I Report No.: SWO3-006 I

Transcription

1 COUNCIL MEETING2 4 SEP 16 '03 -- CITY OF KINGSTON REPORT TO THE SOLID WASTE MAGEMENT TASK FORCE I Report No.: SWO3-006 I TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: Bert Meunier, Chief Administrative Officer Mark Segsworth, P. Eng., Commissioner of Operations John Giles, P. Eng., Solid Waste Manager DATE OF MEETING: SUBJECT: Source Separated Organics Program RECOMMENDATION TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE: It is recommended that: 1. a Source Separated Organics program as defined in Report No. SWO3-006 dated is the preferred system to increase diversion of waste from landfill beyond 50% in order to meet the mandate of the Solid Waste Management Task Force; 2. the preferred service model is to collect organics and garbage weekly using co-collection trucks; 3. an action plan be brought back for endorsement by the Solid Waste Management Task Force in the fall of 2003 incorporating a public consultation process; 4. the Knox Farm be investigated as one potential site to locate an open windrow composting facility recognizing that it would likely not be available until 2006 and that all approvals to develop a composting site are outside of the current approval process that Utilities Kingston is completing; ORIGIN/PURPOSE : At the February 20,2003 Solid Waste Management Task Force meeting, two motions were carried unanimously as follows: 1. That as a long term objective, a business case for a source separated organics system be developed and brought to this committee for discussion. 2. That the business case for a source separated organics system be developed based on the collection of kitchen organics utilizing a small cart for set out with a small kitchen pail for the household together with aggressive promotion and education. REIC Perth were engaged to prepare a preliminary financial analysis of source separated organic service options and presented their report at the May 29,2003 Solid Waste Task Force meeting. Staff was subsequently directed to bring back a report to the July meeting with recommendations. 1

2 COUNCIL MEETING2 4 s@ 16 REPORT TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE - Page 2 - Report No: SWO3-006 OPTION S/DISCUSSION: Background: The Solid Waste Management Task Force was directed by Council to determine ways to increase diversion of waste from landfill beyond 50%. In 2001 the diversion rate for residential waste was 38.5% taking into consideration recycling, composting, household hazardous waste and steel recovered at the transfer station and landfill. In 2002 the diversion rate increased to 41.6%. Alternatives: The following alternatives were identified and investigated to increase diversion beyond 50%: 1. Reduced Bag Limits A full user-pay system for garbage collection was considered to encourage residents to maximize use of backyard and centralized composting, recycling and household hazardous waste as diversion options. After public consultation the Task Force recommended, and Council approved, that effective May 1,2003 the allowable number of bags of garbage without tags be reduced from 3 to 2 for residential units and that a 12 bag limit for commercial units be implemented from a previous unlimited amount. It is generally accepted that a 2 bag limit will not increase diversion rates above 50% in an urban environment. Since May lst, the diversion rate has increased about 2.5%, which will result in approximately 44% of our waste being diverted from landfill in Source Separated Organics Separating household organics for composting at a central site is a system that many municipalities have chosen to reach their diversion goals, including Toronto, Halifax, Caledon, St. Thomas and Durham Region. It is generally accepted that an SSO program will allow municipalities to exceed 50% diversion from landfill. Assumptions: The REIC Perth report is based on assumptions resulting from discussions with Task Force members after the February 20th REIC presentation to the Task Force, discussions with staff, and experience from other municipalities, as follows: An SSO program would be offered initially to low density housing including single family, semidetached, triplexes, townhouses and smaller apartments, recognizing the difficulty in servicing larger multi-residential units. Commercial organic waste could be considered in the future in conjunction with the larger question of whether or not the City intends to remain in the commercial garbage collection service. Costs of collecting multi-residential and commercial are not included in the analysis. 0 The SSO program would be primarily for kitchen organics, however, pet wastes, litter and some nonrecyclable fibres (tissues & paper towels) could be included. Organics would be set out to the curb in small litre (10-15 gal) carts which are both easy to get to the curb and empty into trucks. A small litre (1-2 gal) kitchen pail would be provided to improve convenience and participation of residents. 0 Optional compostable liners would be considered for residents who prefer to line their pail and/or cart. C:Documents and Settings\msegsworth\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKSF\Report SWO3-006 Source Separated Organics Program.doc * 2

3 COUNCiL MEETING2 4 sp 1.6 'zlli) REPORT TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE - Page 3 - Report No: SWO3-006 Plastic bags would not be allowed in the system as they have proved to be next to impossible to remove from the finished compost in areas where they have been allowed. Other than small amounts that could be placed in the small organics cart, leaf and yard waste would continue to be handled in the current manner - i.e. residents use backyard composters; grasscycle lawn clippings; bring compostable waste to a municipal site; or set it out for the fall collection. An open windrow composting process would be utilized. Aggressive promotion & education would be employed on an ongoing basis. The report indicates that the diversion rate would increase to an estimated 57% with an SSO program. SSO System Costs: The report concludes that an SSO system will require between $1.2 and $2 million in capital expenditures for trucks, carts and kitchen pails, not including the capital cost for a municipally owned composting site if that option is pursued. Annual operating costs, compared to the status quo, would range from a $1 88,000 savings to an additional $925,000 depending on the collection option selected. Collection Options: Five collection options were evaluated as follows: 1. Garbage & SSO weekly using separate trucks for each waste stream. 2. Garbage & SSO bi-weekly (on alternating weeks) using separate trucks for each waste stream. 3. Garbage & SSO weekly using co-collection trucks (trucks with split bodies able to accept both garbage and SSO) 4. Garbage & SSO bi-weekly using co-collection trucks 5. Garbage bi-weekly & SSO weekly using separate trucks for each waste stream. 1 Collection Option Capital Cost Operating Cost Difference in Operating 0. Current system $0 $2,747,000 $0 1. Weekly garbage & SSO $1,953,000 $3,672,000 $925, Bi-weekly garbage & SSO $1,193,000 $3,105,000 $3 57, Weekly co-collection $1,953,000 $3,105,000 $3 57, Bi-weekly co-collection $1,323,000 $2,560,000 ($188,000) 5. Bi-weekly garbage I weekly SSO $1,573,000 $3,440,000 $693,000 Processing Options: Two processing options were evaluated as follows: 1. Construct a municipally owned open windrow composting site. 2. Transfer the organics to a private composting site. ~~ ~ Processing Option Capital Cost Amortization Transfer Processing Total Operating 1. Municipally owned site $1,500,000 $15" $0 $50 $65 I tonne 2. Transfer to private site $0 $0 $15 $50 $65 I tonne *Note- amortization is based on 100,000 tonnes which would take years to process. The current cost to transfer and landfill solid waste is just over $78 I tonne, for comparison purposes. C:\Documents and SettingshsegsworthLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKSFWeport SWO3-006 Source Separated Organics Program.doc t 7 3

4 REPORT TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE - Page 4 - Report No: SWO3-006 Analysis of Collection Options: I Ontion I Benefits I Drawbacks I 1. Weekly garbage & I Same service as current level. sso I Most expensive operating option and tied I 2. Bi-weekly garbage Least expensive capital option. & sso Yd least expensive operating option. 3. Weekly cocollection 4. Bi-weekly cocollection 5. Bi-weekly garbage I weekly SSO Same service as current level. Least expensive weekly option. Least expensive operating option overall and least bi-weekly option. 2nd least expensive capital. Organics would be collected weekly eliminating potential complaints. for most expensive capital cost. Reduced service from current level. Some SSO may be disposed of as garbage during the garbage collection week. Complaints about holding organics and diapers for two weeks. Higher operating costs than other biweekly option. Tied for most expensive capital cost. Reduced service from current level. Some SSO may be disposed of in garbage during garbage collection week. Complaints about holding organics and diapers for two weeks. Reduced service from current level. 2nd most expensive operating cost. Complaints about holding diapers for two weeks. Analysis of Processing Options: Operating costs to run a municipally owned processing site are estimated to be the same as the cost to utilize a private site. This includes the estimated cost of amortizing the capital cost of developing an open windrow municipal site over years. The capital cost to develop a municipal site is a rough estimate at this point and will vary depending on site location and the composting process chosen. An open windrow process would be the least expensive option and is the one used in the analysis. Alternatively, an in-vessel composting system would likely be the most expensive. Transfer and processing costs to a private site are also estimated. Once a potential municipal site is chosen and a process confirmed, then more accurate costs would be developed. Similarly, a request for proposals would establish the costs of what a private site would cost. At this time, both options are considered equal. Impact on Truck & Staffing Levels: Garbage is currently collected using 5 two-person rear loading packers, together with 4 one-person side loading packers. The SSO analysis is based on 4 rear loaders and 3 side loaders performing the collection from the properties that would be included in the program, with the remaining two trucks continuing to collect from multi-residential and commercial properties. C:\Documents and Settings\msegsworth\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKSF\Report S WO3-006 Source Separated Organics Program.doc T 4

5 REPORT TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE - Page 5 - Report No: SWO3-006 Collection Option Rears Sides Co-Rears Co-Sides Trucks Staffing 0. Current system Weekly garbage & SSO Bi-weekly garbage & SSO Weekly co-collection Bi-weekly co-collection Bi-weekly garbage / weekly SSO MeadowbrooWFernmoor Pilot SSO Program: A bi-weekly source separated organics program was piloted in the Meadowbrook and Fernmoor subdivisions for 475 residences from October 1994 to May 1999 using primarily 240 litre (50 gal) carts supplemented with 140 litre (30 gal) carts for those residents wanting a smaller cart. The carts were tipped into rear loading garbage trucks using semi-automated hydraulic lifters due to the weight of the carts. During the pilot, garbage and organics were picked up on alternate weeks and residents were allowed to set out twice the regular amount of garbage on their collection day. Approximately 90 tonnes of household organics were collected annually during the pilot. Based on previous Kingston Township reports, this represented 26% of the combined garbage and organics waste stream in this area. Prior to discontinuing the pilot project a public meeting was held with the Meadowbrook and Area Community Association. Among the residents attending the meeting, there was strong support to continue the collection of household organics. Other Considerations: There will likely be some movement of organics currently being diverted to backyard composters and central sites into the organics cart, although by providing a small cart, this will be minimized. It will also be offset by promotion and education to encourage grasscycling and backyard composting as the least expensive disposal option for taxpayers. Implementation of an SSO program could provide an opportunity to reduce bag limits or apply full userpay for garbage. This would help increase both participation and diversion rates. The Knox Farm could be investigated as one potential site to locate a municipal composting facility. Specifically, the area that will be used to dry the dredged material from the Cataraqui River crossing could be considered, but only after Utilities Kingston have completed their work. It will likely be two or more years after the dredging is complete, or not until sometime in 2006, before the site would be dry enough to develop. It should also be noted that all approvals needed to develop a composting site are outside of the current approval process that Utilities Kingston is completing. EXISTING POLICY/BY-LAW: By-law No being a by-law regarding the levying of special rates and monthly charges for waste management services and to provide for a rebate system. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: The Environment. C:Documents and Settingshsegsworth\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKSF\Report S W Source Separated Organics Programdoc " 5

6 REPORT TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE - Page 6 - Report No: SWO3-006 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: By-law No states under Part IT - Diversion Special Rate, Section 2 & 3: 2. The City shall impose each year on all property within the municipality according to its assessed value a special rate sufficient to recover in full the City s estimated costs of diversion for the year. 3. No property within the municipality shall be exempt from payment of the special rate imposed under section 2 of this by-law. Diversion includes all programs operated for the purpose of diverting waste from landfill. Accordingly, all property would contribute to the operating costs of a source separated organics program, whether the program is available to the particular property or not. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment has stated its intention to consider organics for designation under the Waste Diversion Act. This may lead to economic incentives for municipalities with SSO programs when product stewards are identified. CONTACTS: John Giles ext DEPARTMENTWOTHERS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED: Finance Division - Gerard Hunt, Manager of Finance Utilities Kingston - Allen Lucas, Engineering Technical Services NOTICE PROVISIONS: There are no notice requirements under the Municipal Act for the subject of this report. APPENDICES: REIC Final Report. Commissioner of Operations Bert Meudier Chief Administrative Officer H:\MyFiles\winword\solid wste task forcemeport SWO3-006 Source Separated Organics Program july 03.doc 6

7 COUNCIL MEETlNG 2 4 sp 16 Source Separated Organics Business Case for the City of Kingston Prepared by REIC Perth May 20, Introduction In February of 2003, The City of Kingston s Solid Waste Task Force directed staff to prepare a Business Case for a Source-Separated Organics (SSO) program. This decision was motivated by the Task Force s mandate to find ways to divert at least 50% of the City s waste. Waste characterization studies indicated that organics were the next logical portion of the waste stream to tackle. Recent developments in Ontario have brought SSO programs to the forefront, with many municipalities engaging in pilot projects (e.g. Ottawa, Peterborough), and others proceeding with full-scale implementation (e.g. Etobicoke, Durham, South Simcoe). In fact, in many ways, the City of Kingston is a leader in this regard, as it ran a successful SSO program in the Meadowbrook neighbourhood for almost 5 years, starting in October, On February 20th, REIC Perth made a presentation to the Task Force that outlined key considerations related to implementing SSO programs, with specific recommendations regarding options that were most appropriate to Kingston s circumstances. One outcome of the February 20th meeting was a recommendation to carry out a more detailed Business Case analysis for a Source Separated Organics system for the City of Kingston. This report addresses that recommendation. 2. Context Currently, the City of Kingston s residential waste management system consists of weekly curbside garbage collection, weekly curbside recycling and once a year leaf and yard waste collection. An estimated 20,000 backyard composters have been distributed over the past decade, and the City also has a hazardous waste depot, special large item disposal, and a leaf and yard waste site that accepts residential deliveries. Overall residential waste diversion rate is estimated at 38% for However, when looking strictly at curbside single family residential waste, the diversion rate is closer to 45%. REIC Perth /03 7

8 The source-separated organics diversion program being contemplated would involve providing residents with a small (approximately 7 litre) pail to hold two or three days worth of kitchen organics in the house, and a mid-size (approximately 45 litre) organics cart into which the resident would empty their pails. The carts would be set out curbside (both weekly and bi-weekly options are evaluated), collected by an organics truck (dedicated one-compartment truck and two-compartment garbage/organics co-collection trucks are evaluated), brought to a transfer station, and then hauled to a processing site. This business case assumes that the SSO system would be primarily for kitchen organics. Other than small amounts that could be placed in the organics cart, it is assumed that leaf and yard waste would either have to be set out at the fall collection day or brought to a municipal compost site. This allows the City to go with a smaller carts, manual collection systems, and avoids having to over-design a container, collection and processing system to handle seasonal yard waste peaks. Pet wastes and some non-recyclable fibres (tissues and paper towels) are also assumed to be included in the SSO program. Avoiding contamination issues associated with plastics was also seen as being a key component. In order to simplify the business case analysis, the costs of various combinations of garbage and organics collection and processing options are estimated without consideration to the impact on recycling. The potential impact of SSO on recycling is dealt with in Section 10 - Recycling. In fact, what is being proposed is a whole new norm in how Kingston s residents handle their waste, and it should be approached as a new, integrated waste diversion system. Integrated system considerations are dealt with in Section 11 - Other Considerations. 3. Waste Generation Rates In August 2001, J.L. Richards & Associates conducted a Residential Waste Audit for the City of Kingston. The information fi-om this study provides useful baseline information by identifying what typical residents are still putting in their garbage. Figure 1 shows average kilograms per household per year for key categories in the current garbage stream, as well as projected capture rates of both the organic and garbage stream if an SSO program was implemented. These figures only profile what is in the garbage, and do not include material currently diverted through recycling and yard waste programs or backyard composters /03 v 8

9 COUNCIL MEETlNG 2 4 sp 1.6 Figure I - Waste Generation for Low Density Households (triplex or less) I Recycling Garbage Potential Organics kitchen organics non-recvclable fibres pet waste yard waste Total Current System SSO System garbage only garbage organics (kg/h h/yr) (kg/h h/yr) (kg/h h/yr) Note: In the SSO system, it is assumed that 28 of the 78 kg/hh/yr of recyclables currently going into garbage would be diverted to the blue box, because the program would increase residents awareness of all diversion programs. It should be noted that there would likely be some movement of already diverted organics from existing backyard composters to the organics carts. However, experience has shown that once people have gone through a cycle of backyard composting and seen the benefits of the free compost they generate, they are composters for life. Movement of organics from composters to carts will also be offset by the ability to use the promotion and education associated with the new program to continue to promote grasscycling and additional backyard composting sales. 4. Household Numbers The next step is to estimate the number of single family and apartment households that would likely be offered SSO services. Currently, it is estimated that there are 45,900 households in Kingston, of which almost 30,700 are single family (including semi-detached/duplex or row housing) with the remaining 15,200 households being apartment units. Under the current system, Kingston is providing curbside garbage and blue box service to all 30,700 single family households as well as approximately 9,600 of the 15,200 apartment units, for a total curbside household count of 40,300. Because SSO programs are harder to offer in apartment buildings, it is assumed that only 3,400 apartments would be appropriate for SSO, for a total of 34,100 households. Figure 2 - Households Total households Currently received garbage collection Would receive SSO collection houses apartments total 30,700 15,200 45,900 30,700 9,600 40,300 30,700 3,400 34, /03.7 9

10 5. Garbage and SSO Tonnage In order to estimate garbage and SSO tonnages, the waste generation rates from Figure 1 were applied to the single family households that would participate. Apartment households were factored in at two-thirds of the non-apartment rates, because they tend to have fewer people per household and generate less waste. For the purpose of this case study, we have only considered collection and processing costs related to the waste and SSO streams for the 34,100 households that would receive SSO service. There would still be another 6,200 apartments that would continue to receive garbage service, but the costs related to that have not been included in the calculations. Based on these assumptions, we estimate that the 34,100 households that would receive SSO service would generate 12,100 tonnes of garbage and 6,100 tonnes of organics. There would also be an extra 1,000 tonnes of recyclables that would be diverted from the garbage to the blue box due to promotion of a new and improved waste diversion system. Figure 3 - Tonnage Current System Garbage and SSO System Gar bag e Total (tonnedyear) (tonneslyeat) (tonneslyear) 19, ,200 12,100 6,100 18, Collection Options Five different collection options are evaluated: Separate weekly collection of garbage and organics 0 Separate alternate week collection of garbage and organics 0 Weekly co-collection of garbage and organics 0 Bi-Weekly co-collection of garbage and organics 0 Weekly Organics and Bi-Weekly garbage collection For each option, an appropriate passby/day figure was assumed, drawing from the experience of Kingston s existing programs and the experience of other municipalities. In all scenarios, a mix of one person side-loaders and two-person rear-loaders have been projected, with one person trucks for the more rural areas and two-person trucks for the more urban areas. Based on these assumptions, the costing model has assumed the following number of trucks for each scenario /03. 10

11 Figure 4 - Number of Trucks Current System Separate Weekly Collection Separate Bi-Weekly Collection Weekly Co-Collection Bi-Weekly Co-Collection Weekly Organics/Bi-Weekly Garbage 4 a Processing Options Several different organic processing options were considered, including: Processing by contact at Corcan Transfer/Haul to the Canadian Waste Service site at Richmond Landfill Construction and operation by the public and/or private sector of a new compost site in Kingston The Corcan option no longer appears to be viable, and is therefore not considered in this business case. It was also not possible to get cost estimates to transfer, haul and process at Canadian Waste s Richmond facility, in part because Canadian Waste is applying for an expansion of the Richmond Site and was not able to provide a tip fee estimate. Studies are currently underway related to transfer and haul costs for garbage and/or compostables, and that information will be available shortly. The construction of a new municipal composting operation is therefore used as the basis for cost calculations. The site would need to conform to existing zoning, and would need a 100 metre buffer on all sides. Based on an estimated capacity of 15,000 tonnes per year (including yard waste), the site would need a working surface of 3 hectares. Excluding land costs, it is estimated the capital costs, including all equipment and construction of a compost pad and leachate collection ponds, would be approximately $1.5 million. Operating costs would be in the order of $35/tonne. For the purpose of the this business case, an operating cost of $50/tonne is used, which allows for amortizing of capital cost. A further $15/tonne is estimated for transfer haul costs. If a central location were found for a processing site that eliminated the need for a transfer site, or if it turns out transfer/haul/process to Richmond or another location can be done for less than $65/tonne, the business case for an SSO system would be strengthened /03 1 1

12 8. Costing Assumptions In order to run costing scenarios, we have assumed the following unit costs, based on experiences with other municipalities, input from equipment suppliers, and analyses by Kingston staff. Assumptions are for costs in 2005, the estimated earliest start date for an SSO program. Figure 5 - Capital Cost Assumptions I New side-loader co-collection truck I $230,000 1 Per truck I New rear-loader co-collection truck New side-loader single truck New rear-loader single truck Retrofit single rear to co-collection* Residual value of existing trucks Cart/Pail (including initial promotion) $200,000 Per truck $21 0,000 Per truck $170,000 Per truck $40,000 Per truck $50,000 Per truck $25 Per household Figure 6 - Annual Operating Cost Assumptions 9. System Costing The household, tonnage, truck numbers and cost assumptions outlined above were then combined to determine comparative costs for the different organics collection systems. A summary of the comparative capital and operating system costs is presented below. It is important to note that these figures do not represent total waste system costs, but rather estimates of the direct costs of collecting organics and waste fi-om those households in Kingston where collection of organics is feasible (primarily single family residences and some low density apartmenthowrhouse units). Costs related to servicing higher density apartments and the commercial/institutional sector are not included in the figures presented below. The detailed costing spreadsheets are available in the Appendix /03 " 12

13 Figure 7 - System Costs Scenario Bi-Weekly Co-Collection Weekly SSO & Bi-Weekly Waste Capital 1 costs I Status QUO I $0 I $2,747,000 1 $0 I 1 Weekly SSO & Waste 1 $ 1,953,000 I $3,672,000 1 $925,000 I I Bi-Weekly SSO 8. Waste I $ 1,193,000 I $3,105,000 I $357,000 I I Weekly Co-Collection 1 $1,953,000 I $3,105,000 I $357,000 I $ 1,323,000 $2,560,000 ($ 188,000) $ 1,573,000 $ 3,440,000 $693, Recycling As indicated earlier, for purposes of clarity and simplicity, costing assumptions have not taken into account any impact on recycling programs. In fact, Kingston has an integrated waste management program with many components, and is currently considering how best to expand and improve that integrated waste diversion system. Experience in other municipalities has shown that every time one component of a waste diversion system is expanded, all diversion components benefit. This is in part because the new promotion and education programs remind residents of all diversion options, and in part because each new or expanded program sets the diversion mentality more firmly in residents minds. As discussed in the footnote to Figure 1, it is assumed that the implementation of an SSO program would increase recycling capture rates by 28 kg/hhh/yr, or almost 1,000 tonnes per year. The municipality would have to pay the incremental rate to collect and process these materials, but would also benefit from the revenue associated them. More importantly, this additional tonnage would have a positive effect on the Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) funding that should be in place by WDO funding is structured to benefit municipalities that approach best-case practices (diverting as much as possible of as wide a range of materials as possible). A preliminary run of the WDO funding model indicates that annual WDO funding for Kingston, based on status quo, would be approximately $540,000. If Kingston implemented an SSO program and diverted an extra 1,000 tonnes of recyclables, it is estimated that the annual WDO hding for Kingston could increase by $50,000. This has not been factored into the system cost assumptions /03-13

14 Even if Kingston opts not to pursue an SSO diversion program, an expanded recycling promotion and education program should be implemented. Each additional tonne recycled generates $150 in revenue from material sales and WDO funding, which basically offsets incremental collection and processing costs. However the City saves an additional $80/tonne because it does not have to pay transfer/haul/tip fees for that diverted material. It appears that capture rates could be improved noticeably through increased promotion and education. Kingston s recycling capture rate of 80% is lower than municipalities with similar diversion programs, such as Peterborough (85%) and Quinte (86%). Promotion and education efforts for the past few years have been nominal due to lack of resources. 11. Other Consideration Often, promotion and education efforts become expendable when staff and council tighten final program budgets. It is, however, essential to the success of an SSO program that provision is made for extensive promotion and education programs. SSO programs ask residents to change their norms in terms of daily collecting of organics in their kitchen pail, emptying their pails into their carts 2 or 3 times per week, and then bringing their carts to the curb once a week. To maximize participation and capture rates, it is essential that everything possible is done to: 0 Explain the benefits of the program Explain what has to be done Avoid contamination 0 Establish the cart and pail as a new societal norm 0 Continue to encourage backyard composting as the best organics diversion option As mentioned, it is also critical to use an SSO program as an opportunity not just to promote the new program, but to promote the entire integrated waste management system (recycling, yard waste, hazardous waste, bag limits, large items, drop-off depots etc). It is worth noting that an SSO program provides a new diversion alternative that will make it easier for the City to continue to tighten up regulatory efforts such as bag limits, and even reconsider a full user pay system. It also allows the City to consider reducing levels of service for waste (e.g. the various bi-weekly options in this business case). There are other factors that are worth considering at this time, even if they cannot yet be quantified in financial terms. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment has stated its intention to consider organics for designation under the Waste Diversion Act. This may lead to economic incentives for municipalities with successful SSO programs /03

15 COUNCIL MEETING^ 4 SEP 16 Q3 Another issue relates to methane and greenhouse gas emissions. From a greenhouse gas standpoint, methane is 2 1 times as powerful as carbon dioxide. Reducing methane emissions from organics in landfills is one of the single biggest greenhouse gas reduction initiatives that municipalities can take. With Canada ratifying Kyoto, there will be increasing pressure, and hopehlly incentives, to help municipalities take actions that reduce these emissions. An SSO program is an important step, as SSO processing is more aerobic, and therefore tends to emit carbon dioxide rather than methane. This can significantly lower the City s carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, and possibly even lead to carbon credits at some point in the future. 12. Conclusions If the City of Kingston were to implement an SSO program, it will require between $1.2 and $2 million in additional capital costs (not including capital costs for an organics processing facility, if that is the option that is pursued). Annual operating costs, compared to status quo, would range from $188,000 cheaper to $925,000 more expensive, depending on the level of service selected. This would include a whole new diversion stream for residents, including a kitchen pail, curbside cart and extensive promotion and education program. The 190 kg/hh/yr of SSO plus the additional 28 kg/hh/yr of recyclables would boost the diversion rate for single family households from a current rate of 45% to 64%, well beyond the Task Force target. The overall diversion rate for the City of Kingston as a whole, including apartments and IC&I sectors that would not be affected much by the SSO program, would increase from 38.5% to 57%. 13. Next Steps Assuming the Task Force wishes to pursue the implementation of an SSO program, there are a number of options that could be considered as next steps for determining the appropriate collection and processing components. The collection options could be narrowed down by one of the following processes: the Task Force recommending a preferred collection option and forwarding it to Committee of the Whole for consideration; the Task Force taking the various collection options to a public meeting for input, and then recommending a preferred collection option to Committee of the Whole for consideration; the Task Force sending this report on to Committee of the Whole for a decision. If the public meeting option is pursued, it would be useful not only to investigate frequency issues, but also to get input in cart, pail and compostable bag liner options. For processing options, there are two main options that need to be investigated in more detail: a centrally located municipal site that allows for direct hauling; and a transfer/haul/process option /03 15

16 In order to pursue both options, the Task Force should direct staff to: 0 investigate options and costs for a centrally located municipal compost facility for SSO and yard waste; 0 outline a private sector RFP process for the transferhaullprocess options, including a possible municipal role for the transfer component. Once staff has completed these investigations, they would report back to the Task Force, who would review the findings and send them to Committee of the Whole for further consideration and decision /03., 16

17 ~ 368 Appendix Detailed Spreadsheet for Waste Generation I Current I SSO System Recyclabies I 78 I 50 Garbage kitchen NR fibre animal yardwaste total kg/passby total adjusted for apartments I ,824 12,556 6,312 19,156 12,133 6,100 Households I, %-in """ I, rzrmrn- i -I. ""3" Type I est 1 curbside est1 curbside est single family 1 21, ,580 I 22,580 I 22,580 Isemi-detached I 3,735 I 3,870 I 3, ,870 I row housing apt-duplex apy >4 stories apt >5 stories other singles moveable dwellings 2,900 1,015 6,625 8, ,900 1,015 6,900 8, ,900 1,015 3, ,900 1,015 6,900 2, I I 55 SSO hhlds est 2001 rural % Kingston city 18,700 0% Kingston Twp 12,300 20% Pittsburg Tw 3,100 50% total 34,100 12% rural urban 0 18,700 2,460 9,840 1,550 1,550 4,010 30,090 Passby Assumptlons passbys average rural urban current 1, garbage 1, organics 1, co-collection ? A-1 16l

18 COUNCIL MEETING 2 4 SEP 16 a Basic Assumptions households 35,000 I Garbage I Organics kg/week kg/hhld/yr total volume (m3) 32,200 8,094 total annual tonnes 12, Alternate Week Collection collection days passbys/truck-day # of vehicles operating vehicles tonnes/truck-day m3/truck-day Garbage Organics 5 5 1,200 1, collection days passbyshruck-day #of vehicles operating vehicles tonneshuck-day m3/truck-day Garbage Organics O 6.7 Alternate Week Co-Collection Garbage Organics Garbage Organics collection days Passbydday Number of trucks Operating trucks tonnes/truck-day Volume split Total tonnes/truck-day % 20% collection days Passbydday Number of trucks Operating trucks tonnes/truck-day m3/truck-day Volume split Total tonnes/truck-day,total m3/truck-day % 20% Weekly Organics I Biweekly Garbage collection days passbys/truck-day # of vehicles operating vehicles tonnes/truck-day m Wtruck-day Garbage Organics , O 4.4 RElC Perlh A-2 16/07/2003 -t 18

19 Cost Assumptions Item cost Unit new side co-collection truck $230,000 per truck new rear co-collection truck $200,000 per truck new side-loader $210,000 per truck new rear-loader $170,000 retrofit rear to co-coilect $40,000 cart/pai Wpromotion $25.00 municipal compost site $1,800,000 value of older trucks $50,000 per truck per truck ($30K plus 10K for rental during retrofit) per household per truck Annual Operating Costs Item rear-loader side loader or co-collection cart replacement promotion/education transfedhaul (SSO) processing (SSO) tranfer/haul/tip waste cost unit $210,000 per truck $125,000 per truck $0.50 per household (2% of $25) $2.50 per household $15.00 per tonne $50.00 per tonne $80.00 per tonne (76.6 x 2YOcli x 3%gst) A-3 16/07/

20 Costing Current System Capital Operating rear trucks side trucks tipping sub-total units O $ cost 4 $ 840,000 3 $ 375,000 19,156 $ 1,532,499 $ 2,747,499 Separate Weekly Capital trucks (rear, single) trucks (side, single) carvpail/prornotion sub-total Operating rear trucks side trucks organics transfedhauvprocess garbage transfer/haul/tip promotion/education replacement carts sub-total units cost 4 $ 680,000 2 $ 420,000 34,120 $ 853,000 $ 1,953,000 8 $ 1,680,000 5 $ 625,000 6,100 $ 396,478 12,133 $ 970,671 34,120 $ 85,300 34,120 $ 17,060 $ 3,672,149 Alternate Weekly Capital units cost trucks (rear, single) 2 $ 340,000 trucks (side, single) O $ - cart/pail/prornotion 34,120 $ 853,000 sub-total $1,I 93,000 Operating rear trucks 6 $1,260,000 side trucks 3 $ 375,000 organics processing 6,100 $ 396,478 garbage transfer/haui/ti[ 12,133 $ 970,671 promotioweducation 34,120 $ 85,300 replacrnent carts 34,120 $ 17,060 sub-total $3,104,509 Weekly Co-Collection Alternate Week Co-Collection Capital units cost retrofits (4 rear) 4 $ 160,000 new rear co-collection 2 $ 400,000 new side co-collection 3 $ 690,000 trade-in 3 $ (150,000) cart/pail/prornotion 34,120 $ 853,000 sub-total $ 1,953,000 Operating rear trucks 6 $ 1,260,000 side trucks 3 $ 375,000 organic processing 6,100 $ 396,478 garbage transfer/haul/tip 12,133 $ 970,671 promotiodeducation 34,120 $ 85,300 replacrnent carts 34,120 $ 17,060 sub-total $ 3,104,509 new side co-collection A-4 16/07/

21 Costing (continued) Weekly Organics and Bi-Weekly Garbage Capital new rear new side carvpail/prornotion Operating rear trucks side trucks organic processing garbage transfer/haul/tip promotiodeducation replacment carts sub-total sub-total units cost 3 $ 510,000 1 $ 210,000 34,120 $ 853,000 $ 1,573,000 7 $ 1,470,000 4 $ 500,000 6,100 $ 396,478 12,133 $ 970,671 34,120 $ 85,300 34,120 $ 17,060 $ 3,439,509 Costing Summary Scenario Status Quo Weekly Organics/Garbage Bi-Weekly OrganicdGarbage Weekly Co-collection Bi-Weekly Co-collection Weekly Org/Bi-Weekly Garbap $ 1,573,000 Capital Operating Difference $ - $ 2,747,499 $ - $ 1,953,000 $ 3,672,149 $ 924,650 $ 1,I 93,000 $ 3,104,509 $ 357,010 $ 1,953,000 $ 3,104,509 $ 357,010 $ 1,323,000 $ 2,559,509 $ (187,990) $ 3,439,509 $ 692,010 A-5 16/07/