Multi-Family Diversion Program Best Practices

Transcription

1 Multi-Family Diversion Program Best Practices Prepared for: The City of Calgary Multi-Family Waste Diversion Stakeholder Engagement & Strategy Project No Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 70 Southgate Dr. Suite 1 Guelph, ON N1G 4P5

2 Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 ABBREVIATIONS... III 2 INTRODUCTION STATUS OF MULTI-FAMILY WASTE DIVERSION PROGRAMS MULTI-FAMILY WASTE DIVERSION IN CANADA Metro Vancouver Burnaby, B.C New Westminster, B.C Port Coquitlam, B.C Vancouver, B.C Toronto, Ontario Region of Peel, Ontario York Region, Ontario Hamilton, Ontario Halifax, Nova Scotia MULTI-FAMILY WASTE DIVERSION PROGRAMS IN THE U.S Seattle, Washington San Diego, California Montgomery County, Maryland Portland, Oregon San Jose, California San Francisco, California RECYCLABLES PROCESSING ORGANICS PROCESSING BEST PRACTICES IN MULTI-FAMILY WASTE DIVERSION CONVENIENCE OF DIVERSION PROGRAMS Chutes and Chute Rooms IMPLEMENTATION OF DIVERSION PROGRAMS EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS Municipal Staff Building Staff/Owners Recycling Champions Residents Educational Materials Distribution of P&E Material COLLECTION CONTAINERS Recycling Garbage Organics Provision of Containers Container Design Internal Collection External Collection Loading and Access i

3 Table of Contents 4.5 PLANNING AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT Regulatory Mechanisms Policy Development Site Plan Approval and Waste Collection Policies Recycling Plans and Reports MONITORING FINANCES Incentives Funding Mechanisms CLOSURE List of Tables Table 3-1: Summary of Burnaby s Multi-Family Waste Program... 3 Table 3-2: Summary of New Westminster s Multi-Family Waste Program... 4 Table 3-3: Summary of Port Coquitlam s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs... 5 Table 3-4: Summary of the Vancouver s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs... 6 Table 3-5: Summary of the Toronto s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs... 9 Table 3-6: Summary of Seattle s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs Table 3-7: Summary of San Diego s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs Table 3-8: Summary of Montgomery County s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs Table 3-9: Summary of Portland s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs Table 3-10: Summary of San Jose s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs Table 3-11: Summary of San Francisco s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs Table 3-12: MRF Ownership and Operation Table 3-13: Organics Processing Facility Ownership and Operations List of Appendices Appendix A Summary of Best Practices from KPMG Report Appendix B Summary of CIF Guidelines for Implementing Best Practices in Municipal Multi-residential Recycling Programs Appendix C Summary of Consultation with Stakeholders (E&E Funds 186, 199) Appendix D Summary of Best Practices for Storage and Collection of Recyclables ii

4 Table of Contents Abbreviations The following abbreviations can be found throughout the document and are presented here for the City s reference. C&D CIF E&E Fund FORC GTA HHW IC&I L MIPC MRF MSW P&E PAYT SSO tpd U.V. WDO yd 3 Construction and Demolition Continuous Improvement Fund Effectiveness and Efficiency Fund Friend of Recycling and Composting (program in Seattle) Greater Toronto Area Household Hazardous Waste Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Litre Municipal-Industry Programs Committee Material Recovery Facility or Material Recycling Facility Municipal Solid Waste Promotion and Education Pay-as-you-throw Source Separated Organics Ton(nes) per day Ultraviolet Waste Diversion Ontario Cubic yard iii

5 Section 1: Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Multi-Family Waste Diversion Stakeholder Engagement & Strategy is to identify methods to develop a strategy to manage solid waste from the multi-family sector. It will be difficult for The City of Calgary (the City) to achieve its 80/20 by 2020 waste diversion goal without a well-designed recycling program. There are a number of successful multi-family diversion programs in municipalities across Canada and in the United States (U.S.) from which a number of best practices can be identified. As opposed to re-inventing the wheel, this enables the City to draw from the experiences of other jurisdictions and to implement those facets of programming that are best suited to the City s unique needs. A review of a number of multi-family sector waste diversion programs in Canada and the U.S. was conducted and the results of that review are presented in Section 3. This review is intended to provide The City with a good understanding of the nature of multi-family sector waste diversion programming initiatives in other jurisdictions, particularly those suited to larger municipalities like the City of Calgary. The challenges associated with multi-family sector waste diversion are shared by all large municipalities; however, approaches to capturing recyclable and compostable material from this sector vary greatly within Canada and across North America. Generally some degree of municipal ownership of a program is required to increase and maintain diversion in this sector. This can be achieved through regulatory and reporting requirements, but is more typically associated with financial incentives or disincentives to drive programs. A brief overview of processing arrangements was conducted for some of the larger jurisdictions in North America to provide information on public or private ownership and operating arrangements. Generally, MRFs in Ontario are publically owned and privately operated and all cities researched in the U.S. utilize private processors for recyclables and organics from all sectors. An overview of a number of best practices identified through research conducted by municipalities who have implemented multi-family diversion programs is presented in Section 4 which outlines the best practices that are likely the most applicable to the development of a successful multi-family waste diversion program for the City. 1

6 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs 2 STATUS OF MULTI-FAMILY WASTE DIVERSION PROGRAMS This section provides discussion on the general status of multi-family sector diversion programs from select municipalities across Canada and the United States (U.S.) again for the purposes of understanding what initiatives other similar size jurisdictions have undertaken but also to understand the drivers that have affected the decision for municipalities to take greater ownership of multi-family sector waste diversion programs. By understanding the drivers to the greatest extent possible, both the challenges and the opportunities associated with these programs can be identified to assist The City in developing an achievable plan for increased waste diversion from this sector. 2.1 Multi-Family Waste Diversion in Canada The following sections provide a description of multi-family waste diversion programs implemented in some larger municipalities across Canada Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver is comprised of 21 municipalities and is responsible for managing the garbage produced by 2.3 million residents and businesses in the Lower Mainland. Recognizing the need to divert additional waste, Metro Vancouver developed an Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan which was approved by the Metro Vancouver Board in 2010 and the Province in The plan outlines initiatives to achieve waste diversion rates of 70% by 2015 and 80% by This overall target assumes a diversion rate of 30% from the multi-family sector 1. Metro Vancouver s website states that the Region recycles about 55% of its garbage, however, much of that stems from the high recycling rate (76%) of the Construction and Demolition (C&D) industry; single family homes diverted approximately 46%, and the multi-family sector is diverting approximately 16% 2. The strategy identifies the need to target the multi-family and industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) sectors to improve the diversion rate. To support increased diversion, Metro Vancouver has developed a Draft Municipal Bylaw Addition and Bylaw Schedule to assist municipalities in developing coordinated bylaws which will require recycling in all multi-family and commercial buildings, and will support municipalities with the implementation of these bylaws by developing an enforcement model 3. The draft bylaw provides a working example to encourage a consistent level of service and language throughout the district. 1 Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management a Solid Waste Management Plan for the Greater Vancouver Regional District and Member Municipalities. July Metro Vancouver Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues. Zero Waste Challenge: Accelerating Multi-Family Waste Diversion. April 20, Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management a Solid Waste Management Plan for the Greater Vancouver Regional District and Member Municipalities. July

7 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs Metro Vancouver has issued a Zero Waste Challenge, supported by a comprehensive promotion and education (P&E) program featuring an extensive directory of places residents can donate or recycle goods, a free iphone/ipad app, signage for businesses and an entire webpage with recycling artwork and educational/promotional materials for various waste management programs in addition to a regular website with information for residents and businesses on solid waste and recycling. Below is an overview of some of the multi-family programs that provide for both recycling and organics collection from the multi-family sector which fall under the jurisdiction of Metro Vancouver Burnaby, B.C. The City of Burnaby provides for collection of recyclables, organics and residual waste from approximately 30,000 multi-family units. Under the new 2010 Solid Waste and Recycling Bylaw, recycling programs must be established in multi-family buildings 4. In 2011, the City offered food scrap collection to those buildings receiving garbage and recyclables collection by the City. In 2012, Council approved changes to Burnaby's Solid Waste and Recycling Bylaw to include mandatory separation of food scraps from the garbage for multi-family complexes (apartments, condos & townhomes). Under the City's bylaw it is now mandatory that all residential households (single family, two-family and multi-family) separate recyclables, food scraps and yard waste from the garbage. Garbage is collected using roll-off metal containers, while yard trimmings/food scraps and recyclables are collected in colour-coded wheeled containers, all of which are provided by the City 5. The recycling program collects three streams - mixed containers, newspaper and mixed paper products. The recycling totes are rolled out to the curbside by building staff for weekly collection by City crews. Green bins are collected weekly and must be placed at an approved pick up location for collection. Table 3-1: Summary of Burnaby s Multi-Family Waste Program Collection Method Funding Structure P&E Program Recycling Organics Waste Tax-based to cover costs of collection, processing and The City provides guides on recycling, organic Blue totes Front-end disposal. Fees collected as waste and garbage in Green carts 3 streams collection bins part of property taxes. multiple languages. Collection Frequency Regulatory Requirement Recycling Weekly Organics Weekly Waste Weekly The Solid Waste and Recycling 6 by-law requires for the source separation of recyclable, organic and residue waste material from the multi-family sector. It also requires property owners to communicate program specifics to all new tenants and all tenants on an annual basis Solid Waste and Recycling Annual Report. City of Burnaby Engineering Department Solid Waste and Recycling Annual Report. City of Burnaby Engineering Department 6 City of Burnaby. Burnaby Solid Waste and Recycling Bylaw Bylaw No

8 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs New Westminster, B.C. The City of New Westminster recently (March 2012) announced plans to expand the food scraps recycling program to multi-family buildings. The implementation of the program follows a successful pilot program which utilized P&E tactics such as lobby displays and distribution of educational material to residents. The multi-family food scrap collection program allows for the collection of food scraps and yard waste on a weekly basis. The City is aiming to implement the multi-family food scraps recycling program city-wide in the summer of 2012 where carts and promotion and education materials will be delivered to multi-family properties over a 6-week period 7. Following the roll-out of the multi-family program, the City is planning to pilot a Recycling Champion program whereby resident champions can provide input via workshops and surveys regarding the best type of tools and resources to assist in increasing diversion in their complex. The drivers behind the implementation of the recycling and organic collection programs are to meet Metro Vancouver s 70% waste diversion goal and to support the City s commitment to sustainability 8. Garbage is collected using front-end collection bins, 120L or 240L collection carts. Recycling and organic waste are collected in colour-coded carts. Collection services are contracted out by the City to a private waste hauler. The recycling program collects three streams - mixed containers, newspaper and mixed paper products on a weekly basis. The City charges a standard per unit rate on an annual basis to provide three stream recycling collection services. Some locations may opt to privately contract collection services, however they are still charged the standard per unit rate by the City. Table 3-2: Summary of New Westminster s Multi-Family Waste Program Collection Method Funding Structure P&E Program Recycling Organics Waste Tax-based to cover costs of collection, processing and Totes Totes or frontend bins Carts disposal. Fees collected as 3 stream part of property taxes. Collection Frequency Regulatory Requirement Recycling Organics Waste No regulatory requirement to participate in the recycling or organics collection programs, all volunteer based. Weekly Weekly Twice per week, weekly or biweekly A New Westminster resident participating in a Multi-family food scraps diversion program. Source: The Record Information on what is acceptable in the organics program available online. Recycling brochure from service provider available for download. Piloting a recycling Champion program, where the City is providing education to volunteers from multi-family locations to champion the recycling program within their buildings. 7 New Westminster. Multi-Family Recycling Collection New!. recycling_calendar/articles154.php 8 City of New Westminster. Press Release New Westminster adopts multi-family food scraps recycling program. March 13,

9 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs Port Coquitlam, B.C. The City provides collection of recyclables and organics from multi-family properties, however, locations have to apply to the City to receive collection. There is an annual rate charged to the properties for the collection services that varies for the different material streams collected and cart sizes... Currently the City provides collection to more than 7,000 apartment and townhouse residences. In order to provide collection services, the City s automated trucks must be able to access the recycling and organics collection carts in a safe and efficient manner. The number of recycling collection totes provided to a property is one 360-litre cart for every three units, larger or extra containers are available for additional fees 9. A requirement for organics collection is that each property must select a Green Cart Champion to serve as an ambassador for the program and act as the go-to person for their property. Properties will receive one 240-litre green cart for every 20 units and are required to be stored in an approved wildliferesistant enclosure (e.g. gated underground parking or a shed) or must have a wildlife-resistant lock 10. The City will provide education materials, kitchen pails and sample kraft paper bag liners at the start of each program. Compostable/biodegradable bags are not allowed in the City s organics program. Instead of providing three different coloured carts, the City provides carts which have colour-coded lids, the cart itself is the same colour for all three streams which could provide economies in purchasing and replacing carts. Table 3-3: Summary of Port Coquitlam s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs Collection Method Funding Structure P&E Program Recycling Organics Waste Annual rate for City collection Green Cart Champions required. Carts Singlestream 240L Carts 120L or 240L carts service. For 360L cart: Garbage - $ Organics - $71.28 Recycling - $10 to cover collection, processing and disposal. Collection Frequency Regulatory Requirement Recycling Organics Waste To comply with landfill ban which includes: Weekly from Corrugated cardboard mid-may to Newsprint mid- Office paper Bi-weekly November, Bi-weekly Gypsum drywall biweekly Yard and garden waste November to Beverage containers (all except April milk) Blue box recyclables Lead-acid (car) batteries Medications/pharmaceuticals Paint, solvents, flammable liquids, gasoline and pesticides Vehicle tires Oil, oil filters and empty containers Electronic waste including personal computers, printers, and TVs 9 Port Coquitlam. Multi-Family Recycling. Recycling_and_Green_Waste_Collection_Services/Recycling/Multi- Family_Recycling.htm 10 Port Coquitlam. Multi-Family Green Cart Program. Recycling_and_Green_Waste_Collection_Services/Green_Cart_Program/ Multi-Family_Green_Cart_Program.htm 5

10 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs Vancouver, B.C. The City of Vancouver's Apartment Recycling Program has been operating since 1999 for the approximately 50% of Vancouver s population who reside in multi-family buildings. The program enables residents in apartments, condominiums, co-ops, townhouses and other multi-family buildings to recycle the same materials as single-family residents. The Apartment program includes more than 156,000 residential suites and 4,800 multi-family buildings in Vancouver 11. Multi-family buildings are supplied with wheeled carts for the separate collection of newsprint, mixed paper products and mixed containers. Each residential suite gets a reusable tote bag for storing and transporting recyclables to the wheeled carts. Some small multi-family buildings (5 suites or less) will use blue boxes and bags for their recyclables. The City recognizes the organics collection is required to increase diversion rates, and has implemented a pilot food scraps collection program for 2,000 single-family households in two areas of the City combined with biweekly garbage collection. There does not appear to be a similar program for multifamily properties. In the meantime, the City provides vermicomposting units to residents of multi-family buildings interested in composting. A complete kit costs $25.00 and includes a workshop at the compost demonstration garden. Table 3-4: Summary of the Vancouver s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs Collection Method Funding Structure P&E Program Recycling Blue Boxes or carts Three Stream Organics n/a Waste L carts Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) for garbage collection. Charges for recycling are based on number of units, number of stops and if carts need to be rolled out by collection crew. Collection calendars available online and sent to residents by mail. Provide a blue cart guide to residents in 5 languages. Collection Frequency Regulatory Requirement Recycling Organics Waste Must comply with landfill bans. weekly n/a weekly Toronto, Ontario The City of Toronto has an aggressive waste diversion target of 70% in order to preserve air space capacity at its landfill. In 2011, the City s combined waste diversion rate for single and multi-family residences was 49%. The City anticipates this rate will increase as more multi-family buildings are brought on-stream and the Source Separated Organics (SSO), program is expanded to more multi-family buildings. The City of Toronto s SSO program accepts all food scraps including meats and oils, solid paper products, and sanitary products (e.g. diapers). 11 Recycling Apartment Recycling Program. Engineering Services, Solid Waste. City of Vancouver. 6

11 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs In 2011, Toronto provided waste management services to 452,000 multi-family units with an estimated diversion rate of 20% from multi-family buildings 12. Front end collection is contracted out; City forces provide collection for 360 litre carts. Multi-residential buildings must fully participate in the City s diversion programs to receive City waste collection; those buildings opting for private waste collection are not eligible for any of the City s waste diversion programs which are provided free of charge to City customers. In order to provide guidance on diversion in multi-family buildings, the Multi-Family Waste Diversion Working Group was formed, consisting of City staff and members from the Greater Toronto apartment Association, Toronto Community Housing Corporation, large and small property management companies, tenant and condo associations and other interest groups. The group s mandate is to explore ways of implementing waste diversion initiatives, achieving waste diversion targets and providing input into the City s P&E program. One of the Group s latest initiatives was a change in the billing structure and rate for multi-residential buildings. Toronto switched their billing system in 2010, from a bin equivalent rate to a linear cubic yard charge which simplifies billing, shows the impact of diversion more clearly and is more competitive with private service providers. Each building is charged a base rate, plus an excess fee for compacted or uncompacted garbage and a solid waste rebate. Once the rebate is applied, customers effectively pay only for any excess waste over the base volume (base volume bin equivalent of up to cubic yards for un-compacted waste per unit per year and up to cubic yards for compacted waste per unit per year. Buildings are provided with collection programs for recyclables, yard waste, organics, bulky items (white and durable goods), waste In 2011, Toronto s combined waste electronics and household diversion rate was 49%. The multi-family hazardous waste in addition to diversion rate was 20%. garbage collection. The City also provides P&E material (calendars, stickers, posters, information cards), coordinates a 3Rs Ambassador Volunteer Program, in-unit recycling containers, E-waste containers and a chute closure permitting program. The City will also provide on-site assistance and support as well as presentation to introduce new programs. The chute closure program is available to multi-family properties that current receive collection services from the City. In order to implement the program, property management has to apply to the City and meet the following eligibility requirements: There must be sufficient space for storage of un-compacted waste containers on the property. There must be sufficient space for the storage of recycling containers on the property. At least six(6) months prior to applying for chute closures the building owner must have obtained sufficient in-suite recycling containers and have distributed the and promoted their use to residents of the building

12 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs The following additional information is also required as part of the application package: A detailed communication plan for current and future residents explaining the waste diversion system in the building. A sample letter to all tenants descripting how to properly recycle and management waste. A sample notice to be used to remind resident of proper waste and recycling disposal processes for the building. An outline of training to be provided to building staff. A detailed plan on how the building will assist seniors and people with disability in transporting their waste, recyclable materials and organics to the common collection point. The owner must also receive at least 51% support from the building residents to close the garbage chute. If the above criteria are met, than the City will issue a permit for closure of the garbage chute in a nonpermanent and easily reversible way. In an effort to make the P&E materials accessible to the almost 20% of Toronto s residents who do not speak English, the City uses Google Translate for online information, and provides printed material in 6 other languages. The following information resources are made available by the City: Online Resources o Annual Recycling Calendar for Apartment Buildings & Condos provides information in 6 other languages o o o o o o Website uses Google Translate to translate to 51 languages Waste Wizard online search tool for over 1500 items Community Environment Days Drop-off Depots ReUse It Guide 3Rs Ambassador Volunteer Program o 311 o Presentations made to management, and from recycling companies about multi-family recycling programs. For Managers, Owners, Superintendents o o o o Signage & bin recycling stickers Lobby, chute room, elevator posters Guides Superintendent handbook 8

13 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs o o Posters in different languages Information cards printed in 23 languages Information is printed in daily newspapers, community papers, multi-ethnic publications, radio, on-line ads, TV screens in buildings, transit shelters and videos. The City has produced a number of engaging videos on a variety of waste management topics; the characters in the video are featured on posters and online in a cohesive, recognizable campaign. Currently, all of Toronto s 2,636 multi-family buildings with front end bins have been invited to participate in the Green Bin program. SSO will be collected in 2 or 3 cubic yard bins, which the property owners must purchase. The City provides SSO collection to those multi-family buildings receiving waste collection by the City at no charge. There are currently over 600 properties on the program, another 1600 smaller buildings will soon be invited to join and have their waste collected in 35 gallon carts. Table 3-5: Summary of the Toronto s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs Collection Method Funding Structure P&E Program Recycling Organics Residual Waste Base rate plus excess fee charged on a differential rate Front-end bins, 96 gallon Front-end bins or for un-compacted and and/or blue carts 360 litre bins compacted garbage. totes Free collection for recyclable Single Stream and organic materials See above Waste Reduction Workshops for Property Owners, Managers and Superintendents. Online fee calculator for building management Collection Frequency Regulatory Requirement Recycling Organics Residual Waste Waste Collection, Residential Properties Bylaw (Chapter weekly 844) defines the services for which residential customers are entitled. Weekly (biweekly for those with biweekly waste collection) Region of Peel, Ontario Once or twice weekly or biweekly, at customer s request Requirements for Developments and Re-developments is an extension of the by-law which defines the guidelines for collection services. Management must apply to City and meet eligibility requirements to obtain and maintain a permit to close the garbage chute. The Region of Peel (the Region) has a high proportion of residents living in multi-family buildings which account for 25-30% of all households in Peel 13. The Region collects waste and recyclable materials from approximately 652 apartments and townhouse complexes (88,000 units). The majority of properties (over 50% of properties in Region) receive front-end collection of waste. Recycling is mandatory, in the 13 Multi-Residential Diversion. Region of Peel Perspective. PM Expo, Toronto. December 2,

14 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs buildings that receive waste collection services through the Region, and the service may be revoked if property fails to comply 14. The Region of Peel is not considering organics collection for multi-family properties at this time for two main reasons. The first reason is to focus on increasing recycling in multi-family buildings and the second is a lack of processing capacity for SSO. Although the Region has existing processing capacity for SSO generated by the single-family sector, there is no ability to process additional SSO at this time York Region, Ontario Waste management practices in York Region vary by municipality lower tier municipalities are responsible for waste collection while the Region is responsible for diversion and disposal programs. Although most municipalities provide both waste and recycling collection to multi-family buildings, only Markham and Richmond Hill also provide collection of organics. The Region has acknowledged that there will be significant increases in the growth of multi-family buildings with intensification in designated communities and cohesive collection practices will be required as well as policies and supporting enforcement mechanisms. As a In 2009, York Region s combined waste first step, the Region has mandated diversion rate was 57%. The multi-family three stream waste management in diversion rate was 20%. new buildings, described further in Section Hamilton, Ontario The City of Hamilton has a large percentage of the population in multi-family buildings, roughly 33% or over 165,000 residents in multi-family buildings. The City provides garbage, organics and two-stream recycling collection to multi-family In 2011, Hamilton s combined waste buildings. These programs are diversion rate was 49%. The multi-family funded diversion rate was 21%. through the tax base, there are no financial incentives to divert waste which is, in part, reflected in the multi-family diversion rate and participation in the programs. The City s overall diversion rate in 2011 was 49%, with a multi-family diversion rate of 21%. The City completed the implementation of the multi-family waste diversion program in 2010, with 1000 buildings, including 45,000 units provided with full organics and recycling programs. The City has recently completed a Waste Management Master Plan which contains recommendations related to increasing diversion in multi-family buildings including increased promotion and education (P&E) and enforcement of mandatory waste diversion as prescribed in the City s waste management bylaw. 14 Recycling Handbook for Owners, Property Managers and Superintendents. Region of Peel. 10

15 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs Halifax, Nova Scotia Halifax bans recyclable and organic material from its landfill, and mandates source separation of these materials at all multi-family buildings under By-law S-600. Owners are required to make arrangements for collection of waste materials, the City does not provide collection to multi-family buildings, nor do they provide any collection containers. There is no reporting requirements stipulated in the by-law, therefore the diversion rates for these properties are not currently tracked. Property owners are required to provide bins for the separation of containers, fibre, corrugated cardboard, organics and garbage. Solid Waste Resources staff will provide free education sessions/workshops and will provide brochures, pamphlets and signs for the program. 2.2 Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs in the U.S. Waste diversion programs in the U.S. are well-entrenched in most major U.S. cities. Expansion to multifamily buildings has been recognized as a way to achieve diversion targets, often mandated by the State. The following sections provide an overview of diversion programs in some larger American cities Seattle, Washington The City of Seattle, Washington has an ordinance requiring residents to source separate waste, and in 2011, added the requirement for owners of apartment and condominium properties to provide food and yard waste collection. Free recycling is available for apartments, condominiums, co-ops, fraternities, sororities and house boats. In 2010, Seattle s diversion rate was 53.7% 15 (including single and multifamily waste, commercial and self-haul waste). This year saw Seattle s highest multi-family diversion rate at 29.6% resulting from an increase in the amount of food waste collection. Seattle provides garbage service to 7,500 multi-family buildings and about 3,900 have signed up for organics collection. In 2010, Seattle s combined waste diversion rate was 54%. The multi-family diversion rate was 30%. Seattle, through their Public Utilities department, provides a variety of incentives and disincentives for waste diversion and disposal. For example, when garbage dumpsters contain more than 10 percent recyclables, the garbage will be collected but a warning notice will be mailed to the garbage account customer. After two warning notices have been mailed, a charge of $50 will be added to the utility bill. If the recycling dumpster is contaminated with garbage, it will be charged at the higher garbage rate 16. Dumpster service is provided at rates according to size and collection frequency, recycling collection is provided at no charge. 15 City of Seattle, 2010 Recycling Rate Report 16 Seattle Public Utilities. Services, Recycling, Apartment and Condo Owners. 11

16 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs Carts are priced according to size and location of pickup curbside collection is less expensive than on-site collection. Pricing includes the insertion of a fresh liner in the cart every week by the collection service provider. Identification of a Friend of Recycling and Composting (FORC) who will act as the champion for the recycling and organics diversion program and monitors collection containers for contamination, displays educational posters in common areas and educates residents about proper disposal of items. Once this person is registered with Seattle Public Utilities, the property is eligible for a $ credit; training by the City can be provided, and upon completion of the training, the building is eligible for inunit organics containers for all units. Table 3-6: Summary of Seattle s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs Collection Method Funding Structure P&E Program Recycling Organics Residual Waste Variable rate PAYT. Recyclables are collected for free. Front-end bins, and/or blue totes Single-stream collection gallon carts depending on size of building Front-end bins Collection Frequency Regulatory Requirement Recycling Organics Residual Waste By-law prohibits disposal of recyclable paper, cardboard, glass and plastic bottles and metal containers in the residual waste stream. Weekly Weekly Weekly San Diego, California Education videos in multiple languages addressing recycling, food waste collection, processing, and reduction initiatives. Recycling and Composting Steward program volunteer program to help educate tenants and monitor collection containers. Downloadable recycling guides, flyers and posters in multiple languages. General food waste training for residents. Provides a letter template to residents from management regarding the program. San Diego has a Recycling Ordinance which was made In 2010, San Diego s combined waste diversion rate was 66%. effective in 2010 requiring all apartments and condominiums to divert at least 40% of materials from landfill. The ordinance requires an annual reporting document to be submitted to the City s Environmental Services Department. Multi-family locations that receive services from a franchised hauler or certified recyclable material collector will have the report documented submitted by the service provider, all other facilities are required to complete and submit the reporting form 17.The ordinance is enforced through a Code Compliance Officer who can inspect a multi-family location at any time to confirm participation in the mandatory program. The onus is 17 The City of San Diego Recycling Ordinance Reporting. 12

17 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs on the property owner to educate tenants, provide accessibility to recycling containers and to contract with an approved collection contractor to service the location. The focus of the City s Recycling Ordinance is to achieve compliance through education and technical assistance, but fines may be assessed in cases where education and assistance have been offered and the violator continues to fail to meet the requirements of the ordinance 18 All multi-family locations are required to report on their diversion programs on an annual basis. The City maintains a list of City-certified recyclers or franchise waste haulers who will report building compliance on behalf of the owner. Owners who contract with companies who are not City-certified, must submit an annual Recycling Reporting Form to demonstrate compliance themselves. Effective, the exemption threshold for the ordinance will be lowered from six cubic yards to four cubic yards per week, to comply with State mandated requirements requiring buildings with five or more units to recycle. The City also has an ordinance regarding recycling container and signage guidelines which also provides definitions 19 for convenient and adequate with respect to provision and placement of containers. Convenient is defined as either at or next to each current solid waste container or disposal area, or as close as possible to these areas and/or high pedestrian traffic areas. Recycling containers shall be paired with solid waste containers of equivalent volume capacity at each waste disposal area. Adequate is defined as for multi-family residences with 50 units or more, the minimum required ratio of recycling capacity to trash capacity is 40% recycling to 60% trash. For multi-family residences with less than 50 units, the ratio should be 30% recycling to 70% trash. In 2010, the City s overall diversion rate was 66%. The diversion rate for multi-family buildings is not known. The City has a number of resources available on their website, provides P&E materials in different languages, and each month, features a successful multi-family building recycling program with a description of the successes of the program, reporting on the amount of waste diverted as well as amount of money saved. A Recycling Champion Award is given to building staff who are responsible for the successes of the program. 18 The City of San Diego Recycling Ordinance Step-by-step Guide

18 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs Table 3-7: Summary of San Diego s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs Collection Method Funding Structure P&E Program Recycling Organics Residual Waste Collection services are the responsibility of the property owner. Front-end bins, and/or blue carts Single- stream collection n/a Front-end bins Collection Frequency Regulatory Requirement Recycling Organics Residual Waste Recycling Ordinance requires all multi-family locations to Determined by Determined by n/a provide recycling and maintain service provider service provider at least a 40% diversion rate Montgomery County, Maryland Downloadable recycling guides, flyers and posters in multiple languages and guidebooks for property owners on how to educate tenants. Montgomery County, Maryland, located adjacent to Washington D.C., has a relatively high proportion of multi-family dwellings (approximately 30%) and has instituted Executive Regulation 15-04AM requiring all multi-family properties to recycle certain materials 20, by contracting collection services for the collection of the following materials: Mixed paper Aluminum and steel/tin food and beverage cans and aluminum foil products. Plastic bottles with necks. Glass bottles and jars. Yard trimmings (grass, leaves and brush). Christmas trees. Scrap metal items (including old appliances). Montgomery County has established a County-wide goal to recycle 50 percent of the solid waste generated in the County; currently (2011) the overall diversion rate is 44% (no breakdown was available for single or multi-family diversion rates). The County has requirements for owners of multi-family residences to submit an annual multi-family property recycling report to the County to assist with tracking diversion. New multi-family properties must have an approved Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan on file with the County that includes a description of the collection program, where the recyclables will be taken, the name of the individual responsible for the program, the In 2011, Montgomery County s combined education strategy used to promote waste diversion rate was 44%. the program. 20 Montgomery County, Maryland. Property Manager s Guide to Recycling. Recycling Information for Multi-family Properties. 14

19 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs Table 3-8: Summary of Montgomery County s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs Collection Method Funding Structure P&E Program Recycling Organics Residual Collection services are Waste the responsibility of the n/a Front-end bins property owner. The property owner has the ability to self-haul materials to the County s Recycling Centre for processing. Front-end bins, and/or blue totes Sorting requirements depend on collection contractor. The County s Recycling Centre accepts separate fiber and container recycling streams. Recycling Determined by service provider Collection Frequency Portland, Oregon Organics n/a Residual Waste Determined by service provider Regulatory Requirement Regulatory requirement for multi-family facility to provide recycling for fibers, containers and yard waste. Free training is provided for facility management and resident volunteers through the County. The County offers: Technical assistance to develop a reduction and recycling plan. Resident s guide to recycling (English and Spanish) Posters, labels, recycling brochures and a recycling video in multiple languages. All materials and guidelines can be downloaded from the County s website. An online blog provides further information on waste management issues, reminders, and schedule changes. County provides in-unit recycling containers for free. The City of Portland requires property owners/managers of any dwelling with five or more units to provide garbage and recycling services. The City has a number of best practices for garbage and recycling management practices: Choose a collection service provider Choose a location for recycling that is as convenient as garbage Provide recycling information within 30 days of move-in and on an annual basis. The City requires two separate streams; glass and everything else (fibres and containers). The City provides educational materials, including brochures available in 6 languages, a door hanger bag containing a refrigerator magnet and a brochure, recycling signs available for indoor and outdoor placement, and a multi-family Property Manager Recycling Guide. Additional P&E materials are available from collection service providers. The City has made it very convenient for Property Managers/Owners to order materials from the City by fax, mail or online by completing an order form. This order form also allows Property Managers/Owners to request a site visit or presentation by City staff, and provides choices for delivery options for door hanger information cards. Property Managers/Owners can opt to deliver the door hangers themselves or request that City staff distribute the door hangers during the daytime, (no resident contact) or in the 15

20 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs evening when staff will knock on doors and answer questions all free of charge. The City also has a Recycling Information Hotline. Multi-family buildings are not included in the new SSO curbside collection program, however, food scrap collection is available. The City is currently working with over 100 multi-family buildings who are already composting to determine the best way to implement a full-scale program as well as to develop P&E materials. Table 3-9: Summary of Portland s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs Collection Method Funding Structure P&E Program Recycling Organics Residual Collection services Waste provided through n/a Front-end bins franchise system and are the responsibility of the property owner. Front-end bins, and/or blue totes 2-stream glass and all other materials Collection Frequency Recycling Organics Residual Waste Weekly n/a Weekly Regulatory Requirement Regulatory requirement for multi-family facility to provide recycling containers for glass and all other recyclables. Must provide educational material annually and within 30 days of move-in. Posters, labels, recycling brochures and door hangers with fridge magnets in multiple languages which can be ordered online by property owners/managers. City will assist with distribution of P&E materials and will conduct presentations and site visits. Monthly recognition and awards for multi-family buildings with successful recycling programs San Jose, California The City of San Jose is a large urban city with 96,000 MF households (3,300 complexes) which generate 90,000 tons annually, and boasts an enviable diversion rate of 78% 21, achieved through source separation and mixed waste processing. The City provides collection of garbage and recyclables to multi-family buildings; rates are based on bin size and frequency of collection. Garbage rates include weekly collection of the same size recycling bin. Additional charges are levied if the recycling containers are contaminated with garbage. All multi-family garbage is delivered to GreenWaste Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) for recyclables processing, organics are transferred to the Z-Best facility for composting. 22 The diversion rate for July 2008 to December 2010 was 78% with the following breakdown; In 2010, San Jose s combined waste diversion rate was 78%. 21 San Jose s Multi-family Program, Counting Down to Zero Waste, SWANA Western Regional Symposium, May San Jose s Multi-family Program, Counting Down to Zero Waste, SWANA Western Regional Symposium, May

21 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs Composted MSW 37% Source Separated Recyclables 17% Recyclables from MSW 24% Residue to Landfill - 22% An innovative service provided by the City is an annual cleaning of bins provided at no charge to multifamily buildings. More frequent cleaning can be arranged for an additional charge. Table 3-10: Summary of San Jose s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs Collection Method Funding Structure P&E Program Recycling Organics Residual Waste PAYT Recycling guide in English, Carts or front-end bins (same size as garbage bin) n/a Front-end bins Spanish or Vietnamese for residents. Variety of online resources. Regulatory Multi-lingual posters, Collection Frequency container labels and Requirement recycling guides available Recycling Organics Residual Waste Currently only from the City. Weekly n/a Can arrange for provision of garbage City staff are available to up to 5 times a collection is conduct a service week collection mandatory, however, assessment of recycling and/or extra state regulations may and garbage service needs pickups. require mandatory and potential for cost recycling for multifamily buildings greater savings. than 5 units San Francisco, California San Francisco mandated a goal of 75% waste diversion by 2010 and zero waste by The City was able to surpass their first target two years early, with a diversion rate of 77% in In 2009, the City introduced a mandatory recycling and composting program with its Fantastic Three Campaign for residences and businesses. One of the drivers In 2008, San Francisco s combined waste behind this aggressive campaign is diversion rate was 77%. that the local landfill is estimated to reach capacity in San Francisco provides an online Property Manager s Lounge with information on services they provide for multi-family buildings. Online resources include; Information on the battery collection program with battery buckets provided as well as an informational poster and postcards to notify residents of the program. 23 City and County of San Francisco, News Release, August 27,

22 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs Green cart program checklists, posters for food waste and paper towel collection Tenant Diversion Memos in a customizable letter format Recycling posters and flyers Garbage posters (showing materials to put in garbage bin) Chute signs Brochures on HHW and bulky item collection Table 3-11: Summary of San Francisco s Multi-Family Waste Collection Programs Collection Method Funding Structure P&E Program Recycling Organics Residual Waste PAYT Online resources as Carts or front-end bins (same size as garbage bin) Single stream n/a Front-end bins described above. Artist in residence program as described above. Collection Frequency Regulatory Advertise on side of collection vehicles. Requirement Recycling Organics Residual Waste Currently only provision Weekly Weekly Weekly of garbage collection is mandatory, however, state regulations may require mandatory recycling for multi-family buildings greater than 5 units. While there is the provision for fines associated with non-compliance, San Francisco has been able to reach their diversion rate without them since there was a moratorium of fines in effect until Financial incentives also contributed to the higher diversion rate since the PAYT structure allowed residents and businesses to save money as their garbage volumes decreased. Achieving their goals of waste diversion ahead of schedule was accomplished through a series of regulatory mechanisms as follows: 2004 Green Building Ordinance requiring city construction to manage debris and provide adequate recycling storage space in buildings 2006 C&D Debris Recovery Ordinance required C&D projects to use city-registered transporters and processing facilities to increase debris recovery 2006 Food Service Waste Reduction Ordinance requiring restaurants and food vendors to use recyclable or compostable food ware instead of Styrofoam (polystyrene) Plastic Bag Ordinance requiring supermarkets and drugstores to use compostable plastic, recyclable paper and/or reusable checkout bags Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance requiring all residents and businesses to separate recyclables, organics and trash. 18

23 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs The City, through their service provider, Recology, has a unique program called the Artist-in-Residence program which provides an artist with studio space to work in the MRF/transfer station, access to discarded materials and a monthly stipend. In exchange, artists are expected to speak to elementary school classes and adult tour groups about the experience of working with recycled materials and create three pieces of art for a permanent art collection. The purpose of this program is to encourage the reuse of materials, support artists, educate residents on the three-bin system and encourage discussion about consumption practices and promote new ways of thinking about art and the environment. 2.3 Recyclables Processing As part of the research for this report, an internet search was conducted to investigate how recyclable material is processed in some of the larger municipalities with successful multi-family diversion programs. Table 3-12 presents an overview of the ownership and operating models for some of the larger municipalities in North America with multi-family diversion programs. The majority of cities in the U.S. use privately owned and operated MRFs for processing their recyclables, whereas in Canada, there are more municipally owned MRFs, more often operated by the private sector under contract. With the exception of the MRFs in Hamilton, Ottawa and Halifax, all MRFs researched are single stream. Table 3-12: MRF Ownership and Operation Location Ownership and Notes Operation Metro Vancouver, B.C. Privately owned and operated Each municipality contracts with a private service provider. Toronto, Ontario Municipally owned and privately operated Recyclables processed at municipally owned MRF operated by Canada Fibres and MRF owned and operated by Cascades Recovery. Provision of contract includes requirement to process recyclables from the multi-family sector. Ottawa, Ontario Privately owned and operated Two stream facility - Provision of contract includes requirement to process recyclables from the multi-family sector. Apartments included in definition of residential household. Peel Region, Ontario Municipally owned and privately operated Region collects from multi-family sector and controls that material flow to their own MRF. York Region, Ontario Municipally owned and privately operated Region collects from multi-family sector and controls that material flow to their own MRF. Hamilton, Ontario Municipally owned and privately operated Facility is a two stream MRF. The City provides and collects blue cart material from multi-family sector and controls that material flow to their own MRF. Halifax, Nova Scotia Municipally and/or privately owned; privately operated Multi-family building owners required to contract with private service provider. Material may be brought to the provider s processing facility if available or municipally owned MRF. Facility is a two stream MRF. Seattle, Washington Privately owned and operated The City contracts with private service providers for recycling processing, organics composting and landfill long-haul and disposal. San Diego, California Privately owned and operated City maintains a list of City-certified recyclers or franchise waste haulers that will report recycling service to the City to maintain compliance with City Ordinance. Montgomery County, Municipally owned and All Multi-family buildings must file a recycling plan and a 19

24 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs Location Maryland Portland, Oregon San Jose, California San Francisco, California Ownership and Operation operated and/or privately owned and operated Privately owned and operated Privately owned and operated Privately owned and operated Notes yearly recycling report indicating amount recycled and where material is processed. Material may be brought to a private facility or County MRF. Multi-family building owners required to contract with permitted garbage and recycling company. Facility has side-by-side lines for commingled recyclables and MSW. In 2008, 36,000 tons of commingled recyclables and 89,000 tons of MSW from residential, commercial and multi-family sectors. Overall recycling rate of 85%. The City s waste collection provider, Recology, built an integrated MRF in partnership with the City which processes 750 tons per day of commingled recyclables. In Calgary, multi-family recyclables are collected by both The City and private recyclers. The City currently collects mixed paper in front-end bins from approximately 75 multi-family buildings 24 which is transported to the MRF for processing. The majority of recyclables, therefore, are collected by private recycling companies; there are approximately 30 private recycling companies in Calgary servicing the commercial and multi-family sector. Material is taken directly to market for revenue, deposited at the CRDs or processed at a private facility depending on the size and resources of the company. The City acknowledges there are issues with private recyclers utilizing CRDs and has opened a temporary drop-off location specifically for private recyclers servicing multi-family buildings at the Shepard Landfill Throw n Go area. Private recyclers must apply for access to the service and are charged $32/tonne to drop off materials which covers the cost to operate the drop-off location and transport materials to the MRF, but does not cover the cost of processing the material at the MRF. In 2011, the uptake of this service was very limited with only two private recycling companies accessing the location. It is unknown if additional companies are utilizing this service. Cascades Recovery Inc. owns and operates a single stream MRF, recently constructed to process the City s recyclables. The MRF can process up to 40 tonnes of mixed recyclables per hour and 120,000 tonnes per year. The City of Calgary expected to collect approximately 80,000 tonnes of household recyclables each year, allowing for more capacity in the future 25 but currently process in the order of 70,000 tonnes per year on a one- shift basis. The MRF will accept mixed paper from private recyclers, providing it is source separated (not commingled), and haulers must be able to dump material mechanically on the tip floor no unloading by hand is permitted. 24 Multi-Family Recycling Discussion Paper, City of Calgary, February City of Calgary Newsroom, April 2009, Mayor Bronconnier officially opens recycling sorting facility. 20

25 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs 2.4 Organics Processing Both the City and Stantec staff undertook detailed research to determine how source separated organics materials are processed in some of the larger municipalities across North America that have successful multi-family waste diversion programs. Table 3-13 presents an overview of the ownership and operating models for these larger municipalities. Table 3-13: Organics Processing Facility Ownership and Operations Location Alberta Edmonton Medicine Hat British Columbia Ownership and Operation Municipally owned and operated Municipally owned and operated Notes Organics separated out at Edmonton Waste Management Centre and processed indoors with aerated static piles. Passive windrow, LYW composted at landfill, no SSO program. Metro Vancouver including Burnaby, New Westminster and Port Coquitlam, B.C. Abbotsford - Mission Nanaimo Port Coquitlam Saskatchewan Saskatoon Manitoba Winnipeg Privately owned and operated Privately owned and operated Privately owned and operated Privately owned and operated Municipally owned and operated Municipally owned and operated Ontario Toronto Anaerobic Digestion - Municipally owned, privately operated. York Region (Pickering) Hamilton Privately owned and operated Municipally owned, privately operated SSO is processed at the Fraser Richmond Soil & Fibre facility, located in Richmond BC and managed by Harvest Power Canada Ltd. This facility employees a covered aerated static pile process to manage SSO and LYW. In 2012 Harvest Power installed a high solids anaerobic digester 26 at this site to generate power from SSO and have integrated this technology with their traditional aerobic composting process. Facility using Gore technology currently under construction. Facility uses in-vessel bioreaction technology. In 2010, the facility was upgraded to convert organic waste to energy solutions (heat and electricity) and is used as an R&D facility to further develop organic waste to synthetic biofuel (biodiesel & jet fuel). This facility, utilizing in vessel composting technology, appears to be still under construction at this time. LYW composted at landfill. No SSO program. LYW composted at landfill by passive windrow. No SSO program. These facilities are used by the City of Toronto to process their SSO. Toronto contracts for composting of the digestate produced from their AD facilities. This facility uses Ebara Technology - In-vessel aerobic composting to process SSO and LYW for York Region. This facility uses a modular in-vessel aerobic aerated static pile technology to process SSO and LYW from residential sources, primarily from the City of Hamilton but also from other municipalities in Ontario. 26 Harvest BC. Technology Anaerobic Digestion. accessed July 25,

26 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs Location Peel Region London Ottawa Guelph Moose Creek Arthur Thorold Welland Newmarket Nova Scotia Halifax, Nova Scotia Cape Breton United States Seattle, Washington San Francisco, California Ownership and Operation Municipally owned, municipally operated Privately owned and operated Privately owned and operated Municipally owned, privately operated Privately owned and operated Privately owned and operated Privately owned and operated Privately owned and operated Privately owned and operated Privately owned and operated Municipally owned, privately operated Privately owned and operated Privately owned and operated Notes The Region uses two facilities which utilize Modular In- Vessel (container) with Gore System for curing to process SSO and LYW. This facility utilizes Modular In-Vessel (tunnel) technology to process SSO and LYW from surrounding municipalities and larger cities such as Toronto and York Region as it has capable of processing material in plastic bags and diapers. This facility utilizes Modular In-Vessel (tunnel) technology to process SSO and LYW, primarily from the City of Ottawa. This facility uses a modular in-vessel aerobic aerated static pile technology (tunnels) to process SSO and LYW from residential sources, from the City of Guelph and the Region of Waterloo. This facility uses in-vessel (enclosed agitated and aerated bed) technology to process SSO, primarily from Eastern Ontario and Quebec. This facility utilizes GORE technology to process LYW and SSO. This facility utilizes GORE technology to process LYW and SSO, primarily from Niagara Region. This facility processes municipal SSO and wood waste from C&D sites. This facility has been permanently decommissioned. This region is serviced by two SSO processing facilities, the Miller Waste Ebara Composting facility and the New Era Farms facility. Both facilities employ in-vessel aerobic processing technologies to manage SSO and yard waste, primarily from the Halifax area. This facility uses In Vessel - Aerated Static Pile technology. Currently, SSO is processed aerobically by Cedar Grove Composting Inc. Seattle has recently issued an RFP for composting processing services for their SSO which will be awarded in late 2012 with the contract commencing in 2014 or Material is processed at the Jepson Prairie Organics facility (a subsidiary of Recology) which employs in-vessel aerobic processing technology. Based on the research it is clear that municipalities employ both municipal and private sector ownership models for processing their source-separated organic waste but these facilities are almost exclusively operated by the private sector. There are various advantages and disadvantages associated with each of these ownership approaches. The City of Calgary is currently piloting an SSO program for the single family sector, which commenced in March A full report and recommendations will be presented to Council in March Pending the outcome of the pilot program, and, if the City moves ahead with the 22

27 Section 2: Status of Multi-Family Waste Diversion Programs SSO program, processing capacity will have to be secured or the City may choose to build a processing facility. At this time the City has not considered expanding this service to the Multi-family sector, as this will be determined as part of the Multi-Family recycling engagement project. 23

28 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion 3 BEST PRACTICES IN MULTI-FAMILY WASTE DIVERSION It is particularly challenging to implement waste diversion programs in multi-residential buildings with wide ranging differences in site and building design, age and income of residents, tenant turnover rates, potential language barriers and ownership issues. Each building comes with a unique set of characteristics that must be taken into account in order to design an effective waste diversion program. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for waste diversion in multi-family buildings; however, there are a number of best practices that can be incorporated into any multi-family building s waste diversion program. While there may be good research in other jurisdictions on this topic, there is a significant amount of research and documentation that has been undertaken in Ontario in an effort to identify those best practices which contribute to the success of waste diversion programs in multi-family buildings. This section provides an overview of that research into best practices and a summary of the resulting best practices for consideration by the City during the planning process for their multi-family building programs. In Ontario, all groups involved in waste diversion recognize the importance of improving diversion of waste from multi-family buildings. In 2006, the Municipal-Industry Programs Committee (MIPC) of WDO, in association with KPMG LLP, R.W. Beck Inc, and Entec Consulting worked on the Blue Box Program Enhancement and Best Practices Assessment Project 27 to develop a project definition of Best Practices in the context of Ontario Blue Box Recycling, which also touched on best practices in multi-family building recycling as well. A summary of the best practices described in this report can be found in Appendix A. The Continuous Improvement Fund (CIF), under Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO), has invested significant resources in sharing practices and improving performance of recycling programs in multi-family buildings across the Province. In 2009, CIF produced the Guidelines for Implementing Best Practices in Municipal Multi-Residential Recycling Programs which was intended to provide for consistency and standardization in CIF funded projects. A summary of these guidelines can be found in Appendix B. In 2006 and 2007, studies were undertaken to identify ways to increase diversion through focus groups and interviews with residents, superintendents and building managers of multi-family buildings. The first study (E&E Fund 186) focused on buildings in three municipalities; Markham, Richmond Hill and Vaughan, near Toronto. Subsequently, a second study was undertaken (E&E Fund 199), coordinated by the Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators (AMRC), which expanded the study to include the communities of Essex-Windsor, London, Waterloo Region, Ottawa, Peterborough, Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury. These two studies provided considerable information about how recycling programs are viewed from the perspective of residents, superintendents and management and suggestions for improvement. The results of these two studies are summarized in Appendix C. 27 Blue Box Program Enhancement and Best Practices Assessment Project, Final Report, July

29 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion Through CIF funding, a report on best practices for the storage and collection of recyclables was published by GENIVAR Inc. in , the results of which are summarized in Appendix D. These sources, as well as information obtained through the internet searches of municipal websites for documentation of current recycling programs have been used to compile the following best practices for consideration by the City. 3.1 Convenience of Diversion Programs One of the most critical aspects of a successful diversion program is to make it as convenient as is garbage disposal. Diversion programs compete with garbage chutes on every floor, and, the setup of the chute system guarantees anonymity for residents regarding the waste they dispose. Residents require easy access to diversion programs. The City of San Diego provides a specific definition of convenient in order to remove any ambiguity (see Section 3.2.2) as everyone has a different definition of what convenient means to them. Make recycling as convenient as possible as recycling competes with garbage chutes on every floor. Limit access to chutes as there is anonymity of using chutes for garbage disposal. Recycling containers should be placed in key building collection points such as the main entrance, laundry room and underground parking areas. Many of these areas provide for garbage collection with a garbage can but often do not take into account the need to place recyclables in an appropriate container at the same time Chutes and Chute Rooms Evaluate options for collection of divertible materials through chutes or chute rooms. Garbage chutes provide an effortless, anonymous way to dispose of waste. A number of options are available to limit access to single garbage chutes or provide alternate ways to dispose of divertible material through a chute system. The GENIVAR report 19 identified the systems that appear to provide a higher rate of diversion which include; 28 Best Practices for the Storage and Collection of Recyclables in Multi-residential Buildings and Development of Building and Site Plan Design Requirements to Support Recycling in Multi-Residential Buildings, Genivar Inc., February

30 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion Dual and potentially triple chute systems, Single chute and floor-to-floor collection, Single chute with a tri-sorter and lockable doors, No chute collections system/ closing the chute for existing buildings or no compactor and a combined garbage/recycling room. Limiting access to garbage chutes can encourage residents to utilize diversion programs. This can be a potentially contentious issue; however, results in increased diversion once residents have accepted the change. For all chute systems, a separate recycling room for larger bins for cardboard and other materials should be provided. The configuration of any system will depend on the building, and the municipal waste system requirements. Specific configurations for these systems have been provided in the GENIVAR report. Some of these systems can be retro-fitted in existing buildings, however, they are best incorporated into new designs. Consideration should be given to the possibility of expanding the materials collected, technological and human barriers to usage of the system, technical glitches, extent of automation, potential for confusion/contamination, cost of construction, and space requirements. Many municipalities are implementing requirements for provision of three stream collection in new developments as part of the site plan approval process. This could include collection through a different chute system. This is further discussed in Section The Cities of Toronto and Hamilton have a formal chute closure plan that requires owners to apply for a permit to close garbage chutes for those buildings that receive municipal waste collection. Requirements include adequate provision of garbage and recycling containers, distribution of in-suite recycling containers, a detailed communication plan, a plan for how building staff plans to assist those residents unable to transport their waste to the recycling area and indication of support for the plan from residents through a poll or vote with at least 51% of the units in support of the plan to close the chutes. Building staff also have to meet certain requirements to maintain the permit which can be revoked by City staff. 3.2 Implementation of Diversion Programs When municipalities plan to roll-out a diversion program to multi-family buildings, an implementation plan is important to a successful rollout. The key to a successful implementation of multi-residential diversion programs is an understanding of the scope and size of the of the multi-residential sector. This can be done by first creating a database of multi-family residences. The first step in the development of the database is to get property information, which can be obtained through municipal planning, property taxation information or technology departments to assist with identifying properties and obtaining basic information about the property 26

31 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion (address, owner, number of units etc.). Local property management or rental associations may also be a source of information. After the initial information gathering, staff should schedule and conduct site visits of the buildings. Site visit forms should be used to detail the information that is needed, such as building size and characteristics, contact information, and identification of potential issues. Also, the number and placement of carts or front-end bins can be estimated, the density of material in collection containers and quantity of recyclables in the waste stream can also be evaluated. It may be necessary to schedule a meeting with building management. Often management is not fully invested in developing a recycling program (including condominium boards). Superintendents/property managers can provide valuable information about the building, tenants and waste collection practices, however, technical expertise is required to assess the building and recommend the best system according to design and space constraints. It is critical that resources be allocated to maintaining and updating the database on an on-going basis. A P&E campaign should be developed. A phased-in campaign strategy is more effective at piquing resident s interest and awareness of recycling before resident brochures are distributed. The following sequence can be used to roll out the program. 1. Distribute a guidebook to superintendents and management. 2. Distribute and display signs, posters and labels. Different versions of poster should be used to appeal to different demographics; they also create more visual interest and impact. This strategy is typical of advertising campaigns that use a series of ads to create a buzz, each linked to a common theme, but with a different look. 3. Distribute resident flyers, ideally one to two weeks following posters. Residents, whose interest has been raised by the posters, are now more likely to see and retain the resident brochures as they are seeing it in the context of a larger campaign that has now come directly to them. 3.3 Educational Requirements Another critical aspect to a successful multi-family recycling program is education. Every successful diversion program features targeted, effective and on-going education to building staff and owners, residents, and collection crews Municipal Staff Municipal staff are instrumental in developing and implementing P&E programs in multi-family buildings with a number of important roles. There are many examples of effective P&E programs that can be viewed on the internet. Some organizations, for example, CIF, have developed a P&E campaign for 27

32 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion multi-family buildings that is available for municipal or building staff to use. Staff can play an important role in ongoing P&E by making presentations to building staff, owners and residents. Municipalities should provide adequate staff for a multi-family recycling program so that site visits can be conducted on buildings interested in a multi-family recycling program and for those buildings with an existing multi-family recycling program. Face-to-face contact is critical to the success of the program and site visits will be required by municipal staff on a continual basis to check on bins, replace missing or outdated educational materials, faded bin labels and guidance/support to staff, especially if there is a high turnover of staff. Building staff have identified a need for support from municipal staff when problems arise. Upon implementation of a multi-family recycling program, municipal staff should be responsible for setting up the program and distributing P&E materials. Additional details are provided in Section Building Staff/Owners Building staff (e.g. superintendents, building managers) have to balance the needs of the resident and pressure from management to maintain the building in a cost-effective and efficient manner. They often work in isolation and may not have much support to implement and maintain a diversion program. Building staff require training about their role and the requirements of the recycling program so they can do the best job possible in their limited time. Suggested education material includes a handbook, links to websites where literature can be downloaded as well as graphics or translated educational material for posting and distribution to residents, and contact information for municipal staff. Montgomery County (Section 3.2.3) and the City of San Francisco (Section 3.2.6) all have dedicated resources for building staff. Access to educational materials should be convenient for building staff, if they are the ones responsible for ordering/distributing the information. The City of Portland provides a variety of materials to building staff, easily ordered by fax, mail or online with options for delivery by City Staff if desired (see Section 3.2.4). Recycling guidebooks should be distributed to all building owners, property managers and superintendents, either by mail, site visits or stakeholder meetings Recycling Champions In addition to the training provided to property managers and superintendents, interested and committed staff or residents can be trained to act as recycling champions with a Master Recycler course which would provide information on the municipal recycling program as a whole, effective communication and ways to promote effective waste diversion through recycling to residents of the building. This type of program is offered by the City of Seattle (Section 3.2.1) through their Friend of Recycling and Composting (FORC) which provides additional incentive with the provision of in-unit collection containers 28

33 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion and a $100 credit for those buildings who have a trained FORC. The City of Toronto also has a similar program, with their 3Rs Ambassador Volunteer Program for which on-going training sessions are provided Residents One of the most-cited issues with multi-family recycling programs during consultation sessions was the lack of education about the program. It is critical that residents are provided with easily understood, upto-date P&E material, not just at start-up but on a continual basis to maintain interest and awareness in the program. Ways to communicate the recycling message include radio, direct mail/flyers, internet, condominium fee receipts, elevators, building newsletters, resident meetings, daily newspapers, community papers, multi-ethnic publications, on-line ads, TV screens in buildings, transit shelters, hotlines and videos. Onsite staffed displays promoting recycling and providing essential tools (bins/bags, print material) can be useful to provide education to residents and provide them with a chance to learn from experts. These can be manned by municipal staff or trained residents. P&E material should be placed in high-traffic, high-visibility areas such as elevators, laundry rooms etc. Many residents in multi-family buildings are unaware of the range of materials that could be recycled, perhaps due to lack of awareness, lack of appropriate signage or limitations on the range of materials accepted for recycling in the building. Residents need to be aware of targets and goals of the City and/or Province to provide them with a reason and sense of purpose for them to recycle. They require assurance that material is actually being diverted instead of going to the landfill and for additional motivation, information about how material was recycled or that recyclables were being used to make new items or packages. Residents are typically unaware of the diversion rate in the building, especially if there is poor performance. Feedback about successes (and failures) should be communicated to residents. This can be done through a newsletter or a tenant meeting which can also address recycling and waste handling, problem identification and reasonable solutions. Residents need to be taught and reminded about good diversion practices. They require information on how to prepare material for recycling (e.g. rinsing/draining containers, caps on or off, removal of labels not necessary, removing material from bags, types of organics liner bags etc.). This type of information makes the job of superintendents less onerous and reduces contamination. Residents should be provided with a variety of different education and recycling tool options including door hangers, lists, fridge magnets, in-unit containers (bags, baskets or mini blue boxes). There does not appear to be a consistent approach to provision of in-unit containers. Some municipalities provide these upon start-up of the program and provide a certain number of replacements on a regular basis for new tenants or breakage. The City of Toronto provides for an annual in unit 29

34 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion recycling containers replacement of up to 10% of a building s number of units. A building can purchase the amount above 10% at a cost of $2.67/bag and $7.83 hard shell (includes tax and shipping) 29. Some municipalities do not provide any collection containers. Some municipalities provide them only under certain conditions (e.g. Seattle provides them to buildings who have a Friend of Recycling and Composting (FORC) who has undergone training). Halifax recommends that if property managers/owners provide in-unit containers, they should be provided as part of the lease signing and included in the damage deposit to minimize the cost of replacement. Many residents feel that containers should be provided to them for free since single-family households receive free containers. It appears that opinions are divided on usage of these in-unit collection containers, some residents love them, others dislike the fact that they must do something with this container on their way out the building Educational Materials Residents require an ongoing P&E program through a variety of media to pique and maintain interest in the program. Diversion programs in multi-family buildings can be challenging due to the high turnover of residents requiring ongoing education about the programs, the diverse make-up of residents (culture, demographics, education, language) which requires a variety of P&E materials which can be easily understood by residents. Multi-lingual, multi-cultural and socio-economic factors should be considered when developing the program and selection of P&E materials. The use of pictures and graphics is recommended to illustrate what can and cannot be recycled which is useful when tenants speak multiple languages. Some examples of communities with engaging P&E materials include the City of Toronto who has developed a series of videos available on-line and on the television which provide a series of humorous messages about waste diversion delivered by collection staff. To extend the campaign, the same messages and characters are featured in posters available to multi-family buildings. Metro Vancouver provides an extensive set of videos about their recycling program and the zero waste challenge and has a comprehensive set of signage, campaigns and recycling artwork 30 available for use in education and promotional materials. 29 Condominium Manager Magazine Spring 2012 Waste and Recycling Update

35 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion Distribution of P&E Material Municipalities should take responsibility for distribution of materials directly to residents, displaying posters and applying labels, rather than leaving them with building staff for distribution. Resident flyers can be delivered to individual mailboxes, or if not accessible, delivered door-to-door. Approximately minutes is needed on average for a 100 unit building for one person delivering doorto-door. Alternatively, flyers can be sent via Canada Post using Unaddressed Ad Mail and the Electronic Shipping Tool. Canada Post has a new online mapping application, the Precision Targeter that combines the Unaddressed Ad Mail and their Residential and Business Counts and Maps to further refine the target audience and delivery area. Within this option, apartments is a specific delivery point and apartments in specific target areas can be selected. Posters and signage are most effective if they are updated on a regular basis; different strategies can be employed including staggering their release over a period of time or using different posters in different buildings depending on the demographics. Container labels should be placed on new containers as they are delivered; surfaces should be cleaned with a cleaning solution prior to affixing label to container. Worn, faded or out-dated labels should be replaced during site visits and on-going site inspections. Labels should be placed in two locations on the cart for best visibility; one on the top front vertical surface to identify the stream (e.g. containers or papers). The lid label, viewed at eye level, should have the dos and don ts for sorting recyclables. A large font size should be used. Once the program has been in place for a while, superintendents and building managers should supply educational material provided by the municipality. 3.4 Collection Containers Providing adequate capacity for divertible materials is one of the most critical factors dictating the success of a recycling program since, without enough capacity, recyclables will end up in the garbage. There are a number of recommendations to determine adequate capacity depending on available space, collection frequency and diversion targets. 31

36 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion Recycling Carts used for recycling are typically 360L in size. For the determination of the number of carts need at a building, guidelines for recycling capacity recommend that each residential unit be allotted the equivalent of 50 litres of storage capacity, approximately the size of a standard 14 gallon blue box. This works out to one 360L cart for every 7 units, or one 4 yd 3 bin for every 60 units. Complexes with less than 6 units may require only blue boxes; however, depending on the amount of material generated by the occupants, blue carts may present a more efficient collection option. Multi-family buildings or infill townhouse complexes with a common collection point for up to 30 units could use 3360L blue carts. Multi-family buildings between 30 and 100 units may use either carts or front-end bins depending on the design of the building; a large townhouse complex may be better served with multiple recycling stations and have the carts brought to one or more central location points for collection. For larger buildings, front-end bins are recommended for efficiency and effectiveness in collection. Using carts in buildings greater than 100 units leads to storage problems and less efficient diversion Garbage Depending on the size of the multi-family buildings, the number of garbage bins can be calculated using the guideline of 0.06 yd 3 per person for compacted garbage (approximately yd 3 per unit) and 0.18 yd 3 for un-compacted garbage, however, for larger buildings (100+ units) garbage should be mechanically compacted into regulation sized steel garbage containers Organics The guidelines for organic bins are similar to those for recycling containers; however, the size of bins should be limited to 3 cubic yards Provision of Containers There does not seem to be a consistent approach to provision of collection containers. Obviously, provision of containers at no charge would be preferred by building management/owners, however, this 31 Best Practices for the Storage and Collection of Recyclables in Multi-residential Buildings and Development of Building and Site Plan Design Requirements to Support Recycling in Multi-Residential Buildings, Genivar Inc., February

37 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion can be very costly for municipalities. Some municipalities require multi-family buildings to use private collection service, in that case, typically carts or bins are provided by the service provider. If collection containers are not provided by the municipality, it is recommended that the municipality provide the option of purchasing containers through the municipality so they are compatible with collection vehicles. The cost of containers is seen as a barrier to implementing a diversion program. Additionally, carts/bins require repair, maintenance and replacement on a regular basis. Consultation with superintendents revealed that many have issues dealing with carts damaged by collection crews; whether requiring repair or replacement. Timely attention to cart repair or replacement is required to ensure enough capacity for the program; the loss of even one container can affect the program Container Design Most programs employ a colour-coded system (blue for recyclables, green for organics, black for garbage which presents an immediate visual cue for residents. Alternatively, a standard colour for the cart body can be used with colour coded lids for the visual cue for sorting. Port Coquitlam uses this system. This approach facilitates replacement of the cart in a timelier and cost-effective manner as only one colour of cart is being ordered. For buildings with contamination issues, containers with cut-outs for the desired material (e.g. a slot for newspapers, can assist with sorting material appropriately Internal Collection Internal collection of divertible materials provides the best, most convenient option for residents. There are a few options for collection of divertible materials; common collection areas (recycling room), in-chute area and in other areas of the building (lobby, laundry room etc.). Floor-by-floor collection can be a convenient way for residents to dispose of recyclable material, however, it can be a costly and labour intensive way to collect material. There may be restrictions on the ability to collect material in chute areas due to Building Codes or Fire Marshall Regulations. Collection of material in other areas (e.g. lobbies) may not be acceptable for certain buildings due to the esthetics of collection containers. Many older multi-family buildings lack fire suppression systems in their underground parking area and it is not feasible to add or increase storage space for combustible materials that are to be diverted from waste stream. A separate recycling/diversion room which is accessible to residents is recommended; especially if the building has a compactor for garbage, as there are safety concerns with residents interacting with the 33

38 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion compactor. This room should be large enough for easy movement of bins, and be sized adequately to allow for future expansion in order to divert other materials such as used clothing, furniture, light bulbs, electronics etc. Ideally, rooms should be air-conditioned with good ventilation especially if collecting SSO. Collection areas must conform to building codes and have should incorporate design principles that allow for the storage of bins, bulky items, and be of sufficient size to store all garbage, recyclables and other acceptable waste materials between designated collection days. The room must be large enough to permit movement of containers, adequate access through double or overhead doors, rodent proof and ventilated. There should also be a wash-bay area including connections and floor drains for washing of the entire area and containers. Recycling rooms should be accessible as possible to residents. Some building staff choose to limit access to recycling rooms to certain days of the week or certain hours which discourages residents from recycling. Multi-family building residents dispose of waste on a regular basis due to lack of storage capacity in their unit and require access to recycling rooms on a regular, convenient basis. Recycling rooms should be well-signed with labels on the top and inside of lids as well as on the front of the container; some rooms may permit lids to be open with lids behind the cart, so labels on the front of carts are important as well as additional signage on the wall behind the carts. If contamination is an issue and bins are to be accessed directly by residents, the opening should be limited to be able to accept only the desired material to reduce contamination. The lid should be padlocked and accessible only to building staff to remove contamination. On collection day, the bin should be unlocked, contamination removed and placed in position for collection External Collection Recycling stations located outside the building can present challenges for seniors, those residents who may have mobility or health issues, or have small children which make it difficult to leave the building and access the recycling containers. This is particularly problematic in the winter months when residents may be unwilling to venture into the cold or risk slipping on ice or snow. If it is necessary to store garbage externally, or in addition to the internal storage areas, the storage area should be enclosed according to certain dimensions according to the size of the containers/bins. External storage areas should only be allowed for new developments with interior roads. Adequate signage should be provided for these areas, with the added provision of being waterproof and able to withstand the elements (e.g. U.V. rays, ice). 34

39 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion Loading and Access There are a number of engineering and site design requirements that must be considered in the loading and access areas such as the height of the loading area, clearance, grading, turnaround area, slope, composition of asphalt etc. Specifications for these have not been included in this report but are readily available. 3.5 Planning and Policy Development A common element of many successful diversion programs is some sort of regulation, by-law or ordinance that requires establishment of a program in a multi-family building. Successful programs have a diversity of policies and regulations that guide operations both on the municipal and individual building level. This section provides information on best practices regarding regulatory mechanisms, planning and policy development for consideration by the City for waste diversion and collection Regulatory Mechanisms In the US, some cities have mandatory recycling requirements for multi-family buildings (Seattle, San Diego, Portland). While others have developed regulations targeting specific materials or sectors that have resulted in very high diversion rates (e.g. San Francisco). Also there is the necessity of complying with, state and other municipal legislation that will guide the development of regulation (e.g. San Francisco s ordinances resulted from a need to comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act which set waste reduction goals, the San Francisco Climate Action Plan and the Alameda County landfill ban). Many municipalities in Canada have amended their by-laws to include a requirement for provision of recycling in multi-family buildings, including Edmonton, Vancouver, Halifax, and Toronto. In Halifax and Toronto, participation is mandatory, however in Edmonton the fee for service are mandatory, but not all buildings are current receiving services as some are limited by space and other obstacles, although they are still required to pay for the service. Vancouver s Solid Waste By-law Number 8417 outlines the charges for provision of recycling to multifamily buildings. The City provides the collection containers to the buildings and they are charged based on a per stop fee ($8) for the location and a charge ($24) per unit to determine the yearly collection fee. This charge is for recycling, garbage has a different charge structure. In Ontario, Regulation 103/94 requires multi-residential buildings with 6 or more units in municipalities with populations over 5,000 to provide source separation programs. This regulation is intended to be a driver for recycling programs in multi-family buildings, however; there is little enforcement of the regulation 35

40 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion and no requirement for municipalities to provide recycling collection, unless they provide garbage collection to the building. Many municipalities offer waste collection to multi-family buildings (e.g. Toronto) on the condition that diversion programs for recycling (and organics if possible) are provided. Minimum recycling rates should be set for those buildings receiving municipal collection; however, no maximum limits should be set on recycling. The Region of Peel requires mandatory participation in the recycling program and waste collection services may be withdrawn with non-compliance; however, private waste collection for residential developments will not be permitted unless approved by Regional Council. The Design Standards Manual provides specifications on collection and storage of garbage and recyclables, as well as requirements for the number and type of collection containers. The Province of Nova Scotia has a requirement through Section 9 of the Nova Scotia Residential Tenancies Standard Form of Lease, for tenants to properly separate waste material and for landlords to provide them with the means to do this. The City recommends discussing this requirement with tenants when signing a lease and providing them with a copy of the City s What Goes Where Apartment Guide Policy Development Municipalities should develop mandatory requirements for new or re-developed multi-family buildings to allow for integrated waste management services. Design plans should be reviewed by staff with knowledge of solid waste practices to determine if the design requirements have been met. If developers proposed a change in collection points, method of collection, change of use or an existing building is expanded by more than 1/3 its original size, plans should be reviewed again. Each site and building should be inspected prior to approval to ensure the developer has complied with staff requirements. There are examples of working groups that assist with policy development, for instance the Recycling Council of B.C. has an organics working group. The City of Toronto has a Multi-family Waste Diversion Working Group (further described in Section 3.1.2) which assists in planning and policy initiatives. The City of Toronto provides collection to multi-family buildings and has a policy document outlining the requirements for garbage/recycling collection at developments and redevelopments. The general requirements are similar to those of other municipalities and also include the provision to make diversion of other materials as convenient as garbage disposal and the provision for diversion of a third stream (e.g. organics). The City could consider the formation of an Advisory Committee, similar to what the City of Toronto has organized to obtain input on the implementation of diversion programs in multi-family buildings from stakeholders. Municipalities can also advocate for the creation or amendment of provincial and federal policies which can be developed and enacted to assist municipalities with implementing recycling programs. As an example of this, York Regional Council recently approved a report on recommendations for the provision of three stream (garbage, recycling, organics) waste management in multi-family buildings and included 36

41 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion an amendment to petition a division of the Ontario Government to amend the building code to reflect this initiative Site Plan Approval and Waste Collection Policies Some municipalities in Ontario require a Site Plan approval prior to the provision of municipal waste collection services. Should the requirements not be met, developments will not qualify for municipal waste collection and will have to use private collection services. Regardless of the service provider, certain waste collection design standards should be incorporated into each new development including; A site plan showing access and a traffic flow plan with movement of containers and vehicles; Plan of loading facilities including materials and slab thickness; Plan/schematics of garbage and/or recycling room and refuse rooms on individual floors; Number and placement of bins for garbage, recyclables and SSO for storage and collection; Type of compactor with specifications and safety requirements. Examples of municipalities that have developed requirements for waste collection are presented below: The Region of Peel has developed a Waste Collection Design Standards Manual which sets out the requirements of collection of waste which must be met before the municipal collection of waste. Additionally, any proposed developments must also meet the requirements of the Region s waste collection by-law, site plan control and any other applicable by-laws or regulations. Applicants for municipal waste collection must provide details on the following as part of the site plan application process; o o o o o Number of units and floors in development Access routes for waste collection vehicles Loading facilities for front end or semi-automated collection services Size and number of garbage and recycling containers Evidence that the recycling collection program is as convenient to residents as the garbage collection program with scalable drawings of the garbage and recycling room designs. The City of Vaughan has developed a Waste Collection Design Standards Policy which outlines the requirements for the type of containers, internal storage of waste, convenient access to recycling, multiple sort systems that allow for future expansion and requires the owner to submit an application identifying; o o o o collection access route designated loading area internal storage area type of collection method 37

42 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion o o o o drawings signed by a professional engineer typical floor plan showing the multi-sort system on every floor details of the multi-sort and/or compaction system used number of units in development The City will provide collection once all the requirements have been met, however, does not provide collection containers. A number of municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) have developed Municipal Site Plan Approval Practices relating to three stream waste collection in multi-family buildings. The Region of York, in a report 32 to Council in 2010, recommended that all local municipalities include conditions in their site plan approvals that provide for three stream waste management The rationale is that implementation of a three stream waste management system in new developments is more cost effective than retrofitting buildings later, and could discourage the use of garborators to manage food waste in multi-family buildings which results in an increased cost to the Region for treatment of these organics through wastewater facilities. As part of the Site Plan Control Agreement in the municipality of Markham, specific clauses have been incorporated for the Owner to; o o o o o acknowledge that all waste, recyclable and organic material will be collected by the Town, agree to provide 3-stream sorting and collection system for organics, recyclable material and residual waste agree to design and construct internal material storage room with sufficient capacity to store material for one week purchase one in-unit recycling container and one in-unit organics collector from the Town for each unit agree that the Town will provide collection of waste in accordance with by-law and provision of education material. The Town of Richmond Hill requires tri-sorters in multi-family buildings, buildings meeting Town standards can apply for municipal collection. The Town is piloting three stream waste collection in three multi-family buildings Recycling Plans and Reports Many jurisdictions in the U.S. require owners of multi-family buildings to provide a waste reduction and recycling plan before they are eligible for waste collection. In Montgomery County, new multi-family 32 Three Stream Waste Management in New High Rise Residential Buildings, Report No. 5 of the Planning and Economic Development Committee, Regional Council Meeting, June 24,

43 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion properties must have an approved plan on file describing the collection program, destination of recyclables, and the education strategy used to promote the program. Many jurisdictions have reporting requirements, whereby either the collection service provider or the building owner must report on the amount of material diverted. This process is easier in the U.S. where many collection companies are either franchised or City-approved ; conditions of licensing and approvals are contingent of compliance with City requirements. This is much more difficult in provinces such as Ontario and Alberta where licensing is a provincial responsibility; municipalities have no control over reporting requirements. 3.6 Monitoring Multi-family recycling programs should be monitored to assess compliance and performance. Performance benchmarking is also a key step in implementing program enhancements so that targets can be set and program improvements measured. Performance indicators such as container fullness and contamination can be monitored during site visits. Site visits provide the opportunity to monitor building performance and enable flagging of low performing buildings which may benefit from follow-up strategies and top performers which may serve as model buildings. Periodic waste composition audits should be conducted to assist with planning, determining generation rates and capture rates which can be used to compare performance over a period of time. Collection service providers play an important role in the program; they should be adequately trained and understand their role in the program. Collection crews can provide useful information about any issues with a site which may require follow-up, such as contamination, bins not in the proper position or out for collection, bins needing repair, not meeting minimum quantities of recycling etc. These issues can be relayed to building staff, municipal staff or to the collection service provider. One of the biggest issues with diversion programs in multi-family buildings is contamination. There is no direct feedback for residents about putting the wrong materials in bins, whether through lack of knowledge, or indifference leaving the superintendent to deal with the contaminated bins. Often this material will not be collected, or additional levies will be charged. The collection crew can be a valuable source of information regarding problematic materials at certain materials. Some buildings have installed security cameras to try to identify repeat offenders and remove the anonymity associated with waste disposal in multi-family buildings. Ultimately it comes down to education providing residents with information about where material should go, what is and isn t acceptable and why. This could be provided through P&E materials, at meetings where issues can be raised and solutions explored, and on-site presentations. 39

44 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion 3.7 Finances Diversion programs can be funded by a variety of means, some of which provide direct incentives to divert more material in order to reduce waste disposal costs. Other incentives can be either intrinsic or extrinsic motivators for recycling or diverting waste. Beyond the intrinsic motivator of doing the right thing or saving the planet, other incentives which encourage diversion are described below Incentives Many municipalities employ financial incentives (as discussed is previous examples) for multi-family buildings through the collection of waste at no charge for those buildings in compliance with diversion programs thus providing building owners/managers with significant cost savings in waste disposal, including Region of Peel and the City of Hamilton. Others programs with PAYT funding offer financial incentives to divert more and dispose less since for many programs (e.g. Seattle) recyclables are collected at no charge. The City of Seattle also provides incentives for nominating a FORC which makes them eligible to receive in-unit collection containers and a $100 credit. Consultation sessions identified interest in friendly competitions among superintendents, property managers or residents to reach diversion goals for recognition. Awards and recognition can go a long way to maintain awareness of the program and recognize those individuals that contribute to successful programs. The City of San Diego recognizes individuals through a Recycling Champion Award with photographs and a write-up of the program on their website. Residents of multi-family buildings might be encouraged to recycle through other extrinsic motivators; for example, residents of an apartment in Vancouver decided to collect containers eligible for deposit return in order to collect enough money for new gym equipment Funding Mechanisms There does not appear to be a consistent funding mechanism for waste collection. Programs can be funded through property taxes or through contracts with private companies; generally on a flat fee or PAYT basis. Factors that affect the fees include Size of collection container Number of streams collected Frequency of collection 40

45 Section 3: Best Practices in Multi-Family Waste Diversion Number of stops required for collection Requirement for movement of carts (rollout fee) Number of units Location of containers Any of these options can be combined to form a rate structure. For example: The City of Vancouver charges a garbage collection fee dependent on the size of the container, a recycling collection fee dependent on the number of units and the number of collection stops and may charge an additional fee if recycling containers are wheeled out more than 50 meters. Multi-family buildings in Edmonton are charged a monthly waste service fee of $21.58 per unit which could include recycling in the form of a Blue bin recycling dumpster which is provided by the City. The City of San Jose provides collection of garbage and recycling (in equally sized bins) for the same price which varies according to the size of the bin and the frequency of collection (up to 5 garbage collections per week), how far the bins/carts must be pushed, and an additional variable rate for contaminated recycling collection. Interestingly, included in the rate structure is an annual cleaning of bins. More frequent cleaning can be arranged for additional fees. The City will need to develop an equitable funding mechanism, and has recognized the need to develop a full cost of service multi-family recycling strategy. The City s Multi-family Discussion Paper provides a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of fee-for-service versus a mandatory charge. These options will need to be discussed with stakeholders, potentially with an advisory or working group. 41

46 Section 4: Closure 4 CLOSURE This discussion paper has been prepared for the benefit of The City of Calgary. The paper may not be used by any other person or entity without the express written consent of The City of Calgary and Stantec Consulting Ltd. Any use of this report by a third party, or any reliance on decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Stantec accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report. The information and conclusions contained in this report are based on work undertaken by trained professional and technical staff in accordance with generally accepted practices at the time the work was performed. Respectfully Submitted, STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. Reviewed by: Prepared by: Prepared by: Cathy Smith National Service Area Leader Waste Management Tel: cathy.smith@stantec.com Christine Roarke Intermediate Waste Management Planner Tel: christine.roarke@stantec.com Leslie Greener Intermediate Waste Management Planner Tel: leslie.greener@stantec.com H:\01609\active\ Calgary MF Waste Diversion\Best Practices Report\ rpt_calgary_multi-res_revised_final.docx 42

47 Appendix A: Summary of Best Practices from KPMG Report

48 Appendix A - KPMG Best Practices Report In 2006, the Municipal-Industry Programs Committee (MIPC) of WDO, in association with KPMG LLP, R.W. Beck Inc, and Entec Consulting worked on the Blue Box Program Enhancement and Best Practices Assessment Project to develop a project definition of Best Practices in the Context of Ontario Blue Box Recycling, which also touched on best practices in multi-family recycling. The KPMG Best Practices report acknowledged many of the issues surrounding recycling in multi-family buildings. Some of the more specific recommendations that might be of interest to the City, taken from this report are as follows; Build and maintain a database of all multi-family buildings. Periodic waste composition audits should be conducted to assist with planning, determining generation rates and capture rates which can be used to compare performance over a period of time. Municipalities should develop mandatory requirements for new or re-developed multi-family buildings to allow for integrated waste management services. Design plans should be reviewed by staff with knowledge of solid waste practices to determine if the design requirements have been met. If developers proposed a change in collection points, method of collection, change of use or an existing building is expanded by more than 1/3 its original size, plans should be reviewed again. Each site and building should be inspected prior to approval to ensure the developer has complied with staff requirements. Minimum recycling rates should be set for those buildings receiving municipal collection; however, no maximum limits should be set on recycling. Collection bins will be dependent on the design and type of multi-family buildings. Complexes with less than 6 units may require only blue boxes; however, depending on the amount of material generated by the occupants, blue carts may present a more efficient collection option. Multi-family building or infill townhouse complexes with a common collection point for up to 30 units could use L blue carts. Multi-family buildings between 30 and 100 units may use either carts or front-end bins depending on the design of the multi-residential building; a large townhouse complex may be better served with multiple recycling stations and have the carts brought to one or more central location points for collection. For multi-residential buildings over 100 units, front-end bins are the preferred choice for efficiency and effectiveness. If bins are to be accessed directly by residents, the opening should be limited to be able to accept only the desired material to reduce contamination. The lid should be padlocked and accessible only to building staff to remove contamination. On collection day, the bin should be unlocked, contamination removed and placed in position for collection. Building staff require training about their role and the requirements of the recycling program. Suggested education material include a handbook, links to websites where literature can be downloaded as well as graphics or translated educational material for posting and distribution to residents, and contact information for municipal staff. Face-to-face contact is critical to the success of the program and site visits will be required on a continual basis to check on bins, 1

49 replace missing or outdated educational materials, faded bin labels and guidance/support to staff, especially if there is a high turnover of staff. Multi-lingual, multi-cultural and socio-economic factors should be considered when developing the program and selection of P&E materials. The use of pictures and graphics is recommended to illustrate what can and cannot be recycled which is useful when tenants speak multiple languages. Collection service providers play an important role in the program; they should be adequately trained and understand their role in the program. Collection crews can provide useful information about any issues with a site which may require follow-up, such as contamination, bins not in the proper position or out for collection, bins needing repair, not meeting minimum quantities of recycling etc. Training could be provided to property managers, superintendents and residents acting as recycling champions with a Master Recycler course which would provide information on the municipal recycling program as a whole, effective communication and ways to promote effective waste diversion through recycling to residents of the building. 2

50 Appendix B: Summary of CIF Guidelines for Implementing Best Practices in Municipal Multi-Residential Recycling Programs

51 Appendix B CIF Guidelines The Continuous Improvement Fund (CIF), under Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO), has invested significant resources in sharing practices and improving performance of recycling programs in multi-family buildings across the Province. In 2009, CIF produced the Guidelines for Implementing Best Practices in Municipal Multi-Residential Recycling Programs which was intended to provide for consistency and standardization in CIF funded projects. The guidelines were intended for municipalities planning to implement multi-family recycling programs, to provide consistency and standardization in projects for multi-family buildings funded through CIF. The guidelines utilize and build upon the best practices identified by KPMG, as described in Appendix A. The following is a summary of the recommendations in the document which may be of interest to the City, including; A site visit form with a guide to completing the form which provides additional information about conducting a site visit, what to look for at the site, and identification of potential issues Calculating adequate capacity based on the recovery target, density of material in collection containers and quantity of recyclables in the waste stream to estimate the number of carts or front-end bins required. Promotion and education strategies developed by CIF in consultation with a number of Ontario municipalities. These guidelines provide specific directions the best practice of providing P&E materials with recommended P&E strategies such as; Municipalities should take responsibility for distribution of materials directly to residents, displaying posters and applying labels, rather than leaving them with building staff for distribution. Resident flyers can be delivered to individual mailboxes, or if not accessible, delivered door-todoor. Plan for minutes on average for a 100 unit building for one person delivering door-todoor. Alternatively, flyers can be sent via Canada Post using Unaddressed Ad Mail and the Electronic Shipping Tool. Canada Post has a new online mapping application, the Precision Targeter that combines the Unaddressed Ad Mail and their Residential and Business Counts and Maps to further refine the target audience and delivery area. Within this option, apartments is a specific delivery point and apartments in specific target areas can be selected. Posters and signage are most effective if they are updated on a regular basis; different strategies can be employed including staggering their release over a period of time or using different posters in different buildings depending on the demographics. Container labels should be placed on new containers as they are delivered; surfaces should be cleaned with a cleaning solution prior to affixing label to container. Worn, faded or out-dated labels should be replaced during site visits and on-going site inspections. 1

52 Labels should be placed in two locations on the cart for best visibility; one on the top front vertical surface to identify the stream (e.g. containers or papers). The lid label, viewed at eye level, should have the dos and don ts for sorting recyclables. A large font size should be used. Internal recycling rooms may permit lids to be open with lids behind the cart, so labels on the front of carts are important as well as additional signage on the wall behind the carts. Recycling guidebooks should be distributed to all building owners, property managers and superintendents, either by mail, site visits or stakeholder meetings. A phased-in campaign strategy is more effective at piquing resident s interest and awareness of recycling before resident brochures are distributed. The following sequence can be used to roll out the program. 1. Distribute the guidebook to superintendents and management. 2. Distribute and display signs, posters and labels. Different versions of poster should be used to appeal to different demographics; they also create more visual interest and impact. This strategy is typical of advertising campaigns that use a series of ads to create a buzz, each linked to a common theme, but with a different look. 3. Distribute resident flyers, ideally one to two weeks following posters. Residents, whose interest has been raised by the posters, are not more likely to see and retain the resident brochures as they are seeing it in the context of a larger campaign that has now come directly to them. These guidelines also speak to the importance of the following best practices as identified in the KPMG report. Building and maintaining a database is important for planning purposes. It is critical that resources be allocated to maintaining and updating the database on an on-going basis. Property information may be obtained through municipal planning, property taxation or technology departments to assist with identifying properties and obtaining basic information about the property (address, owner, number of units etc.) Local property management or rental associations may also be a source of information. Performance benchmarking is also a key step in implementing program enhancements so that targets can be set and program improvements measured. Performance indicators such as container fullness and contamination can be monitored during site visits. Site visits provide the opportunity to monitor building performance and enable flagging of low performing buildings which may benefit from follow-up strategies and top performers which may serve as model buildings. Providing adequate recycling bin capacity is one of the most critical factors dictating the success of a recycling program since, without enough capacity, recyclables will end up in the garbage. For a target of 70% diversion, it is recommended that each residential unit be provided with the equivalent of 50 litres of storage capacity, approximately the size of a standard 14 gallon blue box. This works out to one 95L cart for every 7 units, or one 4 yd 3 bin for every 60 units. 2

53 Appendix C: Summary of Consultation with Stakeholders (E&E Fund 186, 199)

54 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF MULTI-FAMILY STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION In 2006 and 2007, studies were undertaken to identify ways to increase diversion through focus groups and interviews with residents, superintendents and building managers of multi-family buildings. The first study (E&E Fund 186) focused on buildings in three municipalities, Markham, Richmond Hill and Vaughan, near Toronto. Subsequently, a second study was undertaken (E&E Fund 199), coordinated by the AMRC (Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators), which expanded the study to include the communities of Essex-Windsor, London, Waterloo Region, Ottawa, Peterborough, Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury. These two studies provided considerable information about how recycling programs are viewed from the perspective of residents, superintendents and management and suggestions for improvement. The results of these two studies are summarized below. Consultation with Residents, Superintendents, Property Managers Extensive consultation with residents, superintendents and building managers of condominiums and apartment buildings in municipalities in Ontario, has provided first-hand information about the realities of recycling programs in multi-family buildings, through the studies funded by Stewardship Ontario. Representatives from a variety of building sizes and heights were included in the consultation events and asked a series of questions about recycling in general and recycling in their building in particular. The municipalities included in the study represent a variety of sizes, density, and location (e.g. north vs south). The results of the consultation process are summarized below. FOCUS GROUPS WITH RESIDENTS A series of focus groups was held with tenants of different types of multi-family buildings; recruiting criteria included a variety in number of occupants in household, number of children, level of education, age range, length of residency in building and native languages in order to get input from a wide variety of tenants. Separate focus groups were held for apartment and condominium residents. The following is a summary of the feedback about multi-family building recycling programs from tenants. 1) Respondents agreed that convenient access to recycling was critical. 2) Women were more likely to recycle then men. 3) Recyclers in multi-family buildings have more challenges than those in single-family residences. The distance and ease of access to recycling facilities was a major factor on recycling frequency and volume. Many residents in multi-family buildings dispose of waste daily or several times a week due to space restrictions. 4) Many residents were unaware of the range of materials that could be recycled, perhaps due to lack of awareness, lack of appropriate signage or limitations on the range of materials accepted for recycling in the building. 5) Some residents were concerned with identity theft (with respect to recycling paper or shredded paper). 1

55 6) Residents expressed the desire for bags or bins to manage the recyclables and felt they should be free since single family residences are provided with containers. 7) Many residents felt they did not have sufficient information or motivation to recycle. The following strategies were suggested to increase recycling in the building; Increase access to recycling room (some buildings limit access to certain days of the week) Make recycling as convenient as possible as recycling competes with garbage chutes on every floor. Limit access to chutes as there is anonymity of using chutes for garbage disposal. Increased education for MF residents. Provide recycling containers to residents to transport recyclables. Many residents place recyclables in plastic bags and toss whole bag in recycling containers. Provide options to alleviate concerns with identity theft which results in less fibre being recycled. Suggestions included a centralized paper shredder, to be picked up on monthly basis. Ensure sufficient containers provided and regularly emptied. Better signage. Education issues Superintendents and building managers should supply educational material provided by the municipality. Residents are unaware of provincial/city targets. Residents unaware of diversion rate in building (especially poor recycling performance). Residents suggested ways to communicate recycling message newspapers, radio, direct mail/flyers, internet, condominium fee receipts, elevators, building newsletters, resident meetings etc. Provide education materials in English and other languages. Onsite staffed display promoting recycling and providing essential tools (bins/bags, print material). Provide residents with chance to learn from experts. Tenant volunteer program to help organize the program and assist others in need. Need to be taught and reminded. Would appreciate feedback and incentives. Need recent up to date info. 2

56 Assurance that recyclables were being used to make new items or packages or information about how material was recycled would motivate recyclers. Include information on how to prepare material for recycling (e.g. rinsing/draining containers, caps on or off, removal of labels not necessary) CONSULTATION WITH SUPERINTENDENTS Five superintendents participated in the study, representing a variety of multi-family buildings. Superintendents are critical to the success of recycling programs and their feedback can provide valuable information about how residents use the program, issues with the program and how to improve the program. Superintendents are looking to balance the ease and access to the program for residents while minimizing their job, partly in order to satisfy the management. A summary of the feedback received from superintendents is provided below. Convenience is central in designing an efficient recycling program. Owners more likely to recycle than tenants. Outdoor recycling areas discourage recycling, particularly for seniors. The cost of acquiring recycling bins or carts can be a barrier to expanding recycling programs. The City should provide carts/bins. Rough handling of bins by collection service providers adds to the financial load as well as putting the onus on staff to repair bins. Superintendents are never consulted on recycling/waste handling systems and have no help in finding solutions to problems; they work in isolation and under pressure from management and residents. Management not fully invested in developing a recycling program (including condominium boards). Private companies (e.g. Abitibi) have less onerous requirements for disposal of certain materials than the municipality (e.g. cardboard does not need to be cut up, only flattened), provides large collection containers and provides compensation for fibre. Fibre is most challenging category to recycle. Corrugated cardboard is very problematic as it takes up space, requires preparation and large amounts require disposal. No enforcement opportunities. Disposal of items such as HHW, bulky items and white goods poses a problem for some buildings. The following strategies were suggested to increase recycling in the building; 3

57 Tenant education is critical. Material needs to be translated and/or employ graphics and illustrations which can be easily understood. Well designed, attractive posters of varying sizes for posting in common areas, elevators, recycling/garbage rooms, laundry rooms etc. Variety of different education and recycling tool options should be provided including door hangers, lists, fridge magnets, containers (bags, baskets or mini blue boxes). Periodic tenant meetings to discuss recycling and waste handling, identify problems and reasonable solutions. Arrange for presentations from appropriate City staff. Although contentious, closing garbage chutes provides good results once residents have accepted the change. Technical expertise (e.g. municipal staff) is required to assess the building and recommend the best system according to design and space constraints. Replace carts with larger front end bins. Carts are too numerous and heavy to wheel out for collection by staff. Carts are not made to withstand such heavy loads. Some superintendents were interested in a friendly competition to reach diversion goals for recognition. Cart selection - size, esthetics, compliance with fire marshal s regulations. Single stream recycling. CONSULTATION WITH BUILDING MANAGERS Six property managers were interviewed in the study, representing a variety of multi-family buildings. The following is a summary of the feedback received during the interview. There were varying degrees of awareness and involvement with recycling programs. Some managers view recycling as labour intensive and costly to implement with bin purchase. Many noted that superintendents can make a big difference, with on-site staff more invested in the program compared to part time staff. Constraints on space was a common problem, with capacity restrictions not allowing for additional carts resulting in material being disposed of in the garbage stream. Many had service complaints about private and City-contracted collectors who damage carts and were not required to repair or replace them. No financial incentives to increase recycling Limited education and tools provided to residents. Limited awareness of provincial diversion targets. No directives from City that recycling is a priority. 4

58 The following strategies were suggested to increase recycling in the building; Provide floor-by-floor collection. Although it was felt this would be the best way to improve diversion levels, cost and space limitations would be prohibitive. Education of tenants. Provision of recycling bins or bags at no charge to residents. Expand number of drop-off points to dispose of recyclables. Obtain City assistance to design program. Create advisory panels of residents, superintendents and managers to develop workable, practical solutions to barriers to recycling. STRATEGIES FOR SSO DIVERSION Superintendents and building managers were asked about the feasibility of implementing an SSO program in their building. Key concerns were; Sanitary impacts, Fear of infestations, Space constraints for additional containers, Issues about implementation and education. Many of the same issues regarding diversion of recyclables would apply to SSO diversion, including number, type and placement of collection containers, requirement for ongoing education, provision of inunit collection containers and convenience of disposal for residents. 5

59 Appendix D: Summary of Best Practices for Storage and Collection of Recyclables

60 Appendix D - Best Practices Standards In 2011, GENIVAR Inc. produced a report entitled Best Practices for the Storage and Collection of Recyclables in Multi-residential Buildings and Development of Building and Site Plan Design Requirements to Support Recycling in Multi-Residential Buildings. This report, funded by CIF (Project 219), presented a number of best practices for the storage and collection of recyclables as well as for the development of building and site plan design requirements which would support recycling in multi-family buildings. The following Best Practices have been summarized from that report 1. SITE PLAN APPROVAL Some municipalities in Ontario require a Site Plan approval prior to the provision of municipal waste collection services. Should the requirements not be met, developments will not qualify for municipal waste collection and will have to use private collection services. Regardless of the service provider, certain waste collection design standards should be incorporated into each new development including; A site plan showing access and a traffic flow plan with movement of containers and vehicles; Plan of loading facilities including materials and slab thickness; Plan/schematics of garbage and/or recycling room and refuse rooms on individual floors; Number and placement of bins for garbage, recycling and SSO for storage and collection; Type of compactor with specifications and safety requirements. STORAGE AREAS For those multi-family buildings who do not qualify for curbside collection, internal storage areas should be mandatory. These areas must conform to building codes and have should incorporate design principles that allow for the storage of bins and/or compactor, bulky items, and be of sufficient size to store all garbage, recycling and other acceptable waste materials between designated collection days. The room must be large enough to permit movement of containers, adequate access through double or overhead doors, rodent proof and ventilated. There should also be a wash-bay area including connections and floor drains for washing of the entire area and containers. If it is necessary to store garbage externally, or in addition to the internal storage areas, the storage area should be enclosed according to certain dimensions according to the size of the containers/bins. External storage areas should only be allowed for new developments with interior roads. Ideally, storage rooms should be air-conditioned, especially if collecting SSO. A separate recycling room which is accessible to residents is recommended; especially if the building has a compactor, for safety reasons. Again, this room should be large enough for easy movement of bins, 1 CIF Project 219, Best Practices for the Storage and Collection of Recyclables in Multi-Residential Buildings, Development of Building and Site Plan Design Requirements to Support Recycling in Multi-Residential Buildings, GENIVAR Inc., February

61 and be sized adequately to allow for future expansion in order to divert other materials such as used clothing, furniture, light bulbs, electronics etc. Recycling stations located outside the building can present challenges for those residents who may have mobility issues, are ill or have small children which make it difficult to leave the building and access the recycling containers. This is particularly problematic in the winter months when residents may be unwilling to venture into the cold or risk slipping on ice or snow. BIN SIZES AND QUANTITIES Depending on the size of the multi-family buildings, the number of garbage bins can be calculated using the guideline of 0.06 yd 3 per person for compacted garbage (approximately yd 3 per unit) and 0.18 yd 3 for uncompacted garbage, however, for larger buildings (100+ units) garbage should be mechanically compacted into regulation sized steel garbage containers. For recycling carts, the guideline is one semi-automated 360L cart for each 7 units (approximately 50 litres per unit). Carts typically come in 240L, 340L, and 360L sizes and can be sized based on a generation rate of yd 3 per unit. For larger buildings, front end bins may be more appropriate; using carts in buildings greater than 100 units leads to storage problems and less efficient diversion. If single stream recycling is available, it is recommended for larger buildings (again 100+ units); with the use of front-end bins, it appears to be more cost-efficient than carts. For two-stream programs, front-end bins can be used for old corrugated cardboard and potentially for the fibre stream. The guidelines for organic bins are similar; however, the size of bins should be limited to 3 yd 3. INTERNAL COLLECTION SYSTEMS One of the issues with waste diversion in multi-family buildings is how to make waste diversion as convenient for residents as waste disposal. Multi-residential buildings are often constrained by space, especially in the chute intake rooms. The Genivar report identified the systems that appear to provide a higher rate of diversion which include; a. Dual and potentially triple chute systems, b. Single chute and floor-to-floor collection, c. Single chute with a tri-sorter and lockable doors, d. No chute collections system/ closing the chute for existing buildings or no compactor and a combined garbage/recycling room. e. For all chute systems, a separate recycling room for larger bins for cardboard and other materials should be provided. The configuration of any system will depend on the building, and the municipal waste system requirements. Specific configurations for these systems have been provided in the Genivar report. Some of these systems can be retro-fitted in existing buildings, however, they are best incorporated into new designs. Consideration should be given to the possibility of expanding the materials collected, 2

62 technological and human barriers to usage of the system, technical glitches, extent of automation, potential for confusion/contamination, cost of construction, and space requirements As part of the research for the report, Genivar interviewed a number of building managers and superintendents at 23 multi-family buildings in the Greater Toronto Area with a variety of chute systems. Overall, the only building with no chute had the highest diversion rate, followed by the two buildings with dual chutes. The largest proportion of buildings (14/23) had single chutes with tri-sorters who had a diversion rate of approximately 50%. It is likely that this represents a more accurate diversion rate compared to the rates from much smaller sample sizes (e.g. 1-2 buildings). Staff reported several issues with the single chute and tri-sorter such as; High degree of contamination; Staff reported safety issues with the chute when exchanging containers, freeing up blockages etc. when residents are still able to use the chute for garbage. Installing lockable doors appeared to alleviate this problem. Recurring mechanical problems forced staff to use the tri-sorter as a single chute system. The City of Toronto specifies that new developments must allow for the future collection of SSO as a separate stream. 2 PLACEMENT OF COLLECTION CONTAINERS Recycling containers should be placed in key building collection points such as the main entrance, laundry room and underground parking areas. Many of these areas provide for garbage collection with a garbage can but often do not take into account the need to place recyclables in an appropriate container at the same time. LOADING AND ACCESS FACILITIES There are a number of engineering and site design requirements that should be considered in the loading and access areas such as the height of the loading area, clearance, grading, turnaround area, slope, composition of asphalt etc. Specifications for these have not been included in this report but are readily available. 2 Requirements for Garbage and Recycling Collection from New Developments and Redevelopments, City of Toronto,

63