Feasibility Study: Curbside Recycling Collection in the District of Squamish

Transcription

1 Feasibility Study: Curbside Recycling Collection in the District of Squamish Prepared for District of Squamish Submitted by Gartner Lee Limited December 2007

2 Feasibility Study: Curbside Recycling Collection in the District of Squamish Prepared for District of Squamish December 2007 Reference: GLL Distribution: 2 District of Squamish (plus 1 digital) 1 Gartner Lee Limited

3 December 18, 2007 Mr. Gord Prescott Manager of Operations District of Squamish Government Road Squamish, BC V8B 0A3 Dear Gord: Re: GLL Feasibility Study: Curbside Recycling Collection in the District of Squamish We are pleased to submit our final report on the pros and cons of shifting from a depot recycling program to a curbside recycling program for the single family residential sector in Squamish. It has been a pleasure working with you on this project and we look forward to working with you again in future should the opportunity arise. Sincerely, GARTNER LEE LIMITED Karen E. Asp, M.A. Senior Environmental Planner KEA:gc (70814_DRF_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) Sperling Plaza, 6400 Roberts Street, Suite 490, Burnaby, BC,V5G 4C9 tel fax

4 Executive Summary Squamish is a rapidly growing community experiencing significant changes in terms of its demographic profile, housing mix and economic outlook. The residential recycling depot system that the District of Squamish (District) has supported for over a decade is under strain due to challenges in finding sites for new facilities and changing public expectations about the quality and level of service. With these considerations, the District commissioned this study to assess the pros and cons of shifting from its current recycling depot service to a curbside recycling collection service for residential dwellings currently receiving curbside garbage collection. This report presents the findings of the study. The approach taken to conduct the study included three overall steps: (1) Assessment of the District s residential depot system, with a focus on effectiveness and current issues; (2) Identification of curbside collection program design, cost and performance parameters relevant to Squamish; and (3) Integration of the information in steps one and two in an assessment of the pros and cons of depots vs. curbside recycling for the low density residential sector. While the implications for the multi-family dwellings (MFD) sector of a shift from residential depots to curbside recycling were considered in the study, technical options for the MFD sector were not assessed. The study found that the recycling depot system has a number of strengths, notably: Data provided to the study team indicated that the depot system captured 1,800 tonnes of recyclables in 2006, or 300 kgs per household. This data suggests that the Squamish depot system is three times more effective than other residential depot recycling systems reviewed, and at least as effective as typical curbside recycling collection programs. The capital cost expenditures for the establishment of two new depots in the next two years is estimated to be in the range of $164,000. This cost would be roughly two times the capital cost of a Blue Box program ($85,000) but roughly one third of the capital cost of a wheeled container system ($500,000). The current depot operating cost is $183,000 annually, or $29 per household per year (using 2007 household numbers). Curbside recycling was roughly estimated to be in the range of $29 to $47 for bi-weekly collection and $39 to $54 for weekly collection. Based on this, the depot recycling program would be a lower range cost option from an operations perspective. Notwithstanding these strengths of the depot program, a number of issues and challenges were identified, notably: The Works Yard depot is situated across the road from a large multi-family development. Residents of the development have expressed concern over nuisances associated with the depot, notably noise generated by depot users. The Downtown depot, a temporary site on a road right-of-way, has a number of drawbacks. Residents have complained about litter and wind blown materials in the vicinity of the depot. The site is too small to accommodate increased usage, both in terms of additional traffic and (70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) i

5 Executive Summary additional containers. The location is incompatible with future land uses in the immediate vicinity, as nearby vacant lots are slated for residential redevelopment. The District anticipates having to relocate the temporary Downtown site within the next two years in order to address these concerns. However, finding a permanent site for the Downtown area poses a challenge due to land constraints and public resistance. The importance of adequately servicing the Downtown area will take on even greater significance in future with the District s plans to redevelop the area primarily with high-density housing. With the anticipated population growth in Squamish, particularly in the next decade, the depot system will need to be expanded to avoid overburdening existing sites. However, the District s past experiences with siting new depots suggest that expanding the system will prove challenging in the absence of a clear mandate and long range siting strategy. Some of the advantages of a curbside recycling program for Squamish include: A curbside recycling service would provide a high level of convenience, with higher participation rates likely as a result. The nuisance complaints associated with the depot system would be reduced, although it is important to state that user satisfaction with a curbside program is dependent on the quality of services provided - missed pickups and litter being two potential new issues. Research undertaken for this study indicates that, in four local programs, curbside recycling diversion rates ranged from 150 kgs/household to 300 kgs/household. Typically these results would indicate that a curbside program would be more effective than a depot program. However, in the case of Squamish, the available data suggests that a curbside program may not be more effective at diverting waste than the existing depot program in Squamish, although it can be argued, given the data, that a curbside program could be as effective. Shifting to a curbside service would eliminate the need to expand the depot system in future to accommodate population growth. The main sites could be decommissioned and reallocated for other public uses as needed, an important consideration giving the tight land supply within the developable parts of Squamish. Decommissioning the depots presupposes that the recycling needs of the multi-family sector would be addressed. Two disadvantages of a curbside recycling system for Squamish include: Overall, the capital costs of a curbside system could be lower than depot capital costs if the District opted for a three-stream Blue Box/Bag system, or a Blue Bag or homeowner-supplied container system for the commingled option. While wheeled carts have many advantages, the capital cost would be roughly three times more than the cost of installing two new depots. While it is possible that the operating costs of a curbside collection could be lower than the costs of depot operation, the range estimated in this study suggests that the costs of curbside could be similar to, but also as much $25 per household per year more than, depot costs. (70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) ii

6 Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal Executive Summary Page 1. Introduction Purpose Scope Approach Assessment of Recycling Depot System Overview of Recycling and Garbage Services in Squamish Depot Operations Site Description and Operational Issues Valleycliffe Depot Works Yard/Government Road Depot Downtown Depot Landfill Depot Type and Quantity of Materials Collected at Depots Depot Capacity and Equipment Consolidation and Shipping Costs Depot Effectiveness Depot System Planning Issues Siting Depot in Downtown Area Siting at Other Locations Curbside Recycling Opportunities and Challenges Overview and Context Collection System Design Considerations Curbside Sorting Requirements Materials and Markets Collection Containers Blue Boxes Wheeled Carts Clear/Translucent Blue Bags Collection Frequency Collection Contractors Materials Recovery Facilities Curbside Performance Factors Diversion and Collection Rates Participation Rates Program Costs Planning Level Capital Costs Planning Level Operating Cost...21 (70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc)

7 Table of Contents 3.5 Discussion of Curbside Options for Squamish Curbside Recycling Options for Squamish Option 1. Multi-Stream, Weekly, Blue Box/Bag Program Option 2a. Commingled, Weekly with Wheeled Container Option 2b. Commingled, Bi-Weekly with Wheeled Container Considerations for Any Curbside Recycling Program Option Types of Materials Policies and Education to Support Curbside Recycling Implications for Multi-Family Recycling Depot System for MFD Sector On Site Collection for MFD Sector Pros and Cons of Depots vs. Curbside in Squamish Depot Recycling Program Potential Curbside Recycling Program Summary Closure References List of Figures Figure 1. Tonnes Collected Annually, Figure 2. Depot Recycling Rate, List of Tables Table 1. District of Squamish Residential Depot Locations...3 Table 2. Type and Quantity of Materials Collected, 2006 Data...5 Table 3. Comparative Depot Statistics...9 Table 4. Curbside Sorting Requirements...13 Table 5. Materials Collected in Selected Communities...14 Table 6. Recycling Containers and Collection Frequencies...17 Table 7. Curbside User Fees...20 Table 8. Planning Level Capital Cost Estimates Per Household...21 Table 9. Planning Level Operating Cost Estimates per Household...21 Table 10. Curbside Options...23 Appendices A. Curbside and Depot Recycling Program Survey Data B. Squamish Recycling Depots Bin Type, Capacity and Frequency C. Organizations Contacted ((70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc)

8 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose Squamish is a rapidly growing community experiencing significant changes in terms of its demographic profile, housing mix and economic outlook. The residential recycling depot system that the District of Squamish (District) has supported for over a decade is under strain due to challenges in finding sites for new facilities and changing public expectations about the quality and level of service. With these considerations, the District commissioned a study to assess the pros and cons of shifting from its current recycling depot service to a curbside collection service for the low density residential sector. This report presents the findings of the study. 1.2 Scope The focus of this study was the delivery of recycling services to residents currently receiving curbside garbage collection (low density residential housing). While the implications for the multifamily dwellings (MFD) sector of a shift from residential depots to curbside recycling is considered, the assessment of options for the MFD sector is outside the scope of the study. The assessment of curbside recycling options was based on the assumption that a collection program would be managed under contract with a private hauler, similar to the current garbage collection contract. However, the costs of curbside recycling were assessed independent of the costs of garbage collection - the scope of the project did not include assessing the costs of an integrated residential waste management system. The depot assessment is focused on the residential recycling depots owned by the District of Squamish and does not include the drop off site located at the Carney s Recycle Centre. Carney s commercial recycling collection operations are also not part of this assessment. 1.3 Approach The following steps were undertaken to complete this study: Assessment of the District s residential depot system, with a focus on effectiveness, and current issues. The findings of this step are presented in Section 2 of the report. Research and identification of curbside recycling collection program design, performance and cost parameters relevant to the Squamish context. Curbside recycling options, and implications for the MFD sector in Squamish, are discussed. The findings of this step are presented in Section 3 of the report. ((70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) 1

9 Assessment of the pros and cons of the current depot system compared to curbside recycling for the low density single family sector. This section integrates the information and observations presented in Sections 2 and 3 of the report. The findings of this step are presented in Section 4 of the report. The research undertaken for this study included site visits, interviews, survey research, and reviews of relevant reports and documents. Representatives of three municipal programs, four waste hauling companies, two Lower Mainland processing companies (one of which is also in the hauling business) were interviewed, and other organizations were contacted for background information purposes. A survey of six communities with curbside recycling programs in the Lower Mainland/Sunshine Coast was undertaken to provide an indication of trends and variations in program design, and lessons learned. These communities include: Chilliwack, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Sechelt, and White Rock. Chilliwack was selected because the community switched from depots to a commingled recycling collection program in The other five communities were selected on the basis of their size relative to Squamish, and the program mixes they presented. A table-format questionnaire was ed to representatives in each community, and all were contacted at least twice by phone. As a result, five of six responded, although most did not answer all questions. The survey was followed up with interviews of program representatives in three of these communities. Representatives of four depot programs in BC were also surveyed for general information on program design and costs. These communities include: Kamloops, the Sunshine Coast Regional District, Pender Harbour and the Central Kootenay Regional District. Two of four provided responses and the remaining two provided some comments via telephone but did not complete the survey. The findings of these surveys are presented in table format in Appendix A. 2. Assessment of Recycling Depot System 2.1 Overview of Recycling and Garbage Services in Squamish The District of Squamish is located 45 kilometres north of Vancouver on the Sea to Sky Highway. The community had 14,949 residents as of 2006 (Statistics Canada, 2007), the majority of whom live in single-family dwellings (SFDs) or low density housing. The community disposed of 14,000 tonnes of waste in 2006 at the District s municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill. Another 8,300 tonnes were recycled or composted through residential and commercial programs and services provided by the District and Carney s Waste Systems Ltd., the principal waste and recycling collection company in Squamish (Carney s Waste Systems, 2007). Of this amount, 22% (1,796 tonnes) was recycled through the residential depot system. ((70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) 2

10 Residents of single family (SFD) and multi family dwellings (MFD) have access to four unstaffed District recycling depots situated at various locations in the community, as shown in Table 1. They can also drop off their recyclables at the Carney s Recycle Centre at Queens Way in the Squamish Business Park. The recycling depot system is intended to service the needs of the residential sector. Commercial, institutional and industrial (ICI) waste generators can subscribe to private recycling collection services or drop off their recyclables at the Carney s Recycle Centre. Multi-family buildings can also subscribe to private on-site recycling collection services. Table 1. District of Squamish Residential Depot Locations Site Name Valleycliffe Works Yard Downtown Landfill Location Guildford Drive, near intersection with Valley Drive in lower Valleycliffe Government Works Yard at Government Road Main Street at Loggers Lane (temporary site on Main St right of way, south side) Inside gates at Squamish Landfill The District provides a weekly curbside garbage collection service to the SFD sector, delivered under contract by Carney s. As of mid-2007, there were 5,270 households receiving this service, representing 84% of total dwellings in the community. Carney s recently transitioned to a semiautomated curbside garbage collection system, and distributed one 240 litre wheeled container to each household. The cost of the service is $59.50 per household per year. The remaining 16% of residential dwellings (1,008) are MFD units that must subscribe to private garbage collection services or haul their own garbage to the Squamish Landfill. As with the MFD sector, ICI sector waste generators subscribe to private garbage collection services or haul their own garbage to the Squamish. 2.2 Depot Operations Site Description and Operational Issues Valleycliffe Depot The Valleycliffe Depot is located on Guildford Drive, the main access road to the lower Valleycliffe residential community. Situated on a large District owned lot below Hospital Hill, the site is fenced and hidden from view by a surrounding woodlot and a berm on the road access side. There are no residential properties directly bordering the site, and the back edge abuts a creek riparian zone. The site is large and paved, readily accommodating hauling trucks and residential vehicles. The depot is equipped with lighting for evening users. Residents have unlimited access to the facility, free of charge, during operating hours. The gates are shut in the evening to minimize illegal dumping, vandalism and the potential for noise complaints. ((70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) 3

11 The siting of the Valleycliffe depot in 2004 was reported to have been a contentious local issue, with residents concerned about the visual/aesthetic impact to users of Guilford Drive, among other things. However, the District took steps to address these concerns, and since start up, residents are reported to be satisfied with the facility. The principal operational issue identified during this project is that the site is sometimes subject to illegal dumping (e.g., garbage and bulky items). Illegal dumping may arise due to the relative isolation of the site and the lack of staffing Works Yard/Government Road Depot The Works Yard Depot is conveniently located on Government Road adjacent to the District of Squamish Operations Works Yard. Government Road is a major interurban access road connecting Squamish neighbourhoods on the west side of Highway 99 with the town centre. The District owned property is fenced and partially hidden from view by a row of shrubs/small trees on the Government Road side. The site abuts the Works Yard to the south and west, and is in close proximity to residential developments to the north and east (across Government Road). Similar to the Valleycliffe site, this depot is large, paved and equipped with lighting to accommodate evening users. Residents have unlimited access to the facility, free of charge, during operating hours. The gates are shut in the evening to minimize illegal dumping, vandalism and to help mitigate noise complaints. The Works Yard depot is situated across the road from a large multi-family development. Residents of the development have expressed repeated concerns over nuisance factors associated with the depot, notably noise generated by depot users. The depot is also located on a highly desirable service lot. Information supplied by the District indicates that the depot will be relocated within the next two years to address neighbourhood issues and accommodate alternative public needs for the site Downtown Depot The Downtown Depot is located on Main Street just west of Loggers Lane, on the south side rightof-way. This site is a temporary installation pending identification of a permanent depot to service the downtown area. The site abuts a commercial business to the south, and a small urban park to the north. Vacant lots to the west are designated for residential redevelopment. To the east, the BCR railroad right of way runs parallel to Loggers Lane. The depot is unfenced, unpaved and lacks electrical supply. It is accessible to residents 24 hrs per day, free of charge. There are a number of operational issues associated with this site, including: the site has been subject to complaints as a result of litter and wind blown debris; lack of fencing prevents containment of wind blown materials notably paper and plastic bags; the limited space, unpaved surface and lack of electricity prevent installation of a cardboard compactor; the size of the site is too small to accommodate increased usage, both in terms of additional traffic and additional containers. The option of expanding the footprint at this location does not exist; and ((70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) 4

12 the location is incompatible with future land uses in the immediate vicinity, as nearby vacant lots are slated for residential redevelopment Landfill Depot The Landfill Recycling Depot is located inside the gates of the Squamish landfill, in a setback area near the gatehouse. This small facility is accessible during landfill operating hours, and it is restricted to residential users who have paid to dispose of garbage. The depot is conveniently located for landfill users, but it is far removed from major interurban access routes and retail/commercial centres. As such, this facility is not a convenient option for the majority of the population of Squamish Type and Quantity of Materials Collected at Depots Table 2. Type and Quantity of Materials Collected, 2006 Data Material Description Estimated Tonnes Percent of Total Aluminium Containers and Items Cans and Foil 1 0.1% Glass Containers Bottles and Jars % Mixed Paper Boxboard, Office, Glossy, Magazines % Corrugated Cardboard % Newspaper % Plastic Containers (resins 1-7), bags, film % Tin Cans % Totals 1, % Source: Carney s Waste Systems Squamish Solid Waste and Recycling Report, As shown in Table 2, nearly 1,800 tonnes of recyclables were collected at the residential depots in Overall, the data shows that mixed paper, newspaper and cardboard, referred to generically as fibre, together comprise nearly 80% of material collected at the depots. Plastic containers and film comprises another 10%, while the remainder consists of tin, glass and aluminium materials, primarily containers. Within the fibre category, mixed paper is the single largest material type, followed by cardboard and newspaper. Overall, these proportions by material type have been consistent for the past five years, based on data provided Depot Capacity and Equipment The Works Yard, Valleycliffe and Downtown depots were reported to receive the vast majority of material collected in the system, according to information provided by representatives of Carney s Waste Systems. As shown in the table in Appendix B, the container volume and frequency of pick ((70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) 5

13 up at these three depots indicates that the Works Yard site handles the greatest volume of material, followed by Valleycliffe and Downtown. The depot collection system is designed to facilitate user cooperation in the segregation of recyclables into seven materials categories. Dedicated containers are provided for each of the materials categories. At the Works Yard and Valleycliffe sites, 28 cubic yard compactors have been installed to managed the large volume of cardboard received at these sites on a weekly basis. The compactors are emptied weekly. Six cubic yard Haul All containers have been installed at these three sites to handle all other material streams except plastic. Mixed plastic is handled in eight yard overhead dump bins rather than six yard Haul All bins. The Landfill Recycling Depot is equipped with igloo style containers rather than Haul All bins Consolidation and Shipping Materials collected at the depots are hauled to the Carney s Recycling Centre for consolidation. The Recycle Centre is set up to bale and stockpile incoming streams of source segregated recyclables for later shipping to markets in the Lower Mainland. Handling of incoming materials is minimized and the quality of the product is primarily maintained through the source segregation protocols at the depots, supported by public education. Commodities that are processed and shipped to markets include: cardboard, mixed paper, aluminium, tin and mixed plastics. Rigid plastics with resins numbers 1 7, plus film, are baled and sold as a mixed plastic grade without segregation of higher value resins, notably resin numbers 1 and 2. Newspaper is currently being consolidated with mixed paper due to market prices. Glass containers are used locally for roadbase. Carney s representatives advised that their facility is not set up to sort mixed recyclables into marketable commodities, and the low volumes generated in the community do not warrant installation of a processing line in future Costs This section describes capital and operating costs associated with the District s depot recycling system, based on information provided. Capital costs consist of the costs of installing depots at city owned sites. Installation of the permanent sites at Valleycliffe and the Works Yard included paving, fencing, lighting/electrical, and visual aesthetics barriers (berms/shrubs). Installation costs for each of these sites were in the range of $82,000. Going forward, two new depots will be established in the next two years, replacing the existing Downtown and Works Yard sites. Therefore the near future capital costs of the depot system are assumed to be in the range of $164,000. Operating costs consist of the annual contract amount paid to Carney s, at $168,000, and an annual maintenance cost incurred by the District, estimated at $15,000. The District s total operating costs are $183,000 annually, or $29.15 per household, assuming 6,278 households (SFD and MFD) in The contract with Carney s covers the costs of servicing the District s four depots, including provision of containers and weekly/bi-weekly pick up and delivery to the Carney s Recycle Centre. The contract also covers public education required to support 1 Housing data from Carney s Waste Services Squamish Solid Waste and Recycling Report, ((70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) 6

14 participation in the depot system. Carney s representatives reported that the contract does not include the costs of handling, baling and shipping materials collected. These costs are incurred by Carney s, and covered by revenues received through the sale of recyclable commodities. 2.3 Depot Effectiveness This section presents an assessment of the effectiveness of the depot system, with a focus on changes in the quantity of material captured over time, and absolute quantities captured compared to other programs. Based on a review of eight years of data (1999 to 2006) provided by Carney s Waste System, the rate of capture of recyclables in the depot system has increased steadily over this period. In particular, as shown in Figure 1, tonnes of material collected annually have increased from 1,100 in 1999 to 1,797 in Figure 1. Tonnes Collected Annually, ,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 Tonnes 1,200 1, The Carney s data also includes the total quantities of waste disposed at the Squamish Landfill, and recycled through the Carney s Recycle Centre. This data does not represent the entire Squamish waste shed, as it does not include, for example, materials recycled through some product stewardship programs. However, it can be used to provide an indicator of change over time in terms of the amount recycled at the depots compared to the amount of waste generated (the recycling rate). As shown in Figure 2, the recycling rate for the depot system has increased from ((70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) 7

15 7% to 8% over eight years, even as total waste generated has grown from 15,650 tonnes in 1999 to 22,300 in Figure 2. Depot Recycling Rate, (Tonnes Recycled/Tonnes Generated) 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Benchmarking the performance of the system against other depot systems is another way to assess its effectiveness in terms of the capture of recyclable materials. To do this, a kilograms diverted per household metric was calculated for the Squamish system, and compared against available data from other depot systems in BC and Alberta. As Table 3 shows, the Squamish depot system has a significantly higher per household diversion rate than depot systems in a number of other communities. In presenting this data, it is important to note that while all of these depots collected a conventional range of residential recyclables in the data year, there were some differences. Notably, while the Sunshine Coast and GRIPs programs accept the same range of materials as Squamish, in the Calgary depot system, milk jugs and plastic bags are collected, but other rigid containers are not. The Kamloops system excludes plastic bags and all rigids except milk jugs. Another factor that can affect depot capture rates is the extent to which small commercial operations utilize residential depot systems. Given these qualifiers, the reasons for the significant difference between the Squamish residential depot system and mature systems in other communities are uncertain and worthy of further investigation if further assessment of these differences is desired. ((70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) 8

16 Table 3. Comparative Depot Statistics 2 Community Dwellings (SFD and MFD) Annual Tonnes Collected Annual kg / Household Number of Depots Ratio of HH to Depots Squamish 5,975 1, ,992 Calgary (a) 401,389 35, ,028 GRIPS (Pender Harbour) (b) 2, ,089 Kamloops (c) 32,076 1, ,415 Sunshine Coast RD (d) 15,237 1, ,619 Sources: (a) 2006 Census, 2006 Calgary Waste & Recycling Services Annual Report; (b) 2006 Census, 2006 tonnage data from GRIPS representative; (c) 2001 Census, 2004 tonnage data from Aquatera Solid Waste Management System Strategic Planning Report (2006) prepared by Gartner Lee Ltd.; and (d) 2006 Census, 2006 tonnage data from SCRD representative. 2.4 Depot System Planning Issues This section briefly outlines two major depot system planning issues that were identified in discussions with interview respondents Siting Depot in Downtown Area The Downtown/Oceanfront area of Squamish is slated for extensive redevelopment over the next 30 years (District of Squamish, 2007). The recently adopted Official Community Plan has identified this area as the prime focus of the town s plans for densification and infill, resulting in the quadrupling of the number of multi-family style dwellings in the area by The need to adequately service the area arises in this redevelopment context. The major issue hindering the management of the residential depot system is the challenge of finding a permanent location in the downtown area. The District s efforts to find a site in a convenient location have met with continued public opposition due to nuisance concerns. If the District cannot establish a permanent site, projected growth in the downtown core will likely place significant pressure on the Works Yard site in future. However, the Works Yard site is already heavily used, being the only depot available to residents of Squamish living north of the downtown Siting at Other Locations Overall, the population of Squamish is expected to more than double over the next 30 years, from 15,000 to more than 30,000 by 2031 (Urbanics Consultants Ltd., 2005). The growth rate is expected to be most intense over the next decade at around 4% per year, reaching 20,000-2 Older data not presented in this table indicates similar diversion rates for other communities: City of Chilliwack (2003) 85 kgs per HH; Comox Strathcona Regional District (2000) 74 kgs per HH. It is noteworthy that Calgary and Kamloops are switching to curbside systems in ((70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) 9

17 25,000 persons by Given these projections, it is likely that the depot system will need to be expanded to accommodate the anticipated increased in utilization. Notable in this regard is the lack of a conveniently located facility in the northeast quadrant of Squamish, and the relative inconvenience of the Valleycliffe depot to residents of the Hospital Hill/Smoke Bluffs area. However, the District has experienced significant challenges in its efforts to site new depots at Valleycliffe and Downtown over the past five years. These experiences can be viewed as indicative of the challenges of moving forward with an expansion effort in the absence of a clear mandate from the public and a long range facility siting strategy. 3. Curbside Recycling Opportunities and Challenges 3.1 Overview and Context This section of the report provides the background and basis for assessing the advantages and disadvantages of shifting to curbside recycling collection in Squamish. A range of collection system design parameters are identified and discussed, as are curbside program performance factors, potential costs and the level of interest of collection contractors. The discussion draws on survey research and interviews undertaken as part of this study, as well as information from documents and reports, and Gartner Lee s in-house knowledge of recycling. The following are three initial assumptions that set the context for the discussion in this section. It is important to state that these are initial assumptions for the purposes of this section of the report, and do not necessarily represent final system design parameters. The assumptions have been formulated based on discussions with representatives of the District of Squamish and Carney s Waste Management Systems: The focus of the project is the delivery of recycling services to residents currently receiving curbside garbage collection. Curbside recycling collection would be contracted out to a private hauling company under a separate contract from garbage collection. The hauler would supply the service and the vehicles. The question of who would purchase collection containers supplied to residents would need to be decided. Materials collected at curbside would be hauled directly to a materials recovery facility (MRF) in the Greater Vancouver area for sorting and brokering to markets. The Carney s facility in Squamish is not set up to sort mixed recyclables into marketable commodities and the low volumes generated in the community do not warrant installation of a processing line in future. ((70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) 10

18 3.2 Collection System Design Considerations This section discusses some of the elements to consider in the design of a recycling collection program, such as the types of materials collected, source segregation requirements, collection containers, the frequency of collection, available contractors, and available MRFs. The discussion in this section provides general information considered relevant to Squamish, trends in the Lower Mainland region, and lessons learned from the survey of communities and interviews with local representatives in the recycling sector Curbside Sorting Requirements The level of sorting of recyclable materials required in the house/at the curb (source segregation) is a primary element in the design of a curbside recycling program. Among other things, this requirement affects the choice of collection vehicle, as the sorting protocol is maintained from collection through to discharge at the MRF. The sorting protocol also affects, and is affected by, the processing configurations and specifications of the receiving MRF. Three typical models for sorting requirements include (Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2004): Commingled (single stream/no segregation) all recyclables materials are placed into one container without conducting any sorting. Two stream recyclable containers are separated from recyclable fibres (paper, newsprint and cardboard) and placed into separate containers. Multi-stream the separation, at minimum, into three categories, such as old newsprint, mixed waste paper, and mixed containers. Until recently, most recycling programs in North America required residents to sort their recyclables at curbside into at least two categories, but over the past 5 years the trend toward fully commingled (single-stream) collection and processing has increased significantly (Talend, 2007; Geiselman, 2007). In general, often cited advantages and disadvantages of source segregated and commingled collection systems are as follows: 3 Advantages Greater control of contamination problems at curb; Lower processing costs due to reduced requirements for sorting; Lower loss of materials in processing due to lower contamination rates (e.g., <5%); Greater ease in finding and securing markets, particularly in market down-swings, due to the high quality/grade of the materials; and Higher quality/higher grade commodities resulting in higher revenues. Source Segregated Collection Disadvantages Less convenient for residents, potentially resulting in lower collection rates (however, long standing, high participation multi-sort programs in the Lower Mainland show equivalent effectiveness); Higher collection costs due to labour and vehicle capacity requirements and potentially more time spent at each stop; Greater potential for worker injury due to lack of options for automated collection; and Exposure of Blue Box/Bag materials to wind and rain. 3 Based on: Federation of Canadian Municipalities 2004; KPMG 2007; Gelselman 2007; Talend ((70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) 11

19 Commingled (Single Stream) Collection Advantages Disadvantages More convenient for residents; Potentially higher collection of materials at curbside due to greater convenience/higher participation rates; Lower collection costs due to lower labour requirements, higher capacity vehicles, and potentially shorter time spent at stops; Potential for automated or semi-automated collection (with carts), resulting in lower labour requirements and lower injury rates; and Protection of materials from exposure to elements if carts or closed plastic bags are used. Higher processing costs due to greater degree of sorting required; Higher contamination of materials collected (5 20%) contamination of fibre materials with glass fragments, food and liquids from containers (however new systems may have lower contamination rates); Reduced ability to monitor contamination at curbside; Potentially lower grade commodities produced, resulting in lower revenues; Potential challenges in separating film plastics; and Higher capital costs if wheeled containers are provided to residents. In the Greater Vancouver area, source segregation has been the norm for municipal curbside recycling collection programs for two decades. Within Greater Vancouver s 26 municipalities currently, the standard protocol requires residents to segregate their recyclables into three streams: containers, old newsprint, and mixed paper. Residents are supplied with blue boxes, and yellow and blue bags to perform this activity. In the District of Maple Ridge, residents are required to segregate their recyclables into six categories and are supplied with containers for this purpose. Our research shows that only one community in the Greater Vancouver region, Port Coquitlam, currently provides a commingled (single stream) collection program. However, the City of Surrey, with over 100,000 households, has recently signed a contract with International Paper Industries (IPI), effective January 1 st, 2008 in which it will shift from a three stream to a single stream, commingled recycling collection service. Outside of Greater Vancouver, communities such as the Town of Sechelt, the City of Chilliwack and the City of Abbotsford have commingled recycling collection programs. Table 4 shows the sorting requirements and program operators in six communities surveyed for this project. In recent presentations, a representative of the North Shore Recycling Program (NSRP) has summarized the benefits of the multi-stream approach in Greater Vancouver from the perspective of a mature recycling program (Lynch, 2005, Lynch, 2007). The NSRP serves 38,000 single family homes and 31,000 multi-family homes in the District of North Vancouver, the City of North Vancouver and the City of West Vancouver. These communities have had formal recycling programs since The NSRP sees very good results each year, with high participation (95% based on a recent telephone survey), high diversion (300 kg per SFD in 2006) and very high net financial returns from the sale of high quality recyclables. The NSRP has a profit sharing arrangement with their contractor (Waste Management Inc.), in which the NSRP receives 75% of revenues from the sale of newspaper and mixed waste paper commodities. Under this arrangement, in 2007 the NSRP expects to receive over $1.1 million in revenues, which in turn will cover three quarters of recycling collection and processing costs this year. The operator of this program attributes these benefits to the maturity of the program, ongoing and consistent public ((70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) 12

20 education to support participation and source segregation, and the ability to produce consistent, high quality recycling commodities (Lynch, 2007; Gelselman, 2007). The NSRP does not intend to shift to a commingled system, even though processing capacity sufficient to meet the program s needs may be available with the start up of the IPI single stream MRF in Table 4. Curbside Sorting Requirements Community Recycling Program Type Collection Agency MRF Chilliwack Commingled WMI Recycle America, Woodinville, WA Pitt Meadows Three Stream WMI BEST Recycling Port Coquitlam Commingled In house Canadian Fibre Port Moody Three Stream IPI IPI Sechelt Commingled Direct Disposal Direct Disposal White Rock Three Stream In house IPI With respect to the benefits of commingled recycling programs in the area, Port Coquitlam has had a commingled recycling program for more than a decade and the only current issue identified by an interview respondent was the length of time to drive collection vehicles from the city to the Canadian Fibre processing facility in Richmond. A representative of Direct Disposal Ltd. reported that residents in the District of Sechelt were very happy with the convenience of the new curbside program. On the processing side, the Direct Disposal representative said that the company had purposefully designed its processing system to minimize contamination and discards, such that their residuals rate was under 1% and they were receiving premium prices for their commodities. For the City of Surrey, greater convenience, increased recovery rates, and significantly lower collection costs have been identified as rationales for shifting from a three stream to a commingled collection system in 2008 (City of Surrey, 2007). In terms of financial returns of local commingled recycling programs, the City of Surrey expects to receive a minimum of $1 million annually in commodities revenues from their processor this is a requirement that has been written into the contract. In the other hand, for the City of Port Coquitlam, the costs of processing the City s recyclables typically exceed revenues from commodities. The District of Sechelt and the City of Chilliwack do not have revenue sharing arrangements with their service providers. A representative of one of the communities with three stream programs surveyed indicated that the only public complaints received about their program concerned the level of service from the hauler, an issue that is currently being addressed. However, the potential to increase convenience through a commingled recycling service was identified as something that would be considered in future when the current hauling contract was finished and after the initiative in Surrey had had time to mature. ((70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) 13

21 3.2.2 Materials and Markets The major reasons that drive selection of the types of materials specifically included and excluded from curbside recycling collection programs include: access to reliable markets, public demand and collection system design constraints. Materials typically collected in the Lower Mainland and area programs include cardboard, newsprint and mixed paper, aluminium and tin cans, glass bottles and jars, and plastic containers with resin codes 1, 2, 4 and 5. Many communities in the region also collect rigid plastic containers with resin codes 3, 6 and 7, as well as plastic shopping bags and film. This range of materials types was confirmed in our survey of communities, as shown in the Table 5. Table 5. Materials Collected in Selected Communities Community Fibre Rigid Plastic Containers Tin and Aluminium Containers Glass Containers Other Excluded Chilliwack Cardboard, Newspaper, Mixed Paper Resins 1-7 Yes Yes Tetrapacks Foam Plastic bags Waxed paper/card Pitt Meadows Cardboard, Newspaper, Mixed Paper Resins 1,2,4,5 Yes Yes Plastic bags Pizza boxes Port Coquitlam Cardboard, Newspaper, Mixed Paper Resins 1,2,3,4,5 Yes No Plastic bags Glass Port Moody Cardboard, Newspaper, Mixed Paper Resins 1,2,4,5,6 Yes Yes Plastic bags Foam Sechelt Cardboard, Newspaper, Mixed Paper Resins 1-7 Yes No Plastic bags Glass Foam Waxed paper/card White Rock Newspaper, Mixed Paper Resins 1,2,4,5 Yes Yes Plastic bags Cardboard at depots only Two notable differences include: Sechelt and Port Coquitlam exclude glass containers from their commingled curbside programs. Interviews with processors indicated that glass was excluded from these programs in order to prevent the contamination of paper and cardboard with glass fragments, a considerable problem in some mills. On the other hand, Chilliwack includes glass in its commingled curbside program, and the City of Surrey will also include glass with the start up of their commingled program. ((70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) 14

22 The City of White Rock excludes cardboard from its curbside collection program - residents are required to take their cardboard to one of four depots in the city. Cardboard is a bulky item and many communities in the region require residents to bundle and tie their cardboard and leave it beside the yellow bag if they cannot fit it in. Commodities prices on recycling markets have fluctuated widely over the past three decades, and the fairly recent emergence of Asian markets has added to the complexity and unpredictability of the situation. In 2006, recycling markets for most commodities were well below average, however this year markets have been very strong, with staples such as corrugated cardboard 15% or more above long term average market values. Fibre materials are the mainstays of many BC municipal recycling programs due to the relatively steady demand and large volume of materials generated. High-grade newspaper is currently selling for over $120/tonne; mixed paper is selling for $80/tonne or more on some markets; and the price of cardboard currently is in the range of $140 per tonne. Demand has also been steady and prices high for rigid plastics with resin numbers 1 and 2, and aluminium. Rigid plastics with resin numbers 1 (PETE) and 2 (HDPE natural) are selling in the range of $350 and $600 respectively. Markets for glass containers, either mixed or clear flint grades, continue to present a challenge, with market prices near or below zero. Markets for rigid plastics with resin codes 3, 6 and 7 are weak, and the mixed plastics (resin # 1 7) commodity is selling for $20/tonne locally Collection Containers In general, recycling containers consist of bags, boxes and wheeled carts that are used to contain and manage recyclables in the home and at the curb. Many municipalities supply these containers to residents free of charge, but others do not, particularly in the case of programs designed to use bag systems. The choice of container on the part of the municipality is partly determined by the level of source segregation that will be required, the volume of material anticipated, the frequency of collection, capital costs, and social marketing (educational) considerations (FCM, 2004; KPMG, 2007). Table 6 shows the types of recycling containers in communities surveyed for this project Blue Boxes In Greater Vancouver s typical three stream recycling programs, the norm for recycling containers consists of a 12-gallon Blue Box plus reusable yellow and blue heavy plastic bags. The box and bags are easily inspected and emptied by the collector, and they provide a distinctive social marketing (educational) message both in the home and on the street. The size of the box needs to be considered, as it should be large enough to accommodate the volume of containers generated, yet manageable for residents (FCM, 2004). Many municipalities allow residents to acquire one or more additional boxes to meet their needs. On the downside, box/bag systems are labour intensive, potentially leading to worker injuries, and they are not animal resistant. Other communities in Canada use two box systems (blue and black boxes) rather than box plus bags (KPMG, 2007). The capital costs of box/bag systems are typically quite low, at less than $10. ((70814_FN_RPT_07-Dec17_kea_Squamish_Report.doc) 15