies and approaches only from the curbside on, not further
upstream.
Waste stream
The waste output of a community, region, or facility. Total waste can
be categorized into different waste stream components (e.g., wet
organic waste, construction waste, household hazardous waste, or
white goods).
Wet/dry collection
The separation of residential solid waste into at least two components
for collection: wet wastes, which are organic and collected for
composting; and dry wastes, which are sorted at a central facility
where the recyclables are removed for further processing.
Windrow composting
Composting process whereby piled organic material is placed in a
series of rows, usually two metres deep. The rows are turned
periodically for natural aeration.
A AD - anaerobic digestion
AMRC - Ontario's Association of Municipal
Recycling Coordinators
B
BEST - Businesses for an Environmentally
Sustainable Tomorrow
BNQ - Le Bureau de normalisation du Québec
BOD - biological oxygen demand
BRBA - Buy Recycled Business Alliance in the U.S.
C
CCI - Canada Compost Inc.
CCME - Council of Ministers of the Environment
Cd - cadmium
C&D - construction and demolition
CFCs - chlorofluorocarbons
CNG - compressed natural gas
CO2 - carbon dioxide
D DfE - design for the environment
E
eCO2 - equivalent carbon dioxide
ECS - eddy current separators
E-E - Eco-Emballages
EFW - energy from waste
ENGOS - environmental non-profit organizations
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
EPP - environmentally preferable procurement
EPR - extended producer responsibility
F
FCM - Federation of Canadian Municipalities
G GAP - Generally Agreed Principles
GERT - Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Trading
GFNCR - Greening of Facilities National
Capital Region
GHG - greenhouse gas
GIPPER - Governments Incorporating Procurement
Policies to Eliminate Refuse
GJ- Gigajoule, a measure of energy. A joule is a watt
per second
GMF - Green Municipal Funds
GVRD - Greater Vancouver Regional District
H HCl - hydrochloric acid
HDPE - high density polyethylene
Hg - mercury
HHW or HSW - household hazardous waste
(called household special waste in some provinces)
HRM - Halifax Regional Municipality
I
IC&I - industrial, commercial and institutional
IWM - integrated waste management
L
LCA - life cycle analysis
LFG - landfill gas
M MRF - material recovery facilities
MSW - municipal solid waste
MTCE - metric tonnes of carbon equivalent
N NaPP - National Packaging Protocol
NIR - near infrared
NORA - Northern Ontario Recycling Association
NRC - National Recycling Coalition
NOx - nitrogen oxides
O OCC - old corrugated cardboard
ONP - old newspapers
OMG - old magazines
P
PAYT - pay-as-you-throw
Pb - lead
PET - polyethylene terephthalate
P&E - promotion and education
PERT - Pilot Emissions Reduction Trading Project
PROs - Producer Responsibility Organizations
PM - particulate matter
R
RDF - refuse derived fuel
RMDZ - recycling market development zones
RRFB - Nova Scotia Resource Recovery Fund Board
RRQ - Reseau des Ressourceries du Quebec
S
SOx - sulphur oxides
SSO - source-separated organics
SUBBOR - Super Blue Box Recycling Corporation
SDS - sustainable development strategies
SWICO - Swiss Association for Information,
Communication and Organization
V VOCs - volatile organic compounds
W WRAC - Ontario Waste Reduction Advisory
Committee
Acronyms
Solid Waste as a Resource
Acronyms 267
G U I D E
F E D E R A T I O N O F C A N A D I A N M U N I C I P A L I T I E S
for Sustainable Communities
Solid Waste
as a Resource
Solid Waste as a Resource
Table of Contents i
Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Integrated Resource and Waste Management for Sustainable Communities . . . . 7
Understanding Your System and Setting Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Policy and Legislative Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Partnership Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Technology Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Energy and Greenhouse Gas Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Financial and Economic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
End-use Market Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Promotion and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Review of Waste Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Policy Options Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Criteria for Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Regulatory Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Economic Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Voluntary Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Strategic Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Community Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Review of Waste Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Waste Management System Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Composting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Anaerobic Digestion (AD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Thermal Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Landfilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
The Overview, Review of Waste Policies and Review of Waste Technologies sections each include a detailed
table of contents and a list of tables and figures.
Solid Waste
as a Resource
OVERVIEW
Solid Waste as a Resource
Overview
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Section 1: Integrated Resource and Waste Management
for Sustainable Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Integrated Resource and Waste Management Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Choosing Appropriate System Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Decision-making Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Section 2: Understanding Your System and Setting Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Understanding Your Community's Needs and Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Understanding Your Resource and Waste Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Understanding and Setting Waste Reduction and Diversion Goals . . . . . . . . . . 14
Section 3: Policy and Legislative Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Policies and Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Policies and Legislative Initiatives Targeting Residential Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Policies and Legislative Initiatives Targeting Business Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Policies and Legislative Initiatives Targeting Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Enforcement Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Section 4: Partnership Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Community Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Partnerships Among Municipalities (Public-Public Partnerships) . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Public-Private Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Section 5: Technology Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Recyclable Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Organics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Management of Residual Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Section 6: Energy and Greenhouse Gas Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
The Integrated Waste Management (IWM) Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
The Partners for Climate Protection Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Linking Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Energy and Greenhouse Gas Effects of Source Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2 Overview
Solid Waste as a Resource
Solid Waste as a Resource
Overview 3
Energy Effects of Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Energy and Greenhouse Gas Effects of Anaerobic Digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Energy and Greenhouse Gas Effects of Landfill Gas Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Energy and Greenhouse Gas Effects of Thermal Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Future Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Section 7: Financial and Economic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Grants and Other Funding Sources for Resource and Waste
Management Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Section 8: End-use Market Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Recyclable End-market Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Compost End-market Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Green Energy and Energy Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Closing the Supply/Demand Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Providing Financial and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Eco-industrial Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Section 9: Promotion and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Designing a Promotion and Education Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Community-based Social Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Section 10: Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Tables
Table 1.1 Benefits of Substituting Secondary Materials for Virgin Materials . . . . . . . 9
Table 4.1 Public-Public Partnership Trade-offs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 4.2 Public-Private Partnership Trade-offs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 5.1 Collection Schedule Trade-offs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 5.2 Comparison of Two-stream and Three-stream Source-separated
Organics with Mixed Waste Processing and Composting . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 6.1 Examples of Energy Savings Resulting from Using Recycled
Rather Than Virgin Feedstock in Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 6.2 Selected Landfill Gas Recovery Projects in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 8.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Co-operative Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Solid Waste
as a Resource
REVIEW OF
WASTE POLICIES
60 Review of Waste Policies
Solid Waste as a Resource
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Policies
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Section 1: Policy Options Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
Section 2: Criteria for Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
Section 3: Regulatory Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
Disposal Bans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
Mandatory Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
Target Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
Section 4: Economic Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
Green Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
Tipping Fee Surcharges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
Deposit-refund Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87
Utility Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
Solid Waste Franchising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
User Pay Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
Carbon Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
Extended Producer Responsibility - Collective Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
Section 5: Voluntary Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
Extended Producer Responsibility - Corporate Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
Enhanced Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119
Section 6: Strategic Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122
Source Separation of Organics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122
Use of Life Cycle and Full-cost Measurement Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
Section 7: Community Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
Economic Development Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
Social Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136
Solid Waste as a Resource
Review of Waste Policies 61
TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables
Table 1
Policy Options Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
Table 2
Criteria Used to Evaluate Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
Table 3
Some Disposal Bans in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
Table 4
Disposal Bans for Selected Materials in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
Table 5
Green Procurement in North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
Table 6
Return Rates for Selected Deposit-refund Systems for Beverage Containers . . . . . . . . . .88
Table 7
Overview of Beverage Container Capture in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
Table 8
Some Jurisdictions Using Solid Waste Utilities or Utility-style Billing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
Table 9
A Selection of Jurisdictions Using Solid Waste Franchising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
Table 10
Technical Options for User Pay Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
Table 11
Net GHG Emissions from Selected Materials and their Various
Waste-management Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
Table 12
Products in the City of Ottawa's "Take it Back!" Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
Table 13
Waste Material/Waste Management Practice Combinations Evaluated by the
Environmental Analysis Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
Figure
Figure 1
Waste Management Financing Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
W O R K B O O K
F E D E R A T I O N O F C A N A D I A N M U N I C I P A L I T I E S
for Sustainable Communities
Solid Waste
as a Resource
Solid Waste as a Resource
Workbook i
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Using this Workbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Figure 1 - Decision-making Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Addressing Key Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Preliminary Groundwork - Setting Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Figure 2 - Preliminary Groundwork - Setting Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Stage A - Establishing Your Information Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Worksheet A1 - Community Characteristics Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Worksheet A2 - Residential Waste Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Worksheet A3 - Residential Resource and Waste Management Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Worksheet A4 - IC&I Resource and Waste Management Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Figure 3 - Establishing Your Information Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Stage B - Policy Decision-making Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Worksheet B1 - Community Innovation Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Figure 4 - Policy Decision-making Tree <50% Waste Reduction Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Figure 5 - Policy Decision-making Tree >50% Waste Reduction Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Figure 6 - Policy Decision-making Tree - Provincial/Municipal Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Stage C - Integrated Resource and Waste Management System Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Figure 7 - Integrated Resource and Waste Management System Decision-making Tree
(<7,000 tpy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Figure 8 - Integrated Resource and Waste Management System Decision-making Tree
(7,000 - 35,000 tpy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Figure 9 - Integrated Resource and Waste Management System Decision-making Tree
(35,000 - 90,000 tpy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Figure 10 - Integrated Resource and Waste Management System Decision-making Tree
(>90,000 tpy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Worksheet C1 - Establishing Partnerships with Other Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Figure 11 - Partnership Option Decision-making Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
Worksheet C2 - Resources Available for Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
Table 1 - Residential Waste Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
ii Workbook
Solid Waste as a Resource
Figure 12 - Option A - Waste Reduction Target <25% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
Figure 13 - Option B - Waste Reduction Target 25 - 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Figure 14 - Option C - Waste Reduction Target >50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
Figure 15 - System Design Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
UTILIZING WOOD WASTE FROM CR&D AND URBAN
FORESTRY
prepared by: ROSS MACLEOD
F
O
R
E
S
T
E
C
H
O
Rediscovering Wood
2 7 71 S a l i na S t re e t , O t t a w a , O nt a r i o , Canada - t e l e p h o n e: 613.286.3675- www.f o re s te cho .ca
Summary
Different cultures throughout the ages have associated trees with deep and sacred meanings;
seeing them, and the wood they contain, as powerful symbols of growth, decay and rejunve-
nation. Today we appear to be approaching a bit of a renaissance in the appreciation of for-
ests and trees, as people grow more concerned about the sustainability of our planetary eco-
systems. It is all the more surprising then, to learn of the amount that we waste of this pre-
cious resource every year. Wood represents the single largest component of Canadian Con-
struction, Renovation and Demolition (CR&D) waste streams, amounting to almost a million
tonnes, or the equivalent of around 1 million harvested trees annually! When you include
trees that are removed from the landscape as part of site preparation, or due to storm dam-
age and for other reasons, the waste more than doubles. Most of this material is not utilized
or recycled, and that which is, will normally be burned - not what you would expect in an in-
creasingly resource constrained world that has a growing respect for forests and trees.
This paper will examine wood waste within the CR&D industry, and recommend directions for
improving recovery and utilization of this resource. We will also consider waste from the
removal of trees in the urban forest, since that represents an enormous and growing source of
character virgin wood, that to date has not been effectively utilized. Moreover, urban for-
estry is an activity that centers on evolving and maintaining the build environment, and often
involves many of the same stakeholders as CR&D.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
1
Contents
Introduction!
4
Scope!
4
Importance of Trees and Wood within the Build Environment!
4
Wood Waste!
6
Construction!
6
Urban Forestry!
7
Building Renovations and Demolition!
8
Consequences!
10
Environmental Implications!
10
Economic Implications!
13
Opportunities for Improved Utilization!
14
Reducing Material Demands in Construction!
14
Design is Key:!
14
Building Technology and Practices:!
14
Greater Reuse of Wood Components!
15
Wood Products Recycling!
15
Potential Markets:!
16
Furniture and woodworking products:!
17
Architectural Wood:!
19
Lumber:!
19
Animal Bedding:!
21
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
2
Landscaping material:!
21
Remanufactured Wood Product (Composite)s:!
22
Biomass Energy:!
23
Biomass Energy - Wood Pellets:!
23
Biomass Energy - Hog Fuel:!
24
Opportunities for Improved Wood Waste Recovery!
25
Construction Renovation & Demolition (CR&D):!
25
Urban Forestry:!
26
Impediments to Improved Utilization!
28
CR&D Wood Utilization!
28
Resource Efficiency (reduction):!
28
Greater Reuse of Wood:!
29
Recycling:!
29
Urban Forestry Wood Utilization!
31
Wood Quantity & Supply Fragmentation:!
31
Wood Quality:!
31
Markets:!
31
Inventories:!
32
Utilization Plans:!
32
Local Government Support:!
32
Conclusion and Recommendations!
33
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
3
Introduction
Scope
The 'Build Environment' essentially is composed of man made elements of our urban living
space. It includes, but is not limited to, buildings and man made structures. Even forested
parks are considered part of the build environment, since they are not strictly natural, but
rather man made in origin.
For the purposes of this document we are focused on waste that is generated from the con-
struction and evolution of our 'Build' environment - Construction, Renovation and Demolition
(CR&D), as well as Urban Forestry. We have excluded those activities that simply occur as
part of living and operating within the 'Build' environment. This includes consumer waste and
Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) waste streams. They typically involve a differ-
ent set of stakeholders and will not be covered here.
Little has been done about wood waste from urban forestry operations within the context of
Municipal Waste Management Strategies despite the scale of the issue, cost and opportunities.
Although municipal forestry departments are primarily responsible for these challenges, tree
waste can contribute to municipal waste management issues and so invariably will also in-
volve municipal solid waste departments. We will consider the waste resulting from the re-
moval of trees due to construction site preparation and landscaping as well as that arising
from the removal of diseased, storm damaged and troublesome trees.
Importance of Trees and Wood within the Build Environment
Trees, and the wood resources that they provide, represent one of the most important re-
sources that nature has blessed us with. As most school children now know, trees are respon-
sible for filtering the air and adding oxygen, while helping to moderate urban temperatures,
and storing vast amounts of carbon, which in turn helps combat climate change. In addition
to their vital ecosystem role, wood from trees represents an important renewable resource
that underpins much of our build environment. More wood fiber is used to support our soci-
ety every year, by weight, than our combined consumption of steel, plastics, and portland
cement. In fact, roughly one-half of all industrial materials used in North America are wood-
based. Homebuilding, remodeling and home improvements collectively represent the largest
single use of lumber and wood products, accounting for about two-thirds of domestic wood
product consumption. Every year, construction of new homes1 in Canada will consume
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
4
1 There are approximately 200,000 houses built every year in Canada based on 2010/11 data from the CMHC
around 2 billion board feet of solid wood components, or over 7 million trees!2 This is based
on an average single family home being 2,190 square feet in size. US data concludes that a
home of this size will contain 14,200 board feet of lumber and up to 14,000 square feet of
panel products. That includes wood products ranging from structural beams and flooring to
the sheathing, trim and panelling.
Unlike, metal and plastics, wood is renewable, and represents a virtually inexhaustible source
of material when properly managed. But our forests are under stress today, whether it is
from invasive insects, or climate change and previous aggressive harvesting practices, Cana-
dian forests face some serious threats. As global demand for wood products continues to in-
crease(see table 1), we must take steps to reduce logging demands on our wilderness forests
as well as better maintain them or we will risk further compromising this vital resource.
In order to do this we must make better use of the wood material within our build
environment. This not only includes existing wood products, but also felled trees from within
our urban forests. It is estimated that roughly 7 billion trees are growing in Canadian cities,
suburbs and other metropolitan areas, and this figure is growing as Canadian cities grow in
size.
Table 1: Wood Products Demand forecast (cubic meters) from the Food & Agriculture Organization of the UN - FAO
Actual
Projected
1965
1990
2005
2020
2030
Sawn Wood
358
471
421
515
594
Wood-based Panels
42
128
241
391
521
Total (cm)
400
599
662
906
1115
0
300
600
900
1200
1965
1995
2005
2020
2030
Global Demand for Wood Products - millions of Cubic Meters (cm)
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
5
2 Assume 250+ board feet of good saw grade lumber per tree, with a significant amount of the remaining wood sup-
porting OSB and/or particle board product or other Wood Product Composite.
Wood Waste
Obtaining detailed national Canadian figures on wood waste can be difficult and so in some
cases approximations were derived based on inferences from American data. The table below
is based on a 2004 study by NRCan on the amount of disposed waste material in Canada. It
concluded that 875,000 tonnes of CR&D waste wood was being disposed of each year in Can-
ada.
Table 2: NRCan assumed CR&D waste percentages from a March 2006 report on waste recov-
ery opportunities
Construction
Studies have indicated that as much as 19% of the wood material in new home construction
ends up as waste. Although today the average wastage is substantially less, it is still unac-
ceptably high. The precise portion of wood within the overall construction waste stream var-
ies a great deal with the type of construction; from a ratio in the single digit percentages
when dealing with high-rise office buildings to as much as 47% in the event of single family
home construction (a California study, which is consistent with data from NRCan findings as
high-lighted in the table above). Recent Canadian studies have reported 39% wood waste by
weight in Calgary construction on a given year and 26% for Alberta as a whole. The consensus
of experts appears to be that the average amount of wasted wood accounts for somewhere
between 20% and 30% of all waste generated in the construction of new homes. Put another
way, it has been estimated that following today's construction practices, builders waste as
much as a kilogram of wood per square foot of building constructed. This means that con-
struction of a typical 2,500 sf home can result in approximately 2 metric tonnes of wood
waste!
For yet another perspective on the wood waste situation, consider that, by one American es-
timate, there is approximately 28,000 board feed of wood (14k bfm of solid wood and 14.2k
bfm of Wood Product Composites, or WPCs) in the average home, and that approximately 8%
of that figure is wasted in the construction process. Now consider that there will be ap-
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
6
proximately 200,000 homes built in Canada this year - 2011 - and we arrive at a figure of 2.8
billion board feet of solid wood consumed and 233 million board feet3 of solid wood waste.
Thus, ignoring the larger amount of WPCs, we can see that close to 1 million trees (assuming
250 bfm of saw lumber / average tree cut in the forest) were harvested unnecessarily this
year, just to support the waste of solid wood components in housing construction alone!
When you include WPCs that figure goes up substantially! And when you include non-
residential construction, that figure goes up higher still.
Of course, the impact of such waste is even worse than those figures indicate, since they
don't account for embodied energy and other externalities associated with harvesting, proc-
essing and transporting the material.
Urban Forestry
Extensive utilization of urban trees in the creation of products is still a fairly new idea. The
idea, however, is drawing more attention particularly in the US, as communities have battled
significant increases in tree mortality due to invasive pests, storm damage, and damage from
severe drought conditions, that have all led to heightened tree waste disposal challenges.
Key questions that arise within this context include:
-
How many trees (how much wood) must be removed from urban areas each year?
-
What are the major impediments to utilizing this wood? (see next section)
-
Are there viable examples of urban tree utilization industries?
-
What role should bio-energy play in urban tree utilization
We offer suggestions to several of these questions through out this document. For now, we
will focus on the volumes involved. Estimates of how much wood is removed from Canadian
urban forests each year are hard to come by. But again, American data is a little more readily
available - although still not great - and we can very roughly approximate our situation by
simply assuming numbers that are 10% of the American figures4. It has been estimated that
200 million cubic yards of green waste is removed from the American urban environment
alone, and that this figure would almost double should the metropolitan environment be in-
cluded. From this, it is conservatively estimated that approximately 30 million cubic yards
could be recovered as good saw logs each year. This in turn would result in approximately 4
billion board feet of lumber in the US alone - enough to fulfill 25% of the entire hardwood
demand in the US.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
7
3 This figure is derived by calculating the average ratio of waste to be a little over 8%, based on assuming half the
wood waste is solid wood (half the input), and approximating the weight of construction lumber to be 1 tonne per
1000 board feet (using air dried spruce as a proxy from www.globalwood.org)
4 This further assumes that the number of trees in our urban areas - on a per capita basis - is similar between Canada
and the USA.
Per our earlier assumption, this would mean that roughly 3 million cubic yards could be re-
covered annually as good saw logs in Canada, resulting in approximately 400 million board
feet of wood a year, or more than 20% of the solid wood required for housing each year in
Canada. This figure would be significantly greater if we were to include trees in the broader
metropolitan environment.
Building Renovations and Demolition
There is dramatically more overall waste generated from renovation and demolition than
there is from construction. In fact, NRCan estimates that 89% of CR&D waste material comes
from renovations and demolition, with only 11% of the total coming from Construction. From
a wood perspective, however, its is not quite so unbalanced, since per table 2, the percent-
age of wood content in the renovation and demolition streams is less than it is in construc-
tion. Regardless, from the NRCan study data, it is clear that over 3 times as much wood
waste is generated from residential building renovation as is generated from construction.
An American study from 2003 arrived at similar but somewhat different conclusions. It de-
termined that the largest overall contributor to CR&D waste was non residential demolition
followed by residential renovation. Overall waste volumes from residential renovations was
almost 4 times that from new home construction. The percentage of wood in these waste
streams was, however, significantly less than the percentage found in construction waste.
NRCan data is illustrated below.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
8
14%
7%
31%
12%
1%
2%
1%
34%
Renovation Waste
Concrete
Ashphalt
Wood
Drywall
Ferrous
Nonferrous
Carboard
Other
9%4%
47%
20%
1%
5%8%4%
Construction Waste
31%
15%
18%
3%
0%
1%
0%
31%
Demolition Waste
Unfortunately, wood waste coming from demolition and renovation is much 'dirtier' than that
coming from construction, and so a greater proportion will end up in landfills today. Moreo-
ver, these projects are often managed by smaller companies and on a smaller scale than most
construction projects, making it more challenging to successfully implement aggressive mate-
rial recovery and recycling protocols
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
9
Consequences
The impacts of resource wastage of this magnitude can be felt in environmental, economic
and quality of life terms.
Environmental Implications
Environmental impacts of wood waste are not always simple, or what they may seem at first
blush. In an effort to influence people to their opposing positions, some experts will talk of
the benefits of harvesting wood - that it increases the carbon store - while others highlight
the danger of removing trees from the forest due to the degradation of the carbon sequester-
ing capacity of the forest that results. Still others talk about the greenhouse gases that are
emitted from landfill sites, and the then danger of burying wood waste in landfills.
The problem is that there is truth in all these positions. So what then is the real net implica-
tion of this wood waste and increased demand on our forests, for the environment?
Simply put, cutting down and removing a tree from the forest to be manufactured into prod-
ucts for the urban population, will normally result in:
i)
an immediate reduction in the carbon sequestering process of that forest
ii)
locking most of the removed wood based carbon into products (assuming it is not used
as biomass energy)
iii)
promoting / accelerating biomass regeneration in the forest which will eventually im-
prove the net sequestering of carbon beyond what it would otherwise have been, had
the trees not been cut and removed from the forest5
iv)
removing organic material from the forest, and therefore marginally reducing its long
term regenerative capacity
v)
burning of fossil fuels and consuming energy from other sources and adding to pollution
in the process of milling, packaging and transporting the wood and wood product
Of course the above list represents a gross simplification of the issues, but it does highlight
some key considerations when trying to understand environmental sustainability and implica-
tions of harvesting wood in the forest.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
10
5 In June 2010 the Manomet Center for Conservation Science released a report on Woody Biomass Energy, that at-
tempted to illuminate the Life Cycle Assessment implications of using woody biomass for energy production. It
was, however, widely misinterpreted to be a negative assessment of Wood Biomass Energy, and they quickly released
a clarification note at: http://www.manomet.org/sites/manomet.org/files/Manomet%20Statement%20062110b.pdf.
Yet another perspective based on a LCA is offered by Dovetail Partners in their 2011 report,
http://www.dovetailinc.org/reportsview/2011/responsible-materials/pdr-jim-bowyerp/life-cycle-impacts-forest-m
anagement-and-bioe
Most trees being harvested today
are being removed well before
their carbon sequestering proc-
esses have peaked, so
unnecessary/wasteful harvesting
of the wood is certainly contribut-
ing to climate change in the short
and medium term. Increasing
demand for saw grade lumber
leads to shortening of the harvest
cycle, and causes foresters to
seek out progressively smaller di-
ameter trees that are earlier in
their carbon sequestering cycle.6
This in turn exacerbates the ini-
tial carbon deficits arising from
the harvest. Just to put this into
perspective; if we assume that
the average tree being removed is
capable of sequestering 50 pounds
of carbon a year (a common as-
sumption), then wastefully re-
moving 1 million trees a year will
contribute about 23,500 tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere (the amount of carbon that
these trees would otherwise have soaked up in a year). This doesn't even include the im-
pact of the harvesting and manufacturing processes, which actually could contribute a great
deal more in the first year. Of course these effects will eventually be compensated for over
time with new growth. But that will take decades.
Over harvesting and tree plantations also tend to reduce biodiversity, not only in the trees
being regrown, but also in other other elements of the ecosystem. A healthy forest requires a
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
11
6 Although forestry people are quick to point out that the forested area of North America has been relatively stable for
over a century despite increased wood consumption, and forested areas have actually increased in size in some
European regions, the areas of so-called old growth forests have fallen dramatically. This can easily been seen in the
ever smaller tree sizes that are being harvested for saw lumber from Canadian forests. Difficulty in obtaining large-
diameter logs has led to use of plantation-grown trees and material from thinnings (a good thing), as well as the ex-
panded use of new wood composite products such as Oriented Strand Board (OSB) in order to make effective use of
these smaller trees. These technologies have made possible the dramatic increase in the use of engineered wood
products. Prefabricated wood I-joists are replacing wide lumber for both floor and ceiling joists in residential applica-
tions. These products are made with a web of either plywood or OSB and with flanges of either solid-sawn mechani-
cally graded lumber or laminated veneer lumber and tend to introduce greater challenges to recycling efforts
broad range of tree species, sizes and age, which demands active forest management and
thinning operations, that are not widely practiced in Canada. Over harvesting can therefore
contribute to a loss of biodiversity as well as increase the forest's vulnerability to cata-
strophic fires, among other threats.
It is worth noting that in countries like Sweden, where they have developed a robust biomass
energy market, industry is able (with policy guidance) to do a better job of maintaining forest
health through thinning operations and practices that include returning spent biomass fuel
(organics) to the forest.
Disposal options for wood waste
also carry different environ-
mental 'costs'. Many have ar-
gued that landfilling trees and
wood must be avoided at all
costs since, the consequences of
releasing GHGs such as carbon
dioxide and methane from these
materials can significantly con-
tribute to climate change.
While we don't advocate land-
filling wood waste, some of
these positions are overstated.
For one thing, most landfill sites capture methane and burn it - in some cases generating en-
ergy in the process. In addition, studies have shown that when buried in landfills, trees and
wood can remain a relatively stable store of carbon. As anecdotal evidence of this, Forest
Echo (a wood recovery company in Ottawa) participated in the recovery of some elm trees
that had been buried in an Ottawa landfill site for over 30 years. When rediscovered, these
trees were in remarkable shape, and other than some minor staining the sawn wood looked
'fresh'. Burying trees and wood in landfill sites does however consume land that could often
be used for more productive purposes, and more importantly, it fails to make use of a mate-
rial that could reduce logging requirements and associated environmental impacts, or provide
a relatively benign source of fuel energy.
Wood waste places an unnecessary stress on our forests, encouraging the harvest of ever
smaller diameter trees that can threaten forest ecosystems. The harvesting of over a million
trees every year in order to compensate for wood waste, also results in the unnecessary pro-
duction and consumption of millions of liters of fossil fuels and associated GHG emissions in
order to harvest, process, package, ship and then dispose of the waste wood. This is clearly
not a desirable or even sustainable practice in an increasingly resource constrained world.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
12
Economic Implications
The most immediately obvious economic consequence of wood waste, is the cost of disposal.
There are, however, externalities that should be accounted for as well as direct costs. Direct
costs are pretty clear. Most communities across Canada charge waste disposal fees to busi-
nesses and individuals for handling - typically landfilling - waste, including wood waste.
These fees are increasing every year as public pressure to avoid the need for unsightly landfill
sites is placing growing constraints on these operations. Moreover, most municipalities have
already adopted differential rates for different materials in order to enforce public policy and
to encourage greater recycling or reuse of certain materials. Due to the relatively large vol-
ume of wood in our municipal waste streams and the perceived reuse options, municipalities
have typically moved to charge more for some types of wood waste, such as whole tree re-
movals. Disposal costs for different types of wood waste has now exceeded $100 per tonne
in some jurisdictions.
If you extend the economic costs to include various externalities - the costs that society bears
- total costs can be much larger. Given some serious environmental challenges that society is
facing, there is a growing movement to formalize these costs in chain of custody protocols
that products will need to support. For example; the International Organization for Stan-
dardization has established ISO 14025/TR as an Environmental Product Declaration, which is a
first step towards establishing an environmental cost accounting standard. Organizations
would be well advised to begin preparing for this broader interpretation of costs when design-
ing any new manufacturing and waste disposal plans.
There are also very real opportunity costs involved with disposing of the material. Certainly
saving cash flow and even capital from wasteful resource use enables that money to be di-
rected to other business opportunities. Additionally, reuse and recycling of resources repre-
sents an economic opportunity for the communities within which these are practiced. Stud-
ies have indicated that recycling and reuse practices are most cost effective when practiced
on a local or regional scale. In fact, resource recovery businesses and remanufactures are
often only viable if they can be located close to the resource thereby offsetting extra acquisi-
tion costs with lower transportation costs. This is especially true for wood, which is a less
valuable commodity by weight and volume than other recycled material, such as metal or
plastic. As a result, a successful wood recycling ecosystems will, by necessity, require mostly
local content and green jobs, thus boosting economic development for the community.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
13
Opportunities for Improved Utilization
There are few greater opportunities to help reduce our collective eco footprint and stimulate
job growth at the same time, than what can be achieved by improving wood recovery and
utilization in communities across Canada. Practical solutions are available today and do not
require the invention of new technology or major additional public investments. Nor do
these opportunities require broad based changes in individual behaviours within our society.
Moreover, building certification systems like LEED reward aspects of improved local utilization
of wood 'waste' resources in construction, by providing incentives through credits such as:
-
MR Credit 4: Recycled Content
-
MR Credit 5: Regional Materials
-
MR Credit 7: FSC Wood (smart wood)
-
EQ Credit 4.4: Low-Emitting Materials, Composite Wood and Laminate Adhesives
Opportunities exist to further improve utilization of wood from CR&D operations as well as
from Urban Forestry.
Reducing Material Demands in Construction
Design is Key:
Innovative design of the build environment and construction processes can go a long way to
providing the most effective answer to improving utilization - that is, to reduce material use
and potential waste in the first place, and to ensure a durable structure that will stand the
test of time. By aligning key performance indicators with reduction goals, as integral to pro-
ject success, project designs could focus on:
-
Reducing wood waste
-
Eliminating redundant or excess wood use
-
Using wood from non-depleting "environmentally certified" and "reclaimed" sources
-
Enhancing the durability of homes / buildings
Building Technology and Practices:
More modular, prefabricated building construction is one proven approach (with a few caveats
to be discussed later) that can be very effective at reducing waste, encouraging limited reuse
of materials, and cost effectively improving building performance on other green building de-
sign criteria such as energy demands, and maintenance requirements. Increasing the attrac-
tiveness of this somewhat more restrictive design option to home purchasers and builders
alike, could go a long way to encouraging cost effective greener homes and reducing wood
waste. For the vast majority of buildings that will be constructed using traditional 'stick'
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
14
methods over the coming years, local governments could encourage adoption of the latest
construction technologies such as advanced framing (also known as Optimum Value Engineer-
ing - OVE), or similar method. These techniques have demonstrated material demand reduc-
tions in the order of $1,000 for a 2,400 sf house, along with a corresponding reduction of up
to 5% in labour costs. All of these reductions are accompanied by a potential to improve the
thermal envelop with associated significant energy savings. For more information on OVE
see: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/building_america/pdfs/db/35380.pdf
Greater Reuse of Wood Components
While some reuse of wood components does of course happen in construction, the greatest
opportunity to improve reuse in CR&D will depend on careful deconstruction as an alternative
to demolition. Doors, mantels, windows and the like can be easily reused on other projects.
As is the case with many other opportunities discussed in this document, a ready market for
the products that are recovered is critical. Beyond enabling reuse on a given project, a mar-
ket for reusable products from construction demolition is essential. There are several exam-
ples of successful profit oriented and non profit building supply recycling depots in communi-
ties across the US and Canada. Supporting the establishment of this type of facility (espe-
cially ones that can handle significant volumes of wood products) is key to encouraging
greater reuse and more deconstruction of buildings as opposed to demolition. Providing mu-
nicipal incentives (perhaps as part of the permit process) for deconstruction over demolition,
would be another way to encourage this important form of waste reduction.
Wood Products Recycling
Recycling recoverable wood waste represents an important means of extending the life of the
wood resource and reducing the volume of timber harvested for forest products. Recycling
can also greatly reduce the amount of wood-based waste sent to landfills. At the same time,
it can improve the value of material produced by our trees, create jobs, and encourage eco-
nomic growth. Realizing these benefits depends most, however, on government policies and
market conditions that encourage companies to use recovered materials in products.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
15
Potential Markets:
Our goal in seeking recycling opportunities - once reduction and reuse options have been ex-
hausted - is to ensure the highest value usage of the material that will both maximize returns
on recycling initiatives, as well as extend the useful life of the wood material itself. This is
one reason why, for example; we shouldn't simply default to - perhaps the easiest solution -
wood biomass energy, as it may not represent the highest value usage at that time.
When there are multiple recycling opportunities for the wood resource, determining which
option will achieve the highest resource value of the material is an important question. The
answer will depend on what technologies are commercially available, what end-of-life plans
for the material might be, what is the business case for each option and what are the prevail-
ing local conditions, and availability of markets. An example hierarchy of options is offered
below. The list is not exhaustive and ultimately values will be determined by the market
place, and will change over time, and vary by location:
1.
Furniture and woodworking products
2.
Architectural wood including flooring stairs, etc
3.
Rough sawn lumber
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
16
4.
Animal bedding
5.
Mulch and other landscaping material, including compost
6.
Wood Fibre products such as Rayon and Pulp & Paper
7.
Remanufactured (composite) wood products
8.
Biomass Energy: Wood pellet feedstock
9.
Biomass Energy: Hog fuel
Furniture and woodworking products:
Furniture and woodworking represent the premium market for wood derived from old building
deconstruction, as well as urban forestry operations and site preparations (i.e. land clearing).
Large wood pieces in the construction of old buildings such as factories and barns, were hewn
from classic old growth trees that were largely harvested out of existence. A combination of
the beauty of the wood, its rarity, and the story behind the wood, causes it to be considered
very valuable by a small but growing segment of the population.
Regarding trees grown within the urban environment, they tend to develop a unique character
all their own. They typically grow more branches than their wilderness counterparts and in-
ner city environmental stresses help encourage the development of grain patterns that are
distinct from what you would find in trees harvested from natural forests. These features
can be very appealing to a small group of wood 'connoisseurs' in a similar fashion to the ap-
peal of regional wines to a small group who truly appreciate the complexities in wine. As is
the case with wine, these distinctions with urban wood can thus become a source of value to
be marketed.
While certainly environmentally superior to wood sourced through traditional channels, and
offering local economic development within the region, these products don't follow tradi-
tional specifications, and so require purchasing departments to make some accommodations
in order to encourage success. Any progressive municipal and/or regional waste management
plan should involve supporting regulations and policy to encourage the acquisition of locally
sourced products made from materials recovered within the region.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
17
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
18
Architectural Wood:
Traverwood Library in Ann Arbor Michigan, is built with wood from EAB damaged trees that
were harvested at the building site.
Flooring is a high volume potential market for good wood material coming from the Urban
Forest as well as Building deconstruction. The unique character of wood from these sources
offers higher value marketing opportunities that is critical to enabling a profitable operation.
As in the case of Furniture and wood working products, it is important that regional and mu-
nicipal waste plans also include appropriate procurement policies to encourage the purchase
of products made from locally recovered (recycled), and processed wood.
Lumber:
Wood from recovered trees in the Urban Forest, and in some cases from building deconstruc-
tion, may be sawn to provide rough cut and dressed lumber for small construction/renovation
projects, including wood decks.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
19
Local kiln and milling services
need to be readily available to
enable an economic solution.
The increasing popularity of
relatively low cost portable saw
mills has made rough sawn lum-
ber services available and eco-
nomic in most areas, although
kiln drying and other milling ca-
pabilities necessary to dress the
wood may not be as prevalent.
Also, wood from Urban Forests
generally does not fit nicely
into traditional grading systems.
As such, if municipalities wish
to encourage diversion of Urban
Forest waste wood away from
landfills and into higher valued
applications, then they will
likely need to adapt the build-
ing codes to accommodate a
revised grading standard.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
20
Animal Bedding:
Animal bedding can offer surprisingly lucrative
revenue for dry material coming from the so-
called white (clean) wood in building construc-
tion, deconstruction or demolition. Reason-
able volumes may be in demand in regions
with a large number of horse farms, beef cat-
tle processing operations, or the like. Some-
what higher prices may be achieved by bagging
the material for sale to other smaller animal,
pet and retail operations. The available sup-
ply of clean 'white' (dry) wood is very limited
however, and utilizing more of the waste
stream would require better upstream segre-
gation of wood, or a significant investment in
very sophisticated material cleaning equip-
ment in order to virtually guarantee that the
material does not contain any contaminants.
Another concern is that certain wood species
may cause severe reactions in some animals,
so segregating material based on species may
be necessary for some markets. Wood waste
for animal bedding usually involves the sale of wood shavings as opposed to shredded or
ground material originating from operations like hammer-mill grinding, since the latter will
normally contain dust, which can create problems for the animals.
Landscaping material:
A popular end use of some waste wood is landscaping materials. This is pretty straight for-
ward when it involves waste from urban forestry. In fact, most municipalities already make
extensive use of green waste from tree trimmings and the like, as mulch and cover for path-
ways. Green waste from tree service companies that is dumped in landfills provides a con-
venient and effective cover material that is frequently utilized, and in some cases may be
mixed with other waste material to support composting operations.
In countries such as the UK, where more aggressive wood recycling programmes have been in
place for years, waste wood from CR&D and other industrial operations is used extensively as
landscaping material. The material tends to last longer since it is dryer and so less suscepti-
ble to rot. The challenge, however, is to ensure that the material is sufficiently clean. Al-
though research indicates that most chemicals in wood product composites readily degrade in
a compost pile, there are some chemicals (e.g. organochlorines) in older materials, which are
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
21
resistant to this process. Some experts recommend that composting facility operators limit
the proportion of older wood composite material that they accept. We, however, find this
advice impractical given the difficulty of effectively implementing these restrictions. There-
fore, we recommend that these operators restrict the proportion of all composite wood mate-
rial in landscaping material. The blending of these contaminated products with non-
contaminated feedstocks may help reduce associated concentrations of contaminants, includ-
ing heavy metal (e.g. As, Cu and Cr) in the composted product to acceptable levels. The
applicability (and acceptable risks) of different mixes must be determined on a case by case
basis.
Wood Fibre Products:
Some industrial processes are less tolerant of impurity in feedstock than others. Virgin pulp
and paper plants will, for example; not accept anything but pure virgin hardwood chips that
meet their size requirements. Moreover, they can be particular about the species of wood
that they accept. That doesn't however, preclude chipped wood resulting from urban forestry
and land clearing operations, but it does place an extra burden of care on the process. Pulp
wood represents a more valuable application than biomass energy and has been exploited in
markets like Ottawa which is located within 25 minutes or so of Pulp and Paper as well as
other wood fibre plants.
If an operation involves significant tree removal it is important to engage a reputable tree
and wood reclamation company and/or wood broker, to fully understand options within the
particular region.
Remanufactured Wood Product (Composites):
Feedstock for the production of a wide range of Wood Product Composites (WPC) and other
wood derivative products, represents one recycling opportunity. An example WPC siding
manufacturing facility in the UK, can annually divert 55 million kg of plastic and 77 million kg
of urban wood waste from landfills. In fact, performance of products using recycled material
has been found to not be significantly different from those using virgin wood. WPCs involve
products such as Particle Board, Oriented Strand Board (OSB), Medium Density Fibre (MDF),
plywood and even wood plastics. Given the nature of the product, plywood, followed by OSB
are the most demanding on the input feedstock, and most reclaimed material would not be
appropriate. Future technology innovations may change that, but for now Particle Board can
accept the widest range of wood waste feedstock, while MDF is a candidate for Urban Forest
waste material. There are 6 MDF plants spread across Canada, and 13 particle board manu-
facturing facilities within 5 provinces.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
22
It appears that from a Life-cycle Cost As-
sessment (LCA) perspective (as covered by
ISO 1404x standards), recycling material in
these manufacturing processes makes a
great deal of environmental as well as eco-
nomic sense. LCA studies on MDF and OSB,
for example, consistently highlight that the
greatest environmental impact by far is in-
curred as part of the harvesting and trans-
porting of the raw material. While MDF
manufacturing has proven adaptable to
changes in raw material supply using some
sawdust, shavings and recycled wood previ-
ously thought unsuitable, CR&D wood waste
is unlikely to provide suitable acceptable
feedstock, without the introduction of new
re-processing technology.
Immaturity of the Canadian wood recycling industry - when compared to that in the UK and
Europe - and the resulting lack of standards, has however, slowed the market for waste wood
in these businesses. As a result, use of wood material from the build environment has been
spotty at best.
Biomass Energy:
In many ways, biomass energy represents the proverbial 'low hanging fruit', and the easy op-
tion to initially improve utilization of wood waste. Biomass energy represents a simple, rela-
tively low cost way to conveniently handle a large volume of waste and in the process, to
create energy in an environmentally benign manner. It can also be the least stringent in
terms of demands on the purity and consistency of the feedstock material. In countries like
Sweden which has a very high recovery rate of 95%, incinerating low grade material for en-
ergy represents a key high-volume component of their waste diversion strategy.
Biomass Energy - Wood Pellets:
The notion of utilizing waste wood in the production of wood pellets can be very appealing to
manufacturers - after all, in theory it should lower their costs by reducing their material dry-
ing requirements. Waste wood moisture content is typically around 20% and can be lower,
while the moisture content of green wood can be as high as 60%.
As with other industrial processes that consume wood feedstock, pellet manufacturers are
looking for clean and consistent (size and moisture content) material. Although the pellets
are only going to be burned, the majority of this product will be burned in home appliances,
where contaminants could pose a health risk, and high ash content can be problematic.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
23
Again, given the lack of standards within the Canadian market, and a lack of understanding of
the level of contaminants that should be considered acceptable, many operators err on the
side of caution, and reject the use of reclaimed material as a feedstock for wood pellets.
Biomass Energy - Hog Fuel:
Hog fuel is a term used to describe course chipped, ground or shredded wood material that
can be of somewhat uneven consistency. It is primarily used as fuel for large wood boilers,
but also can serve in a diverse set of applications such as providing a cost-effective, light
weight fill material for the construction of road embankment foundations.
Not all boiler systems are capable of safely (i.e. from
an air quality perspective) burning most types of
wood waste, but many are. These systems are
proven, safe and offer reasonable end-of-life value
from contaminated wood products. People often
scorn the burning of material, but that is the process
by which most of our energy is generated today, and
displacing the burning of fossil fuels with a mostly
renewable resource (that has already provided value)
is superior to pumping oil out of the ground, trans-
porting it; refining it; and transporting it some more.
Yes, burning wood 'waste' for energy offers one of
the lowest value uses of recovered wood - that is
why we should work hard to develop markets for the
higher value applications - but ultimately we also
need a reliable cost-effective market for the high
volume of low grade end-of-life wood material that
is produced every day in our society. Virtually all
communities across Canada could make effective use
of heat energy provided by burning wood waste, and
the technology has been proven to be cost effective and environmentally sound, in numerous
applications around the world. These include large scale power plants as well as Co-Heating
and Power (CHP) applications that are found in many European cities or School heating sys-
tems that are popular in the US. The Nexterra system in operation at the Dockside Green de-
velopment in Vancouver, British Columbia, represents a very progressive use of a 'waste wood
to energy' solution.
Biomass Energy, represents an essential component of providing a comprehensive, sustain-
able and cost effective regional wood waste management solution.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
24
Opportunities for Improved Wood Waste Recovery
It is possible to have identified great markets for reusing and recycling wood from the build
environment, but if you can't cost effectively and reliably fulfill that demand with recovered
material that meets the requirements, then you have not achieved a sustainable solution.
Construction Renovation & Demolition (CR&D):
Effective recycling demands reliable sorting and separation of wood materials in a manner
that will enable the highest possible use. Improvements in the segregation of materials at
construction sites, as well as providing a better means of ensuring that material not be con-
taminated, are two important improvements that will ensure higher value end uses. Once
commingled with other waste material, it is virtually impossible to ensure 'clean' wood7. It
is not just about the lack of contamination that is important, rather, which wood re-
processors are available locally, and what exact type of wood material they require is also
important to designing an effective segregation system. Regardless, it is crucial that large
CR&D projects provide recycling centres, with clear separation of the different categories of
wood material that will enable effective recycling of the material. Determining the exact
project size, wood product category and other protocols requires discussion with local stake-
holders to determine what is most appropriate for that region.
By forming a wood recycling industry association, involving stakeholders from the recycling
sector, government, environmental agencies and regulatory bodies - similar to the Wood Re-
cycler's Association in the UK - appropriate standards can be established to improve the sup-
ply of this recycled wood. Improving confidence in the reliability and consistency of supply,
will help foster more robust markets for the material.
An example of a trivial initial categorization of material that would none the less be useful,
could include the following wood classification.
-
Clean, clear wood
-
Mixed Grade: i.e. it could include a mix of plywood, OSB, but not MDF or treated wood.
-
Fuel Grade: includes any of the WPCs, but not treated wood
-
Hazardous wood: wood treated with preservatives
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
25
7Without changes to current practices, source separation is often inadequate, and not much better than commingled
processing, which is one reason that some argue for the efficiency of processing a commingled waste stream
Urban Forestry:
There is a movement afoot across North American, and being lead by EAB affected states like
Michigan and the US department of Forestry, to develop viable markets for wood from urban
forests. As more cities are creating strategies to 'green' their communities or to adapt to an
increasingly carbon constrained economy, urban tree utilization planning has the potential to
aid in these plans.
Urban areas, and adjacent metropolitan land, will continue to expand throughout Canada, as
will the extent of the urban forest. The volume of urban trees removed annually - already
quite large - will increase as well, and new strategies for dealing with such material are
needed, especially within the context of the break out of pests such as the EAB. Conse-
quently, more consideration and municipal investment should be given to the potential for
urban forests to provide a source of useful products, including bio-energy. This will also help
create 'green' jobs in the process.
Today, it is the exception rather than the rule, for
municipalities to landfill trees and wood from
trees. The majority of felled urban trees are
chipped on-site, and either trucked to municipal
landfills to be used as cover/compost, or utilized
as mulch in city gardens and pathways. A large
portion of material is also disposed of following a
mostly unregulated, but common practice, in
which the woody material is delivered to various
small private depots around the region. The
larger logs are sometimes cut up and left on the
property but usually they too are removed to nu-
merous private and unregulated depots, typically
outside the urban boundary. The principle utili-
zation of this wood is as firewood for resale8.
In addition to being a very low value use of this
material, it is also worth noting that from an envi-
ronmental perspective, the practice of delivering
logs to firewood depots around the region can be
even worse than landfilling the wood waste. This
is due to a number of factors that become apparent once you consider the following:
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
26
8 Over the past few years there has, however, been a growing interest by private citizens to have wood from trees
felled on their property to be processed into some kind of product. This appears to correspond to a growing aware-
ness on the part of the public, of all things 'green'.
-
Significant emissions arise from the transportation of material to depots, as well as
emissions arising from the transportation of small loads of firewood to individual house-
holds through out the region
-
Anecdotal evidence suggests that a significant portion of the material is left to rot -
contributing further to GHG emissions
-
Log burning fireplaces, and many of the wood stoves that consume this material, are
very inefficient (fireplaces in most older homes range from -10% to +10 efficiency) and
can emit up to 50g of particulates every hour! In fact, residential wood burning was es-
timated to account for as much as 15 percent of Ontario's VOC. The city of Toronto
Public Health Department was so concerned, that they published a report in 2002 calling
for action from multiple levels of government to address the problem.
-
The transportation of firewood has been cited as a key enabler of the rapid spread of
pests like the Emerald Ash Borer, which is currently devastating urban forests in central
Canada.
-
Easy access to firewood feedstock, has contributed to a fall in sourcing firewood from
private woodlots. This in turn leaves dead and dying trees to rot in urban and rural for-
ests, while reducing the incentive to manage and maintain the health of these forests.
-
Counter to conventional wisdom, studies have indicated that burying trees and wood in
landfills, can effectively sequester the carbon, and does not contribute significantly to
GHG emissions. Decay is so slow under these conditions, that very little of the carbon is
released to the atmosphere, whereas waste in the firewood supply chain discussed
above will contribute a great deal more GHGs
-
The fragmented nature of the current situation makes it virtually impossible to monitor
wood utilization to ensure environmentally sound practices.
By implementing an intelligent urban tree removal and recycling protocol, communities can
encourage the highest value use of this resource, and ensure that all of it is consumed in ways
that are beneficial to the community - both in terms of public health and economic develop-
ment.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
27
Impediments to Improved Utilization
Despite the promise of substantial value through more effective utilization of wood from
CR&D and Urban Forestry, Canadian companies and communities have, at times, been slow to
respond due to the potential opportunity. Treating wood from these sources as the asset it is,
rather than a waste management issue, would represent a positive change, but first several
practical issues need to be overcome.
CR&D Wood Utilization
Challenges specific to the the Construction, Renovation and Demolition industry are examined
below.
Resource Efficiency (reduction):
Building certification systems such as LEED, already recognize the merits of prefabricated and
modular construction, and award points for its use and some of the ancillary benefits of using
modular/prefab construction.
There are, however, real limitations to achieving solid benefits from modular and prefabri-
cated construction. Everything from negative public perception of modular construction, to
demands for virtually infinite customizability by customers, to building code restrictions, fi-
nancing challenges, and even potential weaknesses with the 'green' claims of the prefabrica-
tion industry themselves, have slowed the growth of this building concept.
Claims of significantly less wood waste in the construction of prefabricated houses don't al-
ways hold up to close scrutiny. Although prefabricated homes do tend to waste much less ma-
terial on-site, there is material waste at the manufacturing plant that needs to be properly
accounted for. Moreover, one needs to consider the amount of material that is used in con-
structing these homes. In some cases prefabricated homes demand significantly (up to 30%)
more wood material in construction than a typical 'stick built' home, due to the need to over
engineer the product so that it can withstand transportation and other related stresses. Also,
there are very few of these 'factories', and so they tend to be remote from most construc-
tions markets, thus imposing greater transportation related costs and pollution. Alternatively,
more basic modular construction systems, similar to SIP systems are used today with some
benefits. Whereas more ambitious systems - such as that practiced by Elements in the UK
http://www.elements-europe.com/index.php - can provide greater savings, they would re-
quire a critical mass of builders to adopt, and would also likely involve changes to local build-
ing codes in order to enable the integration of plumbing and electrical into building structural
components.
One of the greater impediments today to minimizing waste is the demand for virtually infinite
customizability of designs by clients. Constraining design choices to standard dimensioned
components, could lead to significant savings, not just in terms of materials, but also labour
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
28
costs. Success in this regard requires education of customers as to the implication of various
design choices.
Greater Reuse of Wood:
Greater reuse will come from improved demolition practices and the greater adoption of
building deconstruction vs. demolition. This will require greater government encouragement
through tax breaks and public awareness campaigns, as well as more education regarding the
value and best practices of building deconstruction over demolition. Today there is a growing
specialization of deconstruction practices being promoted by the Buildings Material Reuse As-
sociation in the US. They have sponsored an annual conference specifically focused on the
Deconstruction industry in order to encourage better deconstruction practices.
Recycling:
The major impediments to greater recycling of wood material from Construction, Renovation
and Demolition may be summarized in order of greatest importance, as:
1.
Contamination
2.
Inconsistency
3.
Lack of Local Markets
Pretty much all markets for recycled wood require 'clean' wood to varying degrees. Even
most biomass energy applications require clean to pristine wood, and will turn away material
that they believe is at risk of containing contaminants. These constraints seem to becoming
more restrictive as society is becoming more environmentally concerned.
Unfortunately, very little of the material from CR&D operations today is 'clean'. By way of
example; a detailed British study of CR&D samples from across the UK found only a small por-
tion of the wood to be uncontaminated. Approximately 6% of the waste was untreated hard-
wood, while 19% was untreated softwood. The rest was either structurally contaminated as
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
29
in the case of MDF and chipboard (which contain adhesives or other binding agents) or in-
volved surface treated wood. Almost 70% of the wood waste had structural contaminants but
no surface treatments. And 10% of the wood contained hazardous surface treatments like
CCA. This is mostly due to the heavy, and growing reliance on WPC materials in construction -
a similar trend to that being experienced in Canada and the US. Ironically, while WPCs offer
a positive opportunity to improve the utilization of harvested trees and also present the po-
tential for higher value wood recycling opportunities - both good things - they also present
significant recycling challenges due to the resins that they often contain.
Construction waste tends to naturally be cleaner than demolition waste, and given that
demolition projects also tend to be on a smaller scale, economically providing clean wood
from the demolition stream will be more challenging. Regardless, better and stricter segre-
gation protocols than exist today will be critical to success.
Some of the restrictions on recycled wood use due to 'contamination' are based on valid con-
cerns, while in other cases - often when biomass combustion is involved - customer trepida-
tion can be due in part to a lack of understanding of the real risks. Education is important to
addressing these misconceptions. But perhaps more importantly, there is a need to develop
and achieve a consensus over a set of clearly defined standards that would apply to potential
downstream uses of this material, that CR&D businesses could manage to.
Of particular concern regarding contamination, is the category of hazardous contaminants
that includes CCA treated wood. The amount of this material that must be handled as waste
is increasing dramatically in Canada, from 0.57 million cubic meters in 2000 to an estimated
2.5 million cubic meters by 2020 This kind of volume demands that we find better recycling
options for the material. Waste-to-energy offers the most likely candidate, but options for
economically extracting the biocide or incorporating the material into a wood cement prod-
uct, are currently being explored.
In addition to ensuring a clean supply, industrial processes usually require consistency in the
feedstock size, precise material content, wood species and moisture content levels. For ex-
ample; even large industrial boiler systems are sensitive to size variations of the biomass
feedstock. If the feedstock contains too much fine sawdust, this can lead to premature igni-
tion, which can damage the boiler feed mechanisms. If the material is too large it can jam
the same feed mechanisms.
In order to help ensure the environmental, as well as economic benefits of wood recycling
operations, it is essential that local markets for the material and resulting end products.
Without viable markets - involving remanufactures and bio-energy facilities within the region
to consume the material, as well as healthy markets for the resulting end products - there
will be no incentive to recover and improve utilization of the wood. Municipal and regional
government policies to encourage procurement of products made from locally recovered
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
30
wood as well as incentives for bio-energy (or waste to energy) facilities is a critical part of
any wood recovery and municipal waste management plan!
Urban Forestry Wood Utilization
Some of the challenges to improving utilization of felled urban trees are summarized below.
Wood Quantity & Supply Fragmentation:
With the exception of storm events, severe droughts or a large pest outbreak, most individual
urban tree removal projects generate small quantities of wood. One off recovery of trees
within a city just isn't generally cost effective. Worse yet, the large number of tree service
companies operating within a given region or municipality just aggravates the challenge of
fragmented supply. Companies don't have enough volume to make any kind of urban forestry
operation economic. In addition, reliable supply is key to managing the costs within a largely
commodity based business, and that requires large supply volumes that are not possible in a
fragmented market.
Wood Quality:
Urban trees are typically grown in more open areas than trees in a natural forested setting.
This often results in shorter trunks and more branches. When the possibility of embedded
materials - nails, cables, and other hardware is included, it is understandable that many tim-
ber buyers are frightened away. In addition, among both urban wood generators and many in
the traditional wood products industry, there is a perception that urban trees have no value.
Markets:
The lack of consistent species composition of the supply makes it difficult to develop markets
for the trees. In urban areas, especially after an invasive species attack (i.e., emerald ash
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
31
borer or Dutch elm disease), greater availability of a single species or two is more likely, thus
limiting the number of potential buyers, utilization options, and markets. Urban tree remov-
als can also generate small volumes of a diverse set of species that are not valued in tradi-
tional timber markets.
Inventories:
Tree inventories in urban areas often lack the scope and specificity (such as log volume and
grade) needed by wood-using industries to set-up an effective utilization program.
Utilization Plans:
Most urban forestry programs have weak or non-existent utilization plans. This lack of plan-
ning includes a poor understanding of local markets and potential products, a lack of existing
wood-using industries, and a general lack of knowledge of how to stimulate a viable utiliza-
tion plan.
Local Government Support:
Local government departments face numerous competing priorities and a conservative risk
averse decision process. Asking them to develop and/or incorporate new ideas for how they
dispose of urban tree removals is very difficult, even if it could result in savings or economic
development for the city. In many cases, communities aren't aware of the waste issue, and
are happy so long as the material is removed in an efficient manner.
When all these challenges are taken together, and given the lack of a strong private sector
advocate, it is not surprising that progress on developing a sustainable Urban Forest Products
industry has been so slow.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
32
Conclusion and Recommendations
Wood is the single largest component of waste from Construction, Renovation and Demolition
activities, accounting for around a million tonnes of debris being disposed annually, and rep-
resenting the waste of over a million trees annually! When you add in trees felled in the
'build' environment as part of the construction process, or as a result of storm, pests and
other damage, the amount of wood waste more than doubles. Little wonder that there is a
good deal of interest in trying to recover more of that material to extend its value, and divert
it from our growing landfill sites. Unfortunately, the wide variety of wood content in these
waste streams, combined with high-levels of contamination and fragmented supply, have
made broad based waste wood collection (recovery) and recycling of wood seem daunting in-
deed.
Much more, however, can and should be done. The CR&D industry in cooperation with other
stakeholders, including local / regional governments, wood recycling companies and re-
processors can significantly improve the utilization of wood, by focusing on:
1.
Promoting more resource efficient designs, and customer education
2.
Working with local governments to adopt procurement policies that favour products
containing locally recycled wood content - this includes biomass energy production.
3.
Developing a Wood Recycling Association, as well as recycled material standards
4.
Enforcing wood recovery protocols on larger CR&D projects to ensure proper segregation
of wood material
5.
Encouraging (mandate in defined cases) deconstruction practices over demolition
It is critical to develop local markets for products derived from recycled and reclaimed wood
material. Municipal and regional governments should encourage markets for end products via
government procurement policies as well as changes to building codes to allow utilization of
wood from the urban forest in construction applications
Local wood biomass energy systems, and/or waste-to-energy systems are an essential com-
ponent of a comprehensive wood utilization plan. It is necessary to offer an end-of-life dis-
position for large volumes of low grade, potentially contaminated wood, that will also provide
a higher value use than landfilling, and one that provides energy diversity in a relatively be-
nign way. Municipalities need to help educate the public on the facts and encourage the
adoption of scalable CHP biomass energy systems, as alternative heat and power sources
within the region.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
33
The wood recycling industry needs to come together with the key stakeholders to establish a
wood recycling association and to specify a set of standards for waste wood recovery.
Municipal governments should encourage more aggressive modular construction technologies
by removing potential building code restrictions. Governments should also encourage the
greater use of building deconstruction as opposed to demolition. This could be achieved by
offering tax incentives on purchases from building component recycling depots, as well as
through changes to the demolition permitting process. Finally, we recommend that consid-
eration be given to establishing requirements that development projects over a certain size
be required to demonstrate clean segregation of wood material on the job site. Regulations
exist today in some provinces - i.e. Ontario's Regulations 103/94 and 104/94 for projects with
greater 2000 square meters of floor space. However, this only addresses a small minority of
projects. Moreover, it doesn't mandate the segregation of different wood product classes,
that is critical to maximizing reuse potential.
The recovery of value from wood waste simultaneously reduces the impacts of wood waste
'disposal' while adding value to society in the form of additional material and energy flows,
and increased economic activity. It is not enough to recycle wood in order to be sustainable,
instead we must strive to find the most appropriate and highest value applications of the ma-
terial to extend its 'life' as much as is practical, and to offer the greatest net return on the
material.
F o re s t E c h o!
I m p ro v i n g Wo o d U t i l i z a t i o n
34