Final - A Feasibility Study on Enhancing Waste Diversion ... · A FEASIBILITY STUDY ON ENHANCING...

A FEASIBILITY STUDY ON ENHANCING WASTE DIVERSION FROM THE

RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE SOLID WASTE STREAM IN THE CITY OF PRINCE GEORGE

Prepared by the Regional District of Fraser-Fort George in support of the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan

June 2011

A Feasibility Study on Enhancing Waste Diversion From the Residential Curbside Solid Waste Stream in the City of Prince George

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 THE OPPORTUNITY .............................................................................................................................. 4 4.0 CURRENT SERVICES ........................................................................................................................... 6

4.1 City Curbside Garbage Collection System ............................................................................ 6 4.2 Existing Multi-Material Recycling Drop-Depot System ........................................................ 6 4.3 Private Curbside Recycling Services .................................................................................... 8 4.4 Organics Diversion .................................................................................................................. 8 4.5 Provincial Stewardship Program .......................................................................................... 10

5.0 COMMUNITY COMPARISONS ............................................................................................................ 11 6.0 ENHANCING RESIDENTIAL WASTE DIVERSION ............................................................................ 12

6.1 Expanding Types Of Materials Collected ............................................................................ 12 6.1.1 Recyclable Materials .............................................................................................. 12 6.1.2 Compostable Materials .......................................................................................... 13

6.2 Collection ................................................................................................................................ 14 6.2.1 Expansion Of Current Drop-Depot Services ....................................................... 14 6.2.2 Curbside Collection ............................................................................................... 15

6.3 Food Waste Disposal Units ................................................................................................... 19 6.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................. 20 6.5 Comments ............................................................................................................................... 21

7.0 COST CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................................... 22

7.1 Cost Shifts .............................................................................................................................. 22 7.1.1 City Services........................................................................................................... 23 7.1.2 Regional District Services ..................................................................................... 24

7.2 Program Funding Considerations ........................................................................................ 24 7.2.1 Single Source Funding .......................................................................................... 25 7.2.2 Hybrid Funding....................................................................................................... 26

7.3 Comments ............................................................................................................................... 26

8.0 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................ 27 9.0 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 29 10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 31


iii

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill Waste Stream Sources ............................................ 2

Figure 2 - Prince George Curbside Waste Flow ....................................................................................... 3

Figure 3 - Curbside Waste Stream Composition ..................................................................................... 4

Figure 4 – Recyclables in Prince George Residential Curbside Waste Stream ................................... 5

Figure 5 - MMR Recycling Drop-Depot Activity ....................................................................................... 7

Figure 6 - Centralized Composting Activity ............................................................................................. 9

Figure 7 - Prince George Curbside Waste Flow – Post Curbside Collection Implementation .......... 29


iv

List of Tables

Table 1 Recyclable and Compostable Materials in the Curbside Solid Waste Stream .................. 5

Table 2 Prince George Curbside Waste Collection Service User Fee ............................................. 6

Table 3 Yard & Garden Waste Transfer Station Collection Activity - 2010 ................................... 10

Table 4 Provincial Stewardship Products ........................................................................................ 10

Table 5 Community Comparisons – Performance ........................................................................... 11

Table 6 Community Comparisons - Service Overview .................................................................... 11

Table 7 Current Prince George Waste Services Performance ....................................................... 12

Table 8 Estimated Recoverable Materials in Curbside Waste Stream .......................................... 12

Table 9 Estimated MMR Drop-Depot Expansion Performance ...................................................... 15

Table 10 Estimated MMR Drop-Depot Expansion Costs ................................................................... 15

Table 11 Single-Stream vs Two-Stream Diversion Comparison ...................................................... 16

Table 12 Curbside MMR Collection Model Comparison ................................................................... 17

Table 13 Curbside MMR Collection Model Estimated Cost Comparison ........................................ 18

Table 14 Curbside Organics Collection Model Comparison ............................................................ 19

Table 15 Curbside Organics Collection Model Cost Comparison ................................................... 19

Table 16 Transportation Related Greenhouse Gas Emission Changes .......................................... 20

Table 17 Recycling and Composting Related Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions ................ 21

Table 18 Expected Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions ............................................................. 21

Table 19 Cost Shift Overview ............................................................................................................... 23

Table 20 Estimated Cost Shifts - City Services ................................................................................. 23

Table 21 Estimated Cost Shifts - Regional District Services............................................................ 24

Table 22 Total Estimated Net Cost Charges ...................................................................................... 24

Table 23 Single Source Funding Cost Implications - Estimated Costs for Automated Collection ............................................................................................................................... 26 Table 24 Hybrid Funding Model - Estimated Costs For Curbside Automated Collection ............. 26


v

Table 25 Highlights of Automated Yard & Garden Wastes Collection ............................................ 27

Table 26 Highlights of Manual Two-Stream vs Automated Single-Stream Recyclable Materials Collection ............................................................................................................... 28 Table 27 Automated Single-Stream MMR and Yard & Garden Waste Curbside Collection Summary .............................................................................................................. 30 Table 28 Annual Cost Estimates to Curbside Collection Service Customers for Automated Collection ........................................................................................................... 30 Table 29 Community Comparison - Potential Curbside Diversion Performance ........................... 30


vi

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Traditional Recyclables – Single-Stream / Manual Collection ................................ 32 Appendix 2 Traditional Recyclables – Two-Stream / Manual Collection .................................... 34 Appendix 3 Traditional Recyclables – Single-Stream / Automated Collection .......................... 36 Appendix 4 Yard & Garden Waste Automated Collection ............................................................ 38 Appendix 5 Organics (Kitchen Waste and Yard & Garden) Waste Automated Collection ....... 40 Appendix 6 Backgrounder – Recycling Regulation Amendments……………………………….. 43


1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Regional District of Fraser-Fort George and the City of Prince George have an interest in diverting recyclable and compostable materials from the City`s residential curbside solid waste stream in support of the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan objectives of increasing waste diversion opportunities and reducing waste to landfill. In 2007 a waste composition analysis of loads delivered to the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill was completed and the data from this analysis revealed that a significant amount of recyclable and compostable materials was still being landfilled. The data suggests that there is an opportunity to increase diversion performance from the curbside waste stream by up to 46% by diverting an additional 9,420 tonnes of recyclable and compostable materials. This would increase diversion from curbside residences from the current rate of 25% to a high of 70%.

Current waste diversion services for homeowners include the Multi-Material Recycling Drop-Depot recycling system, Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill Centralized Composting Operation, backyard composting, Provincial Stewardship initiatives and private fee-for-service curbside recycling collection services. It is these services that contribute to the current 25% diversion rate.

Expansion of the existing Multi-Material Drop-Depot service was considered but it is expected to only increase diversion by 2% - 4%. The service enhancements required to significantly increase waste diversion from residential sources includes increasing the material types captured and introducing curbside collection service for recyclable and compostable materials. These enhancements have the potential to increase diversion between 11% and 46%.

If there is a desire to enhance diversion efforts the recommended approach at this time is to introduce a biweekly, automated, single-stream collection service for recyclable materials and a seasonal biweekly, automated collection service for yard & garden waste. #1, 2, 4 & 5 rigid plastic containers would be added to the current suite of materials collected in the Multi-Material Recycling program. The introduction of these new services has the potential to divert an additional 6,290 tonnes of material from the curbside solid waste stream. An additional 4,340 tonnes is expected to be re-directed from existing waste diversion programs into the new curbside collection system. The resulting residential waste diversion rate would increase to 52%.

The implementation of these new services will require additional investment into infrastructure and operations. Factoring in costs savings from diverting waste from landfill and diverting recyclables and compostables from existing waste reduction services, the cost impact of these new services are expected to be in the order $2,700,000 per year. The cost to residential curbside solid waste customers is expected to be in the order of $100 to $130 per year for the new services. This would be in addition to current utility fees paid to the City for solid waste curbside collection services.

Since the drafting of this report, the Province has amended the Recycling Regulation with the inclusion of packaging materials and printed paper products. With this amendment, producers of these materials and products are now responsible for the collection and recycling of all packaging material and printed paper products are required to have a program in place by May 2014. In light of this recent development it is recommended that any further work in respect of introducing curbside waste diversion collection services be postponed until the details and implications of the Stewardship Plan for packaging materials and printed paper products are fully understood.


2

1. INTRODUCTION

The Regional District of Fraser-Fort George’s (Regional District) first Regional Solid Waste Management Plan was approved by the Province in 1997 under the authority of the Waste Management Act. The first RSWMP had two primary goals which were to reduce by 50% the amount of municipal solid waste placed in landfills and to improve the manner by which we manage municipal solid waste that cannot be efficiently reduced, reused, recycled or recovered. In 2007 the Regional District initiated a review of the RSWMP with the objective of examining existing solid waste programs and services and changes in the solid waste industry with a view to refreshing and updating of the Plan. The review of the RSWMP was completed in the fall of 2008 and approved by the Province in July of 2009 and has the following primary objectives:

• Minimizing the amount of waste sent to landfill and maximizing landfill life; • Increasing recycling opportunities, particularly for plastics and organics; • Incorporating Extended Producer Responsibility (Product Stewardship) into the Plan; • Addressing the final closure and monitoring of small landfills; and • Addressing the management of construction and demolition waste.

The 2008 RSWMP identifies that existing waste reduction initiatives were resulting in a region wide diversion rate of 21% and that there is an opportunity to increase the overall diversion rate to 53% by enhancing current reduce, reuse and recycling initiatives. Increasing waste diversion options for residential sources is one of many opportunities to enhancing diversion performance. Customers of the City of Prince George’s curbside collection waste service contribute 17% of materials landfilled at the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill (Figure 1). It is thought that existing waste recycling and composting initiatives result in a diversion rate of 25% from the City`s curbside solid waste customer base (Figure 2). Depending upon the initiatives implemented there is an opportunity to increase diversion rates by 11% - 46% from the curbside waste stream resulting in an increase in diversion from the current 25% to a high of 70%. If a diversion rate of 70% from the curbside waste stream is realized this will result in a 7% contribution to overall region wide diversion performance.

This report discusses the opportunities available, provides a comparison of methods to consider in enhancing the diversion of recyclable and compostable materials from the Prince George residential curbside stream and provides recommendations on implementation of enhancements.

Figure 1 – Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill Waste Stream Sources

Note: ICI - Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Waste ; DLC - Demolition, Construction & Landclearing Waste

DLC21%

ICI36%

Other Residential26%

C of PG Curbside17%

Residential43%

DLC ICI Residential C of PG Curbside


3

Figure 2 - Prince George Curbside Waste Flow

Note: Y&G – Yard & Garden Waste

2. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

Both the City of Prince George (City) and the Regional District of Fraser-Fort George (Regional District) have identified waste reduction as important elements in their respective corporate strategic plans.

The Regional District’s Strategic Priorities 2009 - 2012 identifies solid waste management as one of its priority areas with a focus on implementing the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan (RSWMP) recommendations and making the best effort to meeting the goals established within the RSWMP. Anticipated outcomes include enhancements to the residential recycling collection system in Prince George and the completion of a yard waste curbside collection study providing recommendations regarding service provision, processing facility expansion and market opportunities.

In its 2009 Strategic Plan, the City of Prince George identifies the development of a Solid Waste Reduction Strategy as one of fourteen priority projects of council. Specifically, the City will develop a solid waste reduction program plan (including waste avoidance, reduction and education programs) in partnership with the Regional District. The program will include an evaluation of curbside service options within the City.

Paper Fibre Recycled

10.2%

Metal Containers Recycled

0.4%Plastics Recycled

0.1%

Backyard Composting

3.9%

Centralized Composting (Y&G)

10.8%

Solid Waste Landfilled

74.6%

Total : 20,500 tonnes


4

3. THE OPPORTUNITY In February 2007 a waste composition study of solid waste deliveries to the Foothills landfill facility was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of existing waste diversion initiatives. The study methodology included diverting random loads of solid waste to a sorting area where the loads were dumped and manually sorted into a variety of categories. A subset of the study focused on City of Prince George solid waste curbside collection deliveries. The 2007 study revealed that significant amounts of recyclable and compostable materials were still available for capture from the curbside solid waste stream (Figure 3). Of materials sampled, 54% were found to be recyclable materials (paper fibre, metal containers, plastics, glass) and another 30% is comprised of materials that could be diverted for composting (yard & garden and kitchen waste).

Using the 2007 waste composition data and an annual weight of 15,300 tonnes collected curbside there would be in the order of 12,870 tonnes of recyclable and compostable materials in the existing curbside waste stream. However, not all of the 12,870 tonnes could be recovered. Using industry averages on capture rates of recyclables and compostables it is estimated that 7,210 tonnes of these materials could be diverted from landfilling with enhanced recycling services.

Figure 3 - Curbside Waste Stream Composition

Note: HHW = Household Hazardous Wastes

Paper Fibre30.0%

Metal Food Containers

4.3%Plastics15.7%Glass

4.2%

Organics30.0%

Wood Products0.8%

DLC0.6% Textiles

5.8%

Rubber0.2%

Composite Products

7.7%

HHW0.6%

Other0.1%


5

Table 1 and Figure 4 shows the relationship between the amount of recyclables and compostables available in the curbside solid waste stream, the amount of these materials that could reasonably be diverted from the curbside waste stream, and the amount of material captured in existing waste diversion programs. Existing programs include recycling through the Multi-Material Recycling (MMR) drop-depot system, yard & garden waste collection at transfer stations and kitchen waste recycling through backyard composting. The 2007 waste composition study was completed in February so yard & garden waste data was not available but projecting out it is estimated that there is an additional 2,210 tonnes of yard and garden waste recoverable for a total potential diversion of 9,420 tonnes.

Table 1 – Recyclable and Compostable Materials in the Curbside Solid Waste Stream

Paper Fibre

Metal Containers

Plastic Containers

Glass Containers

Yard & Garden

Organic Waste Total

Available (tonnes) 4,580 660 2,400 640 2,210 4,590 15,080

Recoverable (tonnes) 2,750 490 840 380 2,210 2,750 9,420

Current Diversion 2,090 70 30 - 2,170 800 5,160

Figure 4 – Recyclables in Prince George Residential Curbside Waste Stream

*Note: Yard & Garden Waste

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Currently Landfilled Recoverable Current Diversion Thru Existing Programs

Tonn

es

Paper Fibre Metal Food Containers Plastics Glass Kitchen Waste Y&G*


6

4. CURRENT SERVICES

Residences in Prince George have a number of options available to them for disposing of solid waste, recyclable materials and compostable materials. The majority of residential dwellings in the City of Prince George receive a weekly curbside collection service. Those households (hh) wishing to reduce their contribution of waste to landfill have a number of opportunities including making conscientious purchasing decisions, reusing materials, delivering select recyclable materials and yard & garden waste to a number of drop-off locations throughout Prince George or retaining a private firm to collect and deliver these materials on their behalf. Transfer Stations and Multi-Material Recycling drop-depot site operating costs are paid for by the City and Regional District, Product Stewardship drop-off operations are paid for by consumers of targeted products and residents retaining a private collection company pay for this service directly.

4.1 City Curbside Garbage Collection System

The City’s residential solid waste collection services include two systems, curbside collection services which is available to a majority of Prince George residents and two transfer station operations. The automated collection system currently has in the order of 21,885 customers (households). The user pay systems allow customers to choose from one of three container sizes and pay a utility fee based on container size, where the larger the container the greater the greater the fee. The average amount of solid waste collected through the automated collection services from each household is 685 kg/yr. All of the material collected in this system is delivered to the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill facility where it is landfilled.

The annual budget to deliver this service, which includes the transfer station service, is in the order $3,700,000. These costs include collection truck operations, tipping fees payable at the landfill site and debt service on capital. In 2010, the City paid approximately $842,000 in tipping fees for curbside solid waste delivered to the Foothills landfill facility.

Table 2 – Current Prince George Curbside Waste Collection Service User Fee

Container Size Annual Fee Small (135 litre) $129

Medium (240 litre) $169 Large (360 litre) $207

4.2 Existing Multi-Material Recycling Drop-Depot System

The existing multi-material (MMR) drop-depot recycling system has been in operation since 1994. This system is a region wide initiative where residents throughout the Regional District have access to MMR drop-depot recycling services. There are currently 12 locations in and around Prince George that accept all paper fibre, metal food and beverage containers and plastic milk jugs (HDPE plastic #2). Compartmentalized 30 yd3 MMR drop-depot bins are regularly collected and delivered to a local privately operated Material Recovery Facility (MRF) where the collected materials are prepared for market and delivered to end users. Market preparation includes removal of contaminates and bailing of material for delivery to market. This service is provided by way of a service contract between a private sector company and the Regional District. An additional element of this service contract is the


7

requirement that the MRF is located in Prince George so that MRF related services can be available to the industrial, commercial and institutional sector for recycling purposes.

Paper fibre collected in the MMR system is currently processed at a mill in the Lower Mainland and made into secondary paper products. Plastics are processed at a plastic recycling facility in the Lower Mainland where the plastic is available for manufacture into new products. Metal food and beverage containers are delivered to a local metal recycling processor.

Users of the system include residents, small businesses, and to some extent, curbside collection operators delivering materials on behalf of their residential customers. In 2010, 2,430 tonnes of recyclable material was collected through the MMR drop-depot system from Prince George area sources. It is estimated that 2,190 tonnes of the material collected in 2010 originates from City of Prince George solid waste curbside collection customers. This system has a diversion performance rate of 11% in relation to the curbside waste stream.

Figure 5 demonstrates the performance of the MMR drop-depot system over the past five years for the three main paper fibre commodities.

Figure 5 - MMR Recycling Drop-Depot Activity

The cost of the delivery of the Prince George area MMR Drop-Depot service in 2010 was $1,028,710 which equates to a cost of $424/tonne of material collected, processed and marketed.

The current MMR contract is based on a shared risk model where the Regional District helps off-set the risk of unpredictable market influences in exchange for provisions for revenue sharing for the sale of recyclable material when markets are strong. Over the past 5 years revenue has varied from an annual average of $66 per tonne to $132 per tonne. Historically recycling commodities have seen significant fluctuations due to outside influences such as global consumer habits and demand for recycled products. As an example, the recent closure of the only newsprint recycling plant in the Pacific Northwest diminished the demand for newsprint and consequently a dramatic decrease in the market price.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Tonn

es Newspaper

Mixed Paper

Cardboard


8

4.3 Private Curbside Recycling Services

Currently there are 3 independent businesses offering curbside collection services on a fee for service basis. These businesses collect a range of materials including paper fibre, glass, a variety of plastic materials and metal food and beverage containers. They charge their customers a monthly subscription fee for collection services which ranges in price from $7.55 to $11.00 per month with collection service scheduled on a bi-weekly or monthly basis.

These businesses use the local MRF, ship material directly to Lower Mainland end markets or use the existing MMR drop-depot system for lower value materials. Collectively, these businesses serve just over 2,100 customers and diversion is estimated to be in the order of 300 to 400 tonnes per annum resulting in a diversion rate of 1% – 2 %.

4.4 Organics Diversion

The centralized yard & garden waste composting operation was initially piloted by the City of Prince George in 1993. Based on the City’s successful trials, the Regional District has continued with this initiative at the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill. Composting is regulated by the provincial government under the Organic Matter Regulation.

The operation is designed to process yard & garden waste and green wood waste using windrowing composting techniques. The infrastructure includes a 1.8 ha asphalt pad for composting operations, an additional 2 ha storage area for finished compost products and a lagoon/wetland system for the treatment of leachate from the compost pad. Woody yard & garden waste is shredded and blended with nitrogen rich materials and placed into windrows. A loader is used to build and turn windows over a 6 week period. Windrow operations occur year round resulting in 4 to 5 batches of finished product. Finished compost is cured for about 6 months and then made available for distribution. Regional District staff oversee the compost operation with heavy equipment services for shredding of feedstock and turning of windrows provided by the private sector.


9

Historically, about 5,000 tonnes of material was received on an annual basis. With the mountain pine beetle infestation, feedstock volumes increased to a peak of 10,000 tonnes in 2005 and have been slowly decreasing back to the 5,000 tonne mark. Currently, there is a surplus of compost at the Foothills operation as supply has exceeded demand. This is problematic from both an operational perspective and from a regulatory perspective. Operationally, there are challenges in storing the material and on occasion, additional costs resulting from double handling of the finished product. Under the Regulation, a composting operation is required to distribute half of the finished product within a year of production. The Regional District has been challenged in the past few years in meeting this regulatory requirement but solutions are being implemented this year to increase distribution of the finished product.

Figure 6 - Centralized Composting Activity

The City and Regional District provide yard & garden waste collection at three transfer station sites, Vanway, Quinn Street and Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill. Through these three transfer stations over 3,560 tonnes of yard & garden waste was collected 2010 in a roll-off bin collection system and delivered to the centralized composting operation at the Foothills site. It is estimated that 2,170 tonnes of material is generated by curbside collection customers resulting in a diversion rate of 11%.

In 2010 the costs of transferring the collected yard & garden material from the three transfer stations to the centralized composting operation at the Foothills facility totaled $103,450. Processing costs were in the order of $142,000. Centralized composting processing costs are $40 per tonne which translate into a total cost of $69 per tonne for the collection and processing of yard & garden waste from curbside customers. Annual revenue from the sale of finished compost as a soil amendment is anywhere from $35,000 to $45,000.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Tonn

es

Feedstock Compost Produced Compost Sold


10

Table 3 - Yard & Garden Waste Transfer Station Collection Activity - 2010

Transfer Station Site

Tonnes Collected

Roll-Off Bin Trips

Annual Hauling Costs

Hauling Costs ($/tonne)

Foothills 1,027 415 $12,040 12

Quinn St 1,722 405 $61,965 36

Vanway 813 195 $29,445 36

In addition to large scale Centralized Composting the Regional District has promoted and encouraged backyard composting. The Regional District has sold 6,100 backyard composters throughout the Regional District since 1994. Using conservative estimates it is expected that this initiative diverts 800 tonnes each year from the City`s curbside waste stream resulting in a diversion rate of 3%. Backyard composting is a highly appealing waste diversion strategy from a sustainability perspective as it has low economic and environmental costs.

In addition to backyard composting as a means to recycle kitchen food waste, homeowners also have an opportunity to use Food Waste Disposal units (FWD), commonly known as garburators. Preliminary investigations suggest that there is some waste diversion from residential sources using FWDs but it is a small contribution as it is estimated that 1 – 3% of households have FWD installed. If the installed FWD units were used to their full capacity this would result in a diversion of 30 to 80 tonnes of material.

4.5 Provincial Stewardship Program

The Province’s Recycling Regulation requires producers of certain products to implement waste reduction plans for the collection and recycling or safe disposal of targeted materials. Costs for the delivery of these services are paid by consumers at the point of purchase of the regulated product. The collection and recycling service is organized and delivered by the producers themselves. In Prince George there are a variety of drop sites available throughout the City. Some services are provided at City and Regional District facilities while the majority of services are provided by small business operators. Products covered under this regulation and future targeted materials are listed in the following table. Contribution towards the local diversion rate is not known.

Table 4 - Provincial Stewardship Products

Existing Stewardship Products

New Products Future Recommended Products

• Beverage containers • Paints • Domestic pesticides • Gasoline • Solvents • Flammable liquids • Pharmaceuticals • Used lubrication oil, filters, and

containers • Electronic devices • Fluorescent lamps • Batteries • Tires • Small appliances and smoke

detectors

• Lead-acid batteries (July 2011) • Antifreeze (July 2011)

Expanded Electrical Category (July 2012) • Large appliances • Electrical and electronic tools • Medical devices • Automatic dispensers • Lighting equipment • Toys, leisure and sports equipment • Monitoring and control instruments • IT and telecommunications

equipment

By 2015 • Packaging and printed

materials • Household hazardous and

special wastes • Automotive products By 2017 • Construction and demolition

materials • Furniture, textiles and

carpet • Appliances


11

5. COMMUNITY COMPARISONS A survey of communities throughout BC revealed that there are a variety of methods in provision of curbside collection services. The following tables provide an overview of these services. Table 5 shows the amount of material collected curbside on a per household basis and cost per household. Table 6 provides information regarding collection methods and types of materials collected in the various communities.

Table 5 - Community Comparisons - Performance

Solid Waste (kg/hh)

Recycling(kg/hh)

Y&G(kg/hh)

Kitchen(kg/hh)

Organic(kg/hh)

Total (kg/hh)

Cost($/hh)

Prince George 685 - - - - 685 $169* Central Okanagan RD 818 363 242 - - 1,423 $230

Ladysmith 182 177 - 124 - 483 $155

Mission 464 157 - - 133 754 $281

North Vancouver 513 294 294 - - 1,101 $291

Port Coquitlam 680 292 - - 358 1,330 $176 RD Nanaimo (Pilot) 161 151 - 120 - 432 $140

Nanaimo 313 143 - - - 456 $110

Victoria 369 215 - 120 - 704 $187

*Note: Prince George cost per household includes City Transfer Station Operating Costs The differences in services for each community is a result of a number of factors including, size and density, relative distance to larger communities and markets, local needs and objectives, and willingness of residents to pay. What is evident, is that no two communities provide curbside collection services in the same manner and communities with larger populations, bolstered with higher densities tend to see lower operating costs. In the table, co-mingles refers to a collection method where all materials are placed in a single container and materials are sorted at a MRF. Source separated collection is where residential customers pre-sort materials into different containers including blue boxes and/or bags. Hybrid collection systems refer to a mix of some materials being co-mingled and others be sorted into a single container/bag.

Table 6 - Community Comparisons - Service Overview

Households Served

Collection System Materials Collected

Central Okanagan RD 33,000 Automated Co-mingled Mixed Paper, Cardboard , Plastic Containers and Stretchy

Plastic, Yard & Garden Waste

Ladysmith 2,700 Manual Source Separated

Mixed Paper and Cardboard, Metal Food Containers, Plastics (no Styrofoam, polystyrene), Kitchen Waste

Mission 9,000 Manual Co-mingled Mixed Paper, Cardboard, Metal Food Containers, Plastic Containers and Stretchy Plastic, Organics

North Vancouver 7,000 Manual Source Separated

Plastic Containers, Metal Food Containers, Glass Containers, Yard & Garden Waste

Port Coquitlam 18,000 Automated Co-mingled Mixed Paper, Cardboard, Plastics 1-5, Metal Food Containers

RD Nanaimo (Pilot) 2,000 Manual Source Separated

Mixed Paper, Cardboard, Metal Food Containers, Plastics, Glass, Textiles, Kitchen Waste

Nanaimo 24,900 Manual Hybrid Mixed Paper, Cardboard, Metal Food Containers, Plastics Containers and Bags

Victoria n/a Manual Hybrid Mixed Paper, Metal Food Containers, Plastics, Glass Containers. Kitchen Waste


12

Table 7 demonstrates a number of measures for current solid waste and recycling practices by Prince George curbside customers.

Table 7 – Current Prince George Waste Services Performance

Service Weight Handled (tonnes)

Kilogram Per Household

Diversion from Curbside Waste

Stream Cost per tonne

Waste Collection* 15,300 685 - $247

MMR Drop-Depot 2,160 99 11% $424

Centralized Composting 2,170 99 11% $69

Backyard Composting 800 37 3% $0

Total 20,430 920 25% -

*Note: Three year averaged value

6. ENHANCING RESIDENTIAL WASTE DIVERSION

Waste Management behavioural studies suggest two important elements in successful diversion initiatives. The first is the importance an individual will place on waste diversion - the greater the value an individual puts on environmental issues and their ability to effect change, the greater the effort and likelihood an individual will put into taking action on waste avoidance though reduce, reuse and recycle activities. The second is convenience, the easier the system is to use, the greater the participation, especially with those that may not put a high value on environmental issues. Other behavioural elements that drive change include financial incentives, regulatory approaches supported by enforcement, and education and promotion of services available.

Current information indicates that between 2,210 to 9,420 tonnes of recyclable and compostable materials can be diverted annually from the curbside solid waste stream through enhancements to services currently available to the residential sector (Table 8). Options considered in reaching this diversion goal are summarized as follows.

Table 8 – Estimated Recoverable Materials in Curbside Waste Stream

Paper Fibre

Metal Containers

Plastic Containers

Glass Containers

Yard & Garden

Kitchen Waste Total

Recoverable (tonnes) 2,750 490 840 380 2,210 2,750 9,420

Diversion Performance 13% 2% 4% 2% 11% 13% 46%

6.1 Expanding Types of Materials Collected

6.1.1 Recyclable Materials

The basis of the Regional District’s program has traditionally been a Markets First philosophy which means that materials that are collected need to be those materials that have reliable end markets and have a high probability of being processed into a new and viable product. Materials collected in the current system include virtually all paper fibre products, metal food and beverage


13

containers and clear plastic containers in category #2 (plastic milk jugs). Continuing with the Markets First approach the following materials have been identified as suitable for addition to the system:

• Rigid plastic containers in categories 1, 2, 4 and 5 • Glass containers

o Depending upon the collection approach, glass may or may not be viable for collection. Glass is not recommended for collection in a single stream collection program where all materials are combined in one container for collection. This is due to glass breaking in the collection stream and devaluing the paper fibre and plastic commodities.

Remaining plastic commodities in the 3, 6 & 7 categories do not have secure end markets so would conflict with the Markets First philosophy and are not recommended for collection at this time. In the future, should the marketability of any of these materials improve and meet the Markets First test these materials could easily be incorporated into the collection stream.

The increase in plastic material types collected is estimated to result in a diversion of up to 840 tonnes increasing diversion from the curbside stream by 4%. Glass container diversion could result in removing an additional 380 tonnes of material from the curbside stream increasing diversion by an additional 2%.

The existing Material Recovery Facility in Prince George is capable of handling the additional volumes of materials. Sorting systems would need to be installed to process mixed loads of materials. Under the current contract model, capital costs for installing a sorting system would be borne by the facility owner.

6.1.2 Compostable Materials

In consideration of increasing diversion, the organic stream can be considered in two different streams, one being the yard & garden waste stream the second being the kitchen (food) waste stream. Using aggressive diversion strategies it is estimated that 2,210 tonnes of yard & garden materials could be diverted which would lift the diversion rate by another 11%. The kitchen waste stream could result in 2,750 tonnes being diverted from landfill resulting in an increase in the diversion rate by an additional 13%. Combined the organics stream can result in increased diversion of 24%.


14

A small increase in compostable yard & garden feedstock can be accommodated at the Foothills centralized composting operation with little or no investment. The current challenge is that finished product supply is exceeding the current demand. Should kitchen waste collection be included as an enhancement to current diversion services it would require the construction and operation of an in-vessel composting system. Facilities designed to handle the estimated feedstock flows have a capital outlay in the order of $2 - 4 million dollars.

6.2 Collection

6.2.1 Expansion of Current Drop-Depot Services

The current MMR drop-depot recycling system has been operational for 17 years, it is reasonable to expect that those that are willing to make the effort to use the existing drop-depot system are doing so and any effort to encourage use by others will require changes that make the system more accessible, provides greater financial incentives to users, or has an aggressive regulatory policy. Increasing access to the system would include adding more drop-depot sites throughout the City and a change in the collection equipment from the current roll-off bin system to a more user friendly PL6 bin system. Incentives could include greater reductions on the subscription fee for the smallest of the curbside solid waste collection bins while regulatory efforts could include implementing and enforcing material bans. Based on experiences elsewhere, such improvements are expected to increase diversion by an additional 10 – 20%. Within the existing MMR drop-depot system this would see an additional 220 – 440 tonnes of recyclables through the system which increase the diversion rate by 2% from the current rate of 11% to 13%. If materials were expanded to include plastic and glass containers the incremental diversion rate could increase an additional 2% for a total diversion of 15% from residential sources.


15

Table 9 – Estimated MMR Drop-Depot Expansion Performance

The following table provides cost estimates for improving and expanding the current drop-depot system. The costs assume that 8 additional locations are secured in the Prince George area and a PL6 container system replaces the current roll-off bin system.

Table 10 – Estimated MMR Drop-Depot Expansion Costs

Capital Investment Annual Operating $ per tonne $ per hh

6yd Bins (120 for 20 sites) $ 1,320,000 - $ 420 $ 60

Collection Vehicles (x4) $ 1,016,000 - $ 320 $ 46

Annual Debt Service on Capital - $ 301,300 $ 95 $ 14

Drop-Depot Collection - $ 900,000 $ 285 $ 41

Processing / Marketing - $ 393,800 $ 125 $ 18

Total $ 2,336,000 $ 1,595,100 $ 506 $ 73

Enhancements to the existing MMR Drop-Depot system has a high capital investment and a marginal increase in diversion. Since such enhancements will not allow for significant progress towards the RSWMP goals no further effort was put into evaluating this option.

6.2.2 Curbside Collection

Curbside multi-material recycling (MMR) collection systems have demonstrated consistently to be the best strategy for recovering the greatest amounts of material from the residential waste stream. As could be seen in the Community Comparison discussion earlier there are a variety of collection models available and they are customized based on a number of factors which would be prioritized by the needs of the community. In narrowing the curbside models to be examined the following factors were considered:

• Staying true to the Markets First philosophy and ensuring that the collection system can ensure that materials collected will be of a quality that will be consistently accepted by end users

• Allowing for a commodity stream that has a relatively consistent market value • Balancing cost versus benefits on processing efforts due to the decreased economy of

scale on processing costs for a smaller community such as Prince George • Having a proven track record in winter northern communities • Ability to easily accommodate the addition of new materials in the future.

Paper Fibre and Metal Containers

Plastic Containers

Glass Containers Total

Recoverable (tonnes) 440 360 165 965

Diversion Performance 2% 2% <1% 5%


16

Based on these guidelines three curbside models were determined to be appropriate for further consideration. Two of the models collect materials in a co-mingled single-stream where all materials are collected in a single container together. The third requires source separation into two collection streams by residents. Additionally, two models use manual labour for loading of collection vehicles and the other uses an automated collection system like the one currently used by the City. In all three systems the materials are delivered to a MRF where materials are prepared for market. The single-stream models have the potential to increase diversion from the curbside waste stream by 20% where the two-stream model has the potential to increase diversion by 22%. The additional 2% is attributed to the two-stream system being able to accommodate glass collection.

Table 11 – Single-Stream vs Two-Stream Diversion Comparison

Paper Fibre

Metal Containers

Plastic Containers

Glass Containers Total Diversion

Total Single Stream 2,750 490 840 0 4,080 20%

Two Stream 2,750 490 840 380 4,460 22%

Each of the three models have advantages and disadvantages in comparison to one another. The following table provides an overview of the similarities and differences. Details of each can be found in the appendices.


17

Table 12 – Curbside MMR Collection Model Comparison

Single Stream MMR / Manual Collection

Single Stream MMR / Automated Collection

Two Stream MMR / Manual Collection

Service Features

All materials collected in a single blue box using manual labour to load recyclables into a collection vehicle

All materials collected in single wheeled cart using automated systems to load recyclables into a collection vehicle

Paper fibre collected in one blue bin, plastic, glass and metal containers collected in a second bin. Manual labour to load recyclables into a collection vehicle.

Frequency • Biweekly service with collection fleet servicing half of customer base each week

Materials • All Paper Fibre • Plastic Containers in categories 1,2,4,5 • Metal food containers • 6,250 tonnes collected

o 4,080 tonnes from current curbside solid waste stream o 2,170 tonnes diverted from existing MMR drop-depot

system

• All Paper Fibre • Plastic Containers in

categories 1,2,4,5 • Metal food containers • Glass Containers • 6,630 tonnes collected

o 4,460 tonnes from current curbside solid waste stream

• 2,170 tonnes from existing MMR system

Diversion Performance

• 20% increase • 20% increase • 22% increase

Advantages • Ease of use by customer – all materials into a single bin

• Greater chance of intercepting contaminates at point of collection

• Low cost for collection containers (Blue Bins)

• Ease of use by customer o all materials into a single

cart o familiarity with system

• Lower incident of worker injury

• Recyclables protected from weather resulting in reduced litter concern and protection of commodity value

• City of Prince George experienced with Automated Collection implementation and operation which may also lead to economies of scale in the delivery of services

• Customer does some pre-sorting resulting in lower processing cost

• Greater chance of intercepting contaminates at collection point

• Glass can be collected

Disadvantages • Higher processing cost due to greater separation effort at MRF

• Higher collection cost • Higher incident of worker

injury • Glass not recommended • Litter risk

• Higher processing cost due to greater separation effort at MRF

• Greater chance of contaminates in the system lowering material value

• Glass collection not recommended

• Higher effort on behalf of customer in sorting materials

• Highest collection cost • Higher incident of worker

injury • Litter risk

Green House Gas Considerations

• Net GHG reduction of 11,320 tonnes o New Recycling - 11,660

eCO2 reduced o Transportation - 340

eCO2 emitted

• Net GHG reduction of 11,380 tonnes o New Recycling - 11,660

eCO2 reduced o Transportation – 280

eCO2 emitted

• Net GHG reduction of 11,290 tonnes o New Recycling

11,700 eCO2 reduced o Transportation – 410

eCO2 emitted


18

Table 13 – Curbside MMR Collection Model Estimated Cost Comparisons

Single Stream MMR / Manual Collection

Single Stream MMR / Automated Collection

Two Stream MMR / Manual Collection

Collection Containers 24,074 Blue boxes, $361,100 24,074 Wheeled Carts,

$1,564,800 45,959 Blue boxes,

$689,400 Collection Vehicles Five trucks, $1,500,000 Four trucks, $1,200,000 Six trucks, $1,800,000

Collection Operations* $1,609,500 / year $1,140,400 / year $1,782,040 / year

Processing $1,562,200 / year $1,562,200 / year $829,200 / year

Total Operating Costs $3,171,700 $2,702,600 $2,611,240

Per Household $145 / year $123 / year $119 / year

Note: * Includes annual debt service on capital expenditure on collection vehicles and containers.

In addition to the collection of recyclable materials there is an opportunity to increase the diversion of compostable materials with the introduction of curbside collection. Two options are presented for consideration. Both use automated collection systems. One model collects yard & garden waste on a seasonal basis, the second uses the same collection technology on a year round basis and includes the collection of kitchen waste in addition to yard & garden waste. The collection of yard & garden waste is expected to increase diversion by 11%. The addition of kitchen waste will increase diversion performance an additional 13%. The existing centralized composting operation is not designed to handle kitchen waste, so an in-vessel composting system would need to be constructed with an estimated capital investment in the $2 - $4 million dollar range.


19

Table 14 – Curbside Organics Collection Model Comparison

Yard & Garden / Automated Collection

Organics / Automated Collection

Service Features All materials collected in a wheeled cart using automated systems to load yard & garden materials into a collection vehicle

All materials collected in a wheeled cart using automated systems to load organics into a collection vehicle

Frequency Biweekly, seasonal service from May to October with collection fleet servicing half of customer base each week

Biweekly, year round service with collection fleet servicing half of customer base each week

Materials • Yard & Garden waste • 4,380 tonnes collected

o 2,210 tonnes of Y&G from curbside solid waste stream

o 2,170 tonnes from existing Y&G drop sites

• Yard & Garden Waste and Kitchen waste • 7,130 tonnes collected

o 2,750 tonnes of kitchen waste from curbside solid waste stream

o 2,210 tonnes of Y&G from curbside solid waste stream

o 2,170 tonnes from existing Y&G drop sites

Diversion Performance • 11% increase • 24% increase Advantages • Simple composting technology which is

already established • Greater diversion potential

Disadvantages • Greater risk of contamination by non-yard & garden waste compostables such as kitchen waste

• Higher processing cost due to use of in-vessel composting technology

• Kitchen waste adds increased risk of odor issues and animal attraction both at the residences and at the composting facility

Green House Gas Considerations

• Net GHG reduction of 420 tonnes o New Composting - 530 eCO2

reduced o Transportation - 110 eCO2 emitted

• Net GHG reduction of 965 tonnes o New Composting - 1,190 eCO2

reduced o Transportation - 225 eCO2 emitted

Table 15 – Curbside Organics Collection Model Cost Comparison

Yard & Garden / Automated Collection

Organics / Automated Collection

Collection Containers 24,074 wheeled carts, $1,564,800 Collection Vehicles Four trucks, $1,200,000 Collection Operations $771,000* / year $1,127,900* / year Composting Processing System $0 $2 to 4 Million, In-vessel Composting System

Processing Operations $175,100 / year $1,015,800* / year Total Operating Costs $946,100 $2,143,700 Annual Cost / hh $43 $98

Note: * Includes annual debt service on capital expenditures

6.3 Food Waste Disposal Units

Food Waste Disposal units (FWD), more commonly known as garburators, is another option for consideration in disposal of kitchen food waste. Preliminary research indicates that there has not been considerable uptake in North America in using FWD units as a diversion method. A recent study by an Ontario municipality concluded that FWD units require significant initial capital investment, result in greater water and electrical consumption on an annual basis and provide no competitive advantage either economically or in diversion performance to composting of kitchen waste. Additional work would be required to fully understand the benefits of the promotion of in-home FWD units as a method for kitchen food waste diversion.


20

6.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions For the purpose of this feasibility study the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions was limited two primary areas. The first includes those emissions resulting from transportation changes for collection of materials and the second is for those changes in emissions due to the avoidance of landfilling recyclable and compostable materials. In respect of transportation emissions, the analysis is limited to fuel use and does not include life cycle considerations for transportation and collection equipment. The waste diversion emission analysis uses industry standard data which takes a life cycle approach and considers a range of variables such as material inputs (raw vs recycled), processing system energy consumption and end of life cycle impacts. In respect of transportation emissions there are both quantifiable and unquantifiable changes. Unquantifiable emission impacts include trips to existing drop sites by home owners delivering recyclables and compostables. The MMR Drop-Depot program has always encouraged that such deliveries be coordinated with other driving trips and if this were a common practice GHG emissions changes should be negligible. Quantifiable emissions include reductions that will be seen with reduced hauling requirements for existing waste diversion services and increases from new sources such as new curbside collection vehicle operations as well as increases related to the transportation of additional materials to Lower Mainland end market processors. Table 16 demonstrates expected changes in eCO2 emissions resulting from transportation influences. For the purpose of the transportation emission calculations it has been assumed that existing curbside solid waste collection service frequency will remain unchanged.

Table 16 - Transportation Related Greenhouse Gas Emission Changes

Service Model Existing Services

(eCO2 tonnes)

New Curbside Collection (eCO2 tonnes)

Delivery to Lower Mainland

(eCO2 tonnes)

Net Emissions Increase

(eCO2 tonnes) Single Stream MMR / Automated Collection (64) 172 173 281 Single Stream MMR /

Manual Collection (64) 229 173 338 Two Stream MMR /

Automated Collection (64) 287 190 413 Y&G / Automated

Collection (5) 115 n/a 110 Organics / Automated

Collection (5) 229 n/a 224

Although transportation services will result in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the avoidance of landfilling recyclable and compostable materials will result in emission reductions which will more than offset the transportation increases. The following table demonstrates these reductions resulting from the recycling / composting of the listed materials as opposed to landfilling them. The first column demonstrates existing emission reductions resulting from existing waste diversion services. The second column demonstrates eCO2 reductions that could be realized with the diversion of new materials from the curbside solid waste stream. The third column demonstrates the cumulative effect.


21

Table 17 - Recycling and Composting Related Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions

Existing Diversion (eCO2 tonnes)

New Diversion (eCO2 tonnes)

Total Emissions Decrease

(eCO2 tonnes)

Paper Fibre 6,400 8,440 14,840

Ferrous Containers 90 440 530

Non-Ferrous Containers 0 780 780

Plastics 60 2,000 2,060

Glass 0 40 40

Kitchen Waste 190 660 850

Yard & Garden 520 530 1,050

Totals 7,260 12,890 20,150

Table 18 provides an overview of expected net greenhouse gas emission reductions for various curbside service options. For perspective, the table also provides a comparison of the emission reductions in relation to the equivalency of the removal of cars from the road.

Table 18 Expected Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions

Service Curbside Y&G

Only

Curbside Recycling Only (Single Stream /

Automated)

Curbside Recycling Only

(Two Stream / Manual)

Curbside Recycling +

Y&G (Single Stream /

Automated)


Organics (Two Stream /

Manual)

New GHG Reductions 420 11,380 11,290 11,800 12,250

Equivalent Cars Off the Road 75 2,025 2,010 2,100 2,180

6.5 Comments In the City curbside solid waste stream there is the potential to divert an additional 9,420 tonnes of material with the introduction of comprehensive waste diversion services. Service enhancements would include expanding the range of material types currently collected in the MMR Drop-Depot system and introducing curbside collection for both recyclable and compostable materials. The resulting incremental increase in diversion performance could be as high as 46% which would increase overall diversions from the curbside residential waste stream to 70%.

Depending upon the diversion enhancement pursued, capital cost investment for curbside collection will range from $1,800,000 to $2,700,000 with annual operating costs expected to be between $860,000 to $3,800,000.

In considering costs for curbside multi-material recycling services the costs between the single-stream automated collection method and the two-stream manual collection method are similar. If it is


22

desirable to use the City of Prince George as the collection agent than automated collection would be the appropriate method as the City is well experienced in the operation of such systems. Should there be a desire to explore private sector collection services, than the two-stream manual collection system may be more desirable as it would allow the collection of glass containers.

Automated collection is the preferred method for yard & garden waste and kitchen waste. The addition of kitchen waste is essentially double the costs for the yard & garden waste only model due to additional cost items such as year-round collection operations and costs associated with constructing and operating an in-vessel composting system. Kitchen waste collection will also require consideration around bear-proofing.

The introduction of new curbside services will also contribute to the reduction of the community’s greenhouse gas emissions in the order of 11,500 eCO2 tonnes per year which would be equivalent to removing over 2,000 cars from the road.

7. COST CONSIDERATIONS

Local governments typically raise revenue from taxes on property and improvements, user fees, sales of services and grants from senior levels of government. A combination of these methods are used for funding the Regional District Solid Waste Management budget but the majority of revenue is raised through tax requisition and tipping fees (user fees). A number of years ago, consideration was given to developing a strategy that would see the vast majority of revenues collected in the form of user fees. The main benefit of a user fee system is that those that participate in desirable waste reduction activities are rewarded while those that continue to send waste to landfill carry the financial burden and are motivated to look towards waste reduction in order to reduce the financial pressure. Two years ago, the user fee strategy was seriously tested in that there were significant drops in the amount of solid waste going to landfills throughout North America and a corresponding drop in revenue on the sale of recyclable commodities resulting in budget short falls. In the case of our Regional District, in 2009, a revenue shortfall of $750,000 was experienced which required a requisition increase of $1,445,000 and a tipping fee increase of $7 per tonne in 2010 to deal with the shortfall and allow for suitable revenues for continuation of existing services and programs.

The following is a review of the anticipated cost shifts and impacts on revenue streams in support of the introduction of new curbside services. Revenues received for the sale of commodities has not been included in this review due to the unpredictable nature in forecasting revenues. Additionally, it is expected that revenue value of the commodities is expected to decrease from current amounts as the proposed expansion models presented create lower grade commodities due to the mixing of higher grade paper fibre with lower grade fibre. It is recommended that any realized revenues could be used to offset processing costs, offset unanticipated cost increases, or be placed in reserves to help fund future capital programs.

7.1 Cost Shifts

With the introduction of new waste reduction initiatives there will be a number of cost shifts that will see some existing program costs go down due to a reduction in use of existing services and the introduction of new costs for new services (Table 19). Consequently there will also be a shift in where and how these costs will be recovered. As an example, any diversion initiative that results in less waste to the landfill will result in less revenue recovery through tipping fee sources. If there is not a corresponding cost savings or corresponding commodity sales revenue to the Regional District than revenue sources such as requisition or tipping fees will need to be increased in order to maintain


23

existing services. In the case of tipping fees, with waste being diverted from the landfill there will be a reduction in this revenue stream to the Regional District’s solid waste budget but not a corresponding reduction in landfill facility operating costs. Consideration will need to be made for recovery of the lost revenue. If the lost revenue were to be covered by tipping fee increases, depending upon the initiative introduced and its associated diversion performance, tipping fees could increase from $1 to $7 per tonne.

The cost comparisons in the following table are based on an automated single-stream MMR and Yard & Garden waste collection system costs.

Table 19 - Cost Shift Overview

Existing Service Cost Shift Drivers

City Solid Waste Collection ▼ $118,000 - $451,000 Reduced tipping fees payable

MMR Drop-Depot Recycling ▼ $400,000 - $500,000 Reduced bin hauls

Yard & Garden Transfer Station Collection ▼ $57,000 - $65,000 Reduced bin hauls

Foothills Operations ▼ $9,000 – 95,000 Reduced handling costs

7.1.1 City Services

For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that City solid waste curbside collection service levels would be maintained so there would be limited, if any, operational savings. The most significant cost change for City services would be the reduction in tipping fees for curbside solid waste diverted from landfill to the recycling/composting stream. It is important to note that the reduction in waste to landfill does not equate to a corresponding savings in landfill facility operating costs. As a result, increases to tipping fees will need to be considered to offset the lost revenue. Table 20 demonstrates the estimated net changes based on factoring in tipping fee increases to offset revenue losses. Even with tipping increases there will still be a net savings to the City as any tipping fee recoveries would be shared over the broader landfill customer base. It should also be noted that other City services that use the landfill would be impacted by tipping fee increases along with the private sector and the Regional District rural transfer station network.

For comparisons purposes, new curbside waste reduction collection service costs are included in Table 20.

Table 20 – Estimated Cost Shifts - City Services

Service

Curbside RecyclingOnly

Curbside Y&G Only

Curbside Recycling + Y&G


Organics

Net Tipping Fee Savings $ (233,430) $ (118,380) $ (335,900) $ (451,290)

New Curbside Collection Costs* $ 1,140,400 $ 771,000 $ 1,911,400 $ 2,268,300

Net Change $ 906,970 $ 652,620 $ 1,575,500 $ 1,817,010

*Note: Includes annual debt service on capital expenditure on collection vehicles and containers.


24

7.1.2 Regional District Services

The most prominent change for Regional District supplied services is the reduced costs for transporting both recyclables and compostable materials from current collection locations as a large volume of materials are expected to be redirected through a new curbside collection system. Other cost shifts include decreases in tipping fee revenues for waste that is diverted from the landfill operation as well as cost increases for processing and marketing a greater volume of diverted products. Yard & Garden Waste transportation costs from the City`s two transfer stations are included in this table as these hauling costs are covered by the Regional District Solid Waste Management budget. Table 22 demonstrates the overall combined net change.

Table 21 - Estimated Cost Shifts - Regional District Services

Service Curbside

Recycling Only Curbside Y&G Only



Organics Drop-Depot Collection Savings $ (476,890) $ - $ (476,900) $ (476,890)

Drop-Depot MMR Processing Savings $ (386,460) $ - $ (386,460) $ (386,460)

Y&G TS Collection Savings $ - $ (62,100) $ (62,100) $ (62,100) Foothills Operational Savings $ (44,690) $ (22,110) $ (66,800) $ (94,340)

Foothills Tipping Fee Revenue Reduction $ 233,430 $ 118,380 $ 335,900 $ 451,290

New Curbside MMR Processing Costs $ 1,562,200 $ - $ 1,562,200 $ 1,562,200

New Organics Processing Costs $ - $ 175,100 $ 175,100 $1,016,800*

Net Change $ 887,590 $ 209,570 $ 1,080,940 $ 2,016,500

*Note: Includes annual debt service on capital expenditure for in-vessel composting infrastructure.

Table 22 – Total Estimated Net Cost Changes

Combined Net Change Curbside Recycling Only

(6,240* tonnes)

Curbside Y&G Only

(4,380* tonnes)


(10,580* tonnes)


Organics (13,370* tonnes)

Total $ 1,794,560 $ 862,190 $ 2,656,440 $ 3,835,510 Cost / tonne $ 287 $ 180 $ 251 $ 287 Cost / household $82 $40 $121 $175

*Note: Includes new materials and materials expected to be captured from existing waste diversion services.

7.2 Program Funding Considerations

Historically, solid waste services funding has been based on a principle that where a service can be accessible or a benefit to all, then the funding of such should be shared across a broader base. Where a service is available only to a few, than that service should be paid by those benefiting from the service. An example of this is existing curbside solid waste collection services where those receiving a collection service pay the cost of that service. Examples include a private business paying a private waste hauling company or a household in a municipality paying their municipality.


25

In keeping with this theme the enhancement of the residential recycling service can be considered both in a localized context and in a regional context. Specifically, curbside collection is only received by those living in a service area and such service costs should be paid for by those benefiting. The increase in amount and types of materials being diverted has a broader benefit. These benefits include expanding landfill life and the ability for a MRF to recycle an increased list of materials which creates additional diversion options for others in the region. Additionally, increased volumes through a privately operated MRF is likely to increase the viability and stability of the business ensuring that it is there to serve the broader community with less reliance on public funding. As a result of the broader benefit, and keeping with funding practices, the processing and marketing costs should be covered by the region as a whole and curbside services should be paid for by the customer receiving the service. A number of cost sharing model results are presented, based on net costs for an automated single-stream collection system.

7.2.1 Single Source Funding

Although single source funding is not the current practice, the following provides some perspective around this type of funding structure in order to evaluate its merits. Table 23 provides a summary of expected impact that any one of the following three single source funding schemes could create based on the net costs presented in Table 22.

Requisition

The Solid Waste Service is a region wide function so any tax requisition funding through this service would be spread throughout the Regional District and include all property currently taxed for the Solid Waste service budget. Tax implications would range from a minimum tax lift of $12.75 to a high of $56.60 for the average value home in Prince George (valued at $211,945).

Tipping Fees Only

Tipping Fees are charged at a number of facilities throughout the Regional District and the rate structure is the same at each facility collecting these fees. Using this funding model will transfer a significant burden of the costs to the private sector, the three other member municipalities that provide their own curbside solid waste collection services, the rural transfer station network tipping fee budget, as well as eroding most of the savings realized in the City`s curbside solid waste service resulting from diversion. Tipping fee rates would need to increase at a minimum by $13 per tonne to an estimated high of $63 per tonne. The current rate is $55 per tonne so tipping fees would rise to a high of $118 per tonne should this be the only funding source.

Utility Fees Only

The City`s solid waste curbside collection customers pay a variable rate utility fee for the provision of collection services. If all costs associated with new curbside collection initiatives were paid by utility fees current curbside customers would see their annual fee increase anywhere from $45 to $196 per year.


26

Table 23 – Single Source Funding Cost Implications – Estimated Costs for Automated Collection

Curbside Recycling

Only

Curbside Y&G Only

Curbside Recycling

+ Y&G

Curbside Recycling + Organics

Requisition Only (per $100,000) $ 12.46 $5.99 $ 18.45 $ 26.58

Tipping Fees Only $ 28 $ 13 $ 43 $ 63

Utility Fee Only $ 93 $ 45 $ 137 $ 196

7.2.2 Hybrid Funding

A more appropriate funding mechanism would be a combination of funding sources where curbside collection fees are paid by residents receiving the collection service and processing and marketing fees are shared by the Regional District as a whole. This model is relatively consistent with the current funding model where those benefiting from a specific service not available to all residents/businesses pay the incremental cost of that service and services that are a benefit to the region are paid on a regional basis.

Within the hybrid funding model curbside customers would pay for costs associated with the new curbside service through a utility fee structure. Processing, Marketing, and education and promotion costs would be covered through requisition.

Table 24 - Hybrid Funding Model – Estimated Costs For Curbside Automated Collection

Curbside Recycling Only

Curbside Y&G Only


Curbside Recycling + Organics

A) Utility Fee on Collection Costs $ 52 $ 35 $ 87 $ 104

B) Requisition on Processing Costs (per $100,000)

$6.16 $1.46 $7.53 $14.02

C) Lift for Average* Prince George Home

$ 13.05

$ 3.10

$ 15.60

$ 29.71

Total For Average Home (A + C) $65 $38 $103 $134

*Note: Average home is valued at $211,945.

7.3 Comments

It is estimated that the City`s and Regional District's current annual costs for handling solid waste and recyclable materials generated from the curbside customer base is in the range of $4,800,000. Enhancements to existing waste reduction services will increase annual costs by an additional $860,000 to $3,800,000, depending upon the services that are introduced.

Costs for these services can be recovered by a number of mechanisms including utility fees, tipping fees and requisition on property and improvements. A combined revenue approach using a utility fee paid by curbside collection customers for the curbside collection services and requisition to cover processing and marketing costs would be consistent with the Regional District's current funding practice.


27

8. DISCUSSION

MMR Drop-Depot

Consideration was given to the expansion of the existing Multi-Material Recycling Drop-depot system, but it was determined early on in the review that an expansion was not going to contribute meaningfully to the RSWMP objective in increasing diversion from residential sources. This was based on the following observations:

o drop-depot systems have consistently been shown to under-perform in achieving higher diversion targets compared with curbside programs except where they are located in small communities and co-located with other waste disposal services which are highly regulated and supervised

o those that value recycling as important and are willing to put the necessary energy forward are actively using the existing system or have subscribed to private businesses providing curbside collection services

o experience in other communities has shown that enhancements to drop-depot system are expected to resulting an increase in diversion of 10 - 20% over current diversion

o there is no financial advantage as the existing drop-depot system costs are similar to that of curbside collection systems.

The introduction of curbside collection services provides the greatest opportunity to increase the diversion of recyclable and compostable materials from the City of Prince George curbside solid waste stream. With the added convenience of curbside service, it is anticipated that current recyclable and compostable materials such as paper fibre, metal containers and yard & garden waste will be recycled in greater quantities as well as providing opportunity for diversion of new materials such as plastic and glass containers and kitchen waste.

Organics The most practical collection method for the collection of compostable materials is an automated collection system, much like the City`s current solid waste collection system. The main advantage of this collection system is that compostable materials, for a variety of reasons, tend to be more difficult to handle manually. The recommended approach to implementation would be to commence with yard & garden collection on a seasonal basis until further work can be completed on the feasibility of kitchen waste composting. Should it be determined to be feasible to build an in-vessel composting system in the future, kitchen waste could easily be added. Using a hybrid funding equation, the annual utility fee for the curbside collection service of yard & garden waste is estimated to be $35 while requisition to support processing costs would be a nominal increase of $2.60 per year for the average assessed Prince George home.

Table 25 – Highlights of Automated Yard & Garden Wastes Collection

Automated Single-Stream Service Description Seasonal service from April to May with biweekly service with collection fleet

servicing half of customer base each week. Yard & garden waste collected in a wheeled cart using automated collection trucks.

Green House Gas Benefit • Net annual GHG reduction of 420 tonnes which is equivalent to the carbon emission of 75 cars

Estimated Total Cost (Utility Fee + Requisition of Average PG Home) $38

Estimated Diversion Performance 11% Cost per Diversion Percentage (per household) $3.45


28

MMR Curbside Two collection methods have been determined to be viable for the collection of recyclable materials. One of the collection models is a single-stream automated collection system. A single-stream system would accommodate the collection of paper fibre, metal food containers and rigid plastic containers. The second model is a two-stream manual collection system that requires sorting of some materials by curbside customers prior to placing blue bins at the curb. The only diversion advantage of the two-stream manual system is the addition of glass containers. The bottom line costs of the two systems are similar. When applying the hybrid funding model there is an advantage to the automated system as the processing costs, the larger cost item of automated collection service, is being distributed over the requisition tax base. The resulting estimated cost increase for the average assessed home in Prince George, using the Hybrid funding model, is $93 per year for the two-stream manual collection system and $75 for the single-stream automated collection system. The following table provides a comparison of the two systems (Table 26).

Table 26 – Highlights of Manual Two-Stream vs Automated Single-Stream Recyclable Materials Collection

Manual Two-Stream Automated Single-Stream Service Description Biweekly service with collection fleet

servicing half of customer base each week using manual labour to load materials into the collection vehicle. Customers provided with two blue bins - paper fibre collected in one blue bin, plastic, glass and metal containers collected in a second bin

Biweekly service with collection fleet servicing half of customer base each week. All recyclable materials collected in single wheeled cart using automated systems to load collection vehicle

Advantages • Customer does some pre-sorting resulting in lower processing cost

• Glass can be collected • Greater chance of intercepting

contaminates at collection point

• Ease of use by customer o all materials into a single cart o familiarity with system

• Lower incident of worker injury • Recyclables protected from weather

resulting in reduced litter concern and protection of commodity value

• City of Prince George experienced with system implementation and operation which may also lead to economies of scale in the delivery of services

Disadvantages • Higher effort on behalf of customer in sorting materials

• Highest collection cost • Higher incident of worker injury • Litter risk

• Higher processing cost due to greater separation effort at MRF

• Greater chance of contaminates in the system and lower material value

• Glass not recommended Green House Gas Considerations

• Annual Net GHG reduction of 11,290 tonnes which is equivalent to the carbon emission of 2,010 cars

• Annual Net GHG reduction of 11,380 tonnes which is equivalent to the carbon emission of 2,025 cars

Estimated Total Cost (per Average PG Home) $93 $75

Estimated Diversion Performance 22% 20%

Cost per Diversion Percentage (per household)

$4.22 $3.75


29

Packaging and Printed Paper - Recycling Regulation Amendments

The Province recently amended the Recycling Regulation through an Order in Council to include packaging materials and printed paper products. Through this amendment, effective July 1, 2011 producers of packaging and printed paper products are required to develop a Stewardship Plan that details the minimization of their products impact on the environment. The Plan will need to address the collection and processing of packaging and printed paper products from residential sources which will include a Provincial wide recovery target of 75%. The Regulation requires the Plan be submitted to the Province by November 2012 for the Province’s approval with implementation of the Plan scheduled for May 2014.

9. CONCLUSION

Enhanced multi-material recycling and yard & garden waste collection services could reduce residential waste to landfill by up to 71%. In reviewing options available for service enhancements the approach recommended at this time is to introduce a biweekly, automated, single-stream collection for recyclable materials and a seasonal biweekly, automated collection service for yard & garden waste. #1, 2, 4 & 5 rigid plastic containers would be added to the current suite of materials collected in the Multi-Material Recycling program. The collection of these materials has the potential to divert an additional 6,240 tonnes of material from the curbside solid waste stream. An additional 4,340 tonnes will be redirected into these new curbside programs from existing waste reduction services. This will result in a diversion rate of 52% from the curbside stream and contribute a region wide diversion rate of 8%. Figure 7 illustrates the projected changes to solid waste flows with the introduction of this service enhancement.

Figure 7 - Prince George Curbside Waste Flow – Post Curbside Collection Implementation

The automated single-stream collection method provides a best value when based on cost in relation to diversion performance. Other advantages of the automated system is that City of Prince George staff are experienced in the delivery of this particular service and there are likely to be opportunities for additional cost savings due to economy of scale in relation to equipment acquisition and maintenance. A

Exisiting Paper Fibre10%

New Paper Fibre13%

Metal Containers3%

Plastic Containers4%

Backyard Composting

4%Exisiting Y&G

11%

New Y&G11%

Solid Waste Landfilled

44%

Total : 20,500 tonnes


30

consequence of the introduction of this service would be the diminished business opportunity for those existing small businesses currently providing fee-for-service curbside collection services.

The cost to provide the enhanced services could be covered using a hybrid funding model where customers receiving the curbside collection service pay a utility fee collection service costs and other costs such as processing and marketing are raised with general tax requisition levies in the Regional District Solid Waste Management budget. Customers of this new service are projected to pay $100 - $130 per year when combining the collection utility fee with the anticipated requisition lift.

Table 27 – Automated Single-Stream MMR and Yard & Garden Waste Curbside Collection Summary

Curbside Service

Estimated Capital Cost

Estimated Annual

Operating Cost

Cost per

Tonne

Annual Cost per Average Household*

Projected Increase to Curbside Diversion

Total Curbside Diversion

Projected RSWMP

Diversion Contribution

Greenhouse Gas

Reduction (tonnes)

Multi-Material Recycling

$2,764,800 $2,702,600 $433 $65 20% 31% 5% 11,380

Yard & Garden $2,764,800 $946,100 $216 $38 11% 21% 3% 420

Total $5,529,600 $3,648,700 $343 $103 31% 52% 8% 11,800

*Note: Adjusted for cost shift savings. Average assessed home values at $211,945.

Table 28 - Annual Cost Estimates to Curbside Collection Service Customers for Automated Collection

Small Container Medium Container Large Container Solid Waste Utility Fee $129 $169 $207

MMR Utility Fee $52 $52 $52

Yard & Garden Utility Fee $35 $35 $35 Total $216 $256 $294

Note: Based on current solid waste utility fee structure and that all MMR and Y&G carts are one size.

Table 29 provides a comparison of Prince George with other communities, post implementation. As an additional comparison on service costs, Port Moody and Coquitlam have recently adjusted their curbside collection rates for solid waste and recyclables to $354 and $326 per household per year respectively.

Table 29 – Community Comparison – Potential Curbside Diversion Performance

Solid Waste (kg/hh)

Recycling (kg/hh)

Y&G (kg/hh)

Kitchen (kg/hh)

Organic** (kg/hh)s

Total (kg/hh)

Cost ($/hh)

Prince George 412 285 200 - - 897 $220 – 300*

Central Okanagan RD

818 363 242 - - 1,423 $230

Ladysmith 182 177 - 124 - 483 $155

Mission 464 157 - - 133 754 $281

North Vancouver 513 294 294 - - 1,101 $291

Port Coquitlam 680 292 - - 358 1,330 $176

RD Nanaimo (Pilot)

161 151 - 120 - 432 $140

Nanaimo 313 143 - - - 456 $110

Victoria 369 215 - 120 - 704 $187

Note: *Rate depends upon Solid Waste Container Size Subscription. ** Includes both yard & garden and kitchen wastes.


31

It is anticipated that the recent amendments to the Recycling Regulation will result in significant changes to the recycling industry in BC. At this time, the implications of these changes on existing local government waste management services are unclear (See Appendix 6 for an information sheet provided by the Ministry of Environment). The Regulation does not require the Producers of packaging material and printed paper product to use existing services or service providers. For many local governments this may have impacts on operating and capital plans for existing recycling services as well as any contractual obligations that may be in place.

It is expected that the diversion estimates for paper fibre, metal, plastic and glass container materials provided in this report should be achieved, if not exceeded. This is due to two factors: one being the greater breadth of materials required to be collected under the Regulation; and, the second being that packaging producers are likely to create less packaging materials now that they are responsible for the end of life of their products. At this time it is recommended that any further work on the delivery of curbside waste diversion services be postponed until details on the provision of the new stewardship service becomes available. Packaging material and printed paper product producers are required to deliver a Stewardship Plan by November 2012 and this Plan should provide the necessary information to reassess the opportunities to enhance waste diversion from the curbside collection customer base.


32

10. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Further consideration for implementation of curbside waste diversion collection services should be postponed until details and implications of a Stewardship Plan for packaging materials and printed paper products are fully understood.


33

Appendix 1 - Traditional Recyclables – Single-Stream / Manual Collection

1. Overview This model is a biweekly collection service where a collection bin, such as a blue box, is provided to each household. Residents would place all acceptable recyclables into the single collection bin and place it at the curb once every two weeks. The collection method would include a driver and collection labourer on each truck. A fleet of four trucks would be operational serving half of the customer base one week and the other half the second week. Recovery is estimated at 6,250 tonnes of material being collected. All materials would delivered to the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) for separation into paper fibre stream, plastic stream and metal food container stream and prepared for market delivery to Lower Mainland processors.

2. Materials Collected

It is estimated that 6,250 tonnes of material would flow through this system, 4,080 tonnes will be diverted from the current solid waste curbside stream. The remaining 2,170 tonnes will be diverted from the existing recycling services.

• All paper fibre including paper, paperboard, cardboard, boxboard, newsprint, magazines, etc • Rigid plastic containers in categories 1, 2, 4 and 5 • Ferrous and non-ferrous metal containers

3. Cost Estimates

Capital Investment

Annual Operating

$ per tonne $ per hh

Blue Boxes (1 per hh) $ 361,110 - $ 58 $ 17 Collection Vehicles (x5) $ 1,500,000 - $ 240 $ 69 Annual Debt Service on Capital - $ 241,022 $ 39 $ 11 Curbside Collection - $ 1,368,482 $ 219 $ 63 Processing / Marketing - $ 1,562,172 $ 250 $ 71

Totals $ 1,861,110 $ 3,171,676 $ 507 $ 145

4. Environmental Considerations

• Reduction in landfill space consumption with approximately 6% less waste going to landfill • GHG Emissions – Net change: Decrease of 11,323 tonnes

i. Decrease of 11,660 tonnes of eCO2 emissions as a result of recycling previously landfilled materials

ii. Increase of 229 tonnes of eCO2 emissions from new collection fleet operations. Of the three methods proposed, this method will produce less GHGs than the two-stream manual method but slightly more than the single-stream automated method. Four trucks will be serving the community compared to three trucks for single stream automated collection and five trucks for the two stream manual collection

iii. Increase of 173 tonnes of new eCO2 emissions for transporting previously landfilled materials to Lower Mainland markets

iv. Decrease of 64 tonnes of eCO2 emissions from reduced hauls in MMR drop-depot system v. Unquantified reduction in emissions for passenger vehicles no longer required to drive to drop-

depots


34

5. Social Considerations • Increased community pride in having a curbside system collection system • Increased employment opportunity with larger workforce requirement

a. Increased collection labour force b. Increased MRF labour force

• Reduced business opportunity for existing small business operators

6. Economic Considerations • Costs shifts with provision of new service

i. Collection system investment ii. Processing investment (new separation infrastructure at MRF) iii. Reduced tipping fees

1. Payable by City 2. Collected by Regional District

iv. Decreased landfilling costs v. Decreased MMR recycling drop-depot system costs

• The City’s current customer base may request a smaller cart size putting demands on cart supply and creating a surplus of larger cart sizes

• World market influences on recycling industry can result in additional revenues or unavoidable cost increases

7. Risk Considerations

• Potential for worker injury associated with manual collection • Model assumes private sector operating MRF. Should this be unfeasible, Regional District would have to

consider capital outlay to finance MRF acquisition and operations


35

Appendix 2 - Traditional Recyclables – Two-Stream / Manual Collection

1. Overview

This model is a biweekly collection service where multiple collection bins, such as blue boxes, are provided to each household. Residents would place all acceptable paper fibre into one collection bin and plastic containers, metal containers and glass containers into a second bin and place these bins at the curb once every two weeks. The collection method would include a driver and collection labourer on each truck serving half the customer base each week. A fleet of five trucks would be operational and should result in 6,630 tonnes of material being collected. All materials would be delivered to the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) and separation efforts would be less intensive compared to a single-stream collection.



• All paper fibre including paper, paperboard, cardboard, boxboard, newsprint, magazines, etc • Rigid plastic containers in categories 1, 2, 4 and 5 • Ferrous and non-ferrous metal containers • Container Glass

3. Cost Estimates

Capital Investment

Annual Operating $ per tonne $ per hh

Blue Boxes (2 per hh) $ 689,385 - $ 104 $ 32 Collection Vehicles (x6) $ 1,800,000 - $ 271 $ 82 Annual Debt Service on Capital - $ 322,387 $ 49 $ 15 Curbside Collection - $ 1,459,659 $ 220 $ 67 Processing / Marketing - $ 829,168 $ 125 $ 38

Totals $ 2,489,385 $ 2,611,214 $ 394 $ 119


• Reduction in landfill space consumption with approximately 6% less waste going to landfill • GHG Emissions – Net change: Decrease of 11,290 tonnes.


ii. Increase of 287 tonnes of eCO2 emissions from new collection fleet operations. Two stream collection is slowest of three proposed methods as each curbside stop time is longer than single stream collection. Five trucks will be serving the community compared to three trucks for automated single stream collection and four trucks for the manual single stream collection methods.

iii. Increase of 190 tonnes new eCO2 emissions for transporting previously landfilled materials to Lower Mainland markets

iv. Decrease of 64 tonnes of eCO2 emissions from reduced hauls in MMR drop-depot system v. Unquantified reduction in emissions for automobiles no longer required to drive to drop-depots


36


a. Increased collection labour force b. Increased MRF labour force

• Reduced business opportunity for small business operators


i. Collection system investment ii. Processing investment (new separation infrastructure at MRF)

• Processing costs least costly in this model as some separation already occurring by customers

iii. Reduced tipping fees • Payable by City • Collected by Regional District



• Reduced tipping fee revenue to solid waste management program • Better revenue potential with dual stream programs • Less robust market for co-mingled recyclable materials • World market influences on recycling industry can result in additional revenues or unavoidable cost

increases

7. Risk Considerations • Potential for worker injury associated with manual collection • Model assumes private sector operating MRF. Should this be unfeasible, Regional District would have to

consider capital outlay to finance MRF acquisition and operations


37

Appendix 3 - Traditional Recyclables – Single-Stream / Automated Collection

1. Overview

This model is a biweekly collection service where a wheeled cart, similar to the current curbside solid waste cart, is provided to each household. Residents would place all acceptable recyclables into the single container and deliver to the curb once every two weeks. The collection method would include a driver only. A fleet of three trucks would be operational and should result in 6,250 tonnes of material being collected. All materials would be delivered to the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) for separation into paper fibre stream, plastic stream and metal food container stream.



• All paper fibre including paper, paperboard, cardboard, boxboard, newsprint, magazines, etc • Rigid plastic containers in categories 1, 2, 4 and 5 • Ferrous and non-ferrous metal containers

3. Cost Estimates

Capital Investment Annual Operating


Carts (1 per hh) $ 1,564,810 - $ 250 $ 72 Collection Vehicles (x4) $ 1,200,000 - $ 192 $ 55 Annual Debt Service On Capital - $ 358,056 $ 57 $ 16 Curbside Collection - $ 782,319 $ 125 $ 36 Processing / Marketing - $ 1,562,172 $ 250 $ 71

Total $ 2,764,810 $ 2,702,547 $ 432 $ 123


• Reduction in landfill space consumption with approximately 6% less waste going to landfill • GHG Emissions – Net change: Decrease of 11,660 tonnes


ii. Increase of 172 tonnes of eCO2 emissions from new collection fleet operations iii. Automated collection is the most efficient requiring only 3 collection trucks in operation at any

single time iv. Increase of 173 tonnes of new eCO2 emissions for transporting previously landfilled materials

to Lower Mainland markets v. Decrease of 64 tonnes of eCO2 emissions from reduced hauls in MMR drop-depot system vi. Unquantified reduction in emissions for automobiles no longer required to drive to drop-

depots


38


i. Increased collection labour force ii. Increased MRF labour force

• Reduced business opportunity for small business operators • Ease of use as mirrors existing solid waste collection system

6. Economic Considerations

• Costs shifts with provision of new service i. Collection system investment ii. Processing investment (new separation infrastructure at MRF)

• Processing costs least costly in this model as some separation already occurring by customers




• Less robust market for co-mingled recyclable materials • World market influences on recycling industry can result in additional revenues or unavoidable cost

increases

7. Risk Considerations • Increased chance of contaminates through automated collection due to challenges in controlling

contamination in automated collection systems i. impact processing costs by requiring additional screening systems ii. devaluation of processed materials iii. landfilling of unmarketable materials

• Model assumes private sector operating MRF. Should this be unfeasible, Regional District would have to consider capital outlay to finance MRF acquisition and operations


39

Appendix 4 - Yard & Garden Waste Automated Collection

1. Overview

The proposed Yard & Garden Waste collection service would be a seasonal, biweekly collection service where a wheeled cart, similar to the current curbside solid waste cart, is provided to each household. Residents would place all acceptable yard & garden waste into the single container and deliver to the curb once every two weeks. The collection method would include a driver only. A fleet of three trucks would be operational and would collect from half of the customer base each week. This should result in 4,380 tonnes of material being collected. All materials would be delivered to the Foothills Centralized Composting Centre where the materials would be processed using the existing facility and operation methodology to create a soil amendment product.


It is estimated that 4,380 tonnes of material would flow through this system, 2,210 tonnes will be diverted from the current solid waste curbside stream. The remaining 2,170 tonnes will be diverted from the existing yard & garden waste drop sites. There is a chance that weights collected could be higher as there are yard & garden waste services that currently deliver directly to the centralized composting operation who may place their customer’s yard & garden waste in the curbside bin.

The following materials would be collected:

leaves grass clippings and sod plants, flowers, weeds, vegetable stocks Small branches & bushes hedge clippings chipped woody vegetation shrub and tree branches up to 75 mm (3 inches) in diameter

3. Cost Estimates



Carts (1 per hh) $ 1,564,810 - $ 358 $ 72 Collection Vehicles (x4) $1,200,000 - $ 274 $ 11 Annual Debt Service on Capital - $ 358,056 $ 82 $ 16 Curbside Collection - $ 413,040 $ 94 $ 19 Processing / Marketing - $ 175,080 $ 40 $ 8

Totals $ 2,764,810 $ 946,176 $ 216 $ 43


• Reduction in landfill space consumption with approximately 3% less waste going to landfill (new diversion)

• GHG Emissions – Net change: Decrease of 420 tonnes • Decrease of 530 tonnes of eCO2 emissions from composting previously landfilled yard &

garden waste • Increase of 115 tonnes of eCO2 emissions from new collection fleet operations • Decrease 16 tonnes of eCO2 emissions resulting from reduced hauls from the three transfer

stations • Unquantified reduction in emissions for passenger vehicles no longer required to drive to drop-

depots • Locally produced and available soil amendment • Reduced environmental impact associated with yard & garden waste in landfills including reduction in

leachate production and landfill gas production


40

5. Social Considerations • Increased community pride in having a curbside system collection system • Increased employment opportunity with larger workforce requirement • Reduced business opportunity for small business operators

6. Economic Considerations

• Costs shifts with provision of new service i. Collection system investment ii. Reduced tipping fees

• Payable by City • Collected by Regional District

iii. Decreased landfilling costs iv. Decreased Y&G collection costs from transfer stations


• Market influences are localized for retailing finished product • Current centralized composting system may require minor investment to handle increased volumes

7. Risk Considerations

o Increased chance of contaminates through automated collection due to challenges in controlling contamination in automated collection systems

impact ability to meet regulatory requirements impact processing costs by requiring additional screening systems devaluation of finished product and limit end uses

o Increased volumes could exceed demand – resulting in surplus compost surplus compost is already an issue impact on ability to meet regulatory requirements


41

Appendix 5 - Organics (Kitchen Waste and Yard & Garden) Waste Automated Collection

1. Overview

The proposed organics collection service would be a year-round, biweekly collection service where a wheeled cart, similar to the current curbside solid waste cart, is provided to each household. Residents would place all acceptable kitchen and yard & garden waste into the cart and deliver to the curb once every two weeks. The collection method would include a driver only and half the customer base would be serviced each week. A fleet of three trucks would be operational and should result in 7,130 tonnes of material being collected. All materials would be delivered to an in-vessel composting facility. Using advanced composting processes the materials would be processed into a soil amendment product.


It is estimated that 7,130 tonnes of material would flow through this system, 4,960 tonnes will be diverted from the current solid waste curbside stream. The remaining 2,170 tonnes will be diverted from the existing yard & garden waste drop sites. There is a chance that weights collected could be higher as there are yard & garden waste services that currently deliver directly to the centralized composting operation who may place their customer’s yard & garden waste in the curbside bin. The following organic materials would be collected.

Yard and Garden Waste:

Leaves grass clippings and sod plants, flowers, weeds, vegetable stocks Small branches & bushes hedge clippings chipped woody vegetation shrub and tree branches up to 75 mm (3 inches) in diameter

Kitchen Waste:

Food leftovers, plate scrapings Fruit and vegetable scraps Meat, fish, giblets and bones Egg shells Dairy products, butter, mayonnaise Bread, cereal, grains Pasta, pizza Baked goods, candies Soiled paper towels and tissues Coffee grounds, filters, tea bags Ice cream cartons Nuts and shells Used paper cups and plates Soiled paper food packaging Houseplants, cut and dried flowers

3. Cost Estimates



Carts (1 per hh) $ 1,564,810 - $ 219 $ 72 Collection Vehicles (x4) $ 1,200,000 - $ 168 $ 55 In-Vessel System $3,000,000 $420 $137 Annual Debt Service on Capital - $ 720,600 $ 101 $ 32 Curbside Collection - $ 782,319 $ 110 $ 36 Processing*/ Marketing - $ 641,785 $ 90 $ 29

Totals $ 5,764,810 $ 2,144,704 $ 300 $ 97


42

4. Environmental Considerations • Reduction in landfill space consumption with approximately 6% less waste going to landfill • GHG Emissions - Net change: Decrease of 966 tonnes

• Decrease of 1,190 tonnes eCO2 emissions from composting previously landfilled yard & garden waste and kitchen waste

• Increase of 229 tonnes of eCO2 emissions from new collection fleet operations • Decrease 16 tonnes of eCO2 emissions resulting from reduced hauls from the three transfer

stations • Unquantified reduction in emissions for passenger vehicles no longer required to drive to drop-

depots to deliver yard & garden waste • Locally produced and available soil amendment • Reduced environmental impact associated with organics in landfills including reduction in leachate

production and landfill gas production

5. Social Considerations • Increased employment opportunity with larger workforce requirement

i. Construction of composting facility would create short term construction employment ii. Skilled workers may be required to operate in-vessel composting system

• Reduced business opportunity for small business operators • Increased community pride in having a curbside system collection system • Decreased use of backyard composting systems which further shifts personal responsibilities from

individuals onto government • Regional District solid waste programs attempt to ensure that there is an equality in access to services to

all residents. With the inclusion of kitchen waste, this service would not be able to be offered throughout the Regional District.


i. Collection system investment ii. Processing investment

• New capital investment would be required in the order of $2 to $4 million dollars for in-vessel composting system


iv. Decreased landfilling costs v. Decreased Y&G collection costs from transfer stations


• Market influences localized for retailing finished product • Likely will require future introduction of a tipping fee for Organic Waste to accommodate higher

processing fees

7. Risk Considerations • Increased chance of contaminates through automated collection

o impact ability to meet regulatory requirements o impact processing costs by requiring additional screening systems o devaluation of finished product and limit end uses

• Increased volumes could exceed demand – resulting in surplus compost o surplus compost is already an issue o impact ability to meet regulatory requirements

• Introduction of Kitchen waste increases nuisances issues such as odour problems and animal attraction both at residences storing materials as well as at the composting facility

• Winter challenges in collecting kitchen waste that may freeze in the collection cart


43

Appendix 6 – Backgrounder – Recycling Regulation Amendments


44

Date post:	15-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Final - A Feasibility Study on Enhancing Waste Diversion ... · A FEASIBILITY STUDY ON ENHANCING...

Documents