An Assessment of Single and Dual Stream Recycling

Transcription

1 An Assessment of Single and Dual Stream Recycling Waste Management Advisory Committee March 26, 2013 Single and Dual Stream Recycling Two recent studies were undertaken: 1. An Assessment of Single and Dual Stream Recycling - Waste Diversion Ontario s (WDO) Continuous Improvement Fund (CIF) Office, HDR 2. Resource Recycling Magazine, The Battle for Recycling - Daniel Lantz & Clarissa Morawski The pros and cons of both recycling systems for collection and processing were identified, as part of these studies. 2 1

2 Single Stream Recycling Collection (boxes or carts) Pros (1) Cons (1) Potential for increased program participation Increases convenience to customers Some potential to collect more materials and increase diversion Increases collection efficiency and reduces costs through vehicle payload optimization and reduced stop times Reduces scavenging, litter and protects recyclables (in a cart system) Reduced worker injury and compensation costs with automated cart collection Facilitates co-collection with other material streams Reduces quality control during collection Can contribute to increases in contamination by unsolicited materials Higher collection system implementation costs for purchase of containers and vehicles (for automated cart collection) 3 Dual Stream Recycling Collection Pros (1) Cons (1) Greater potential for quality control during collection Potential for less contamination of unsolicited materials Lower collection system implementation costs for purchase of containers & vehicles (manual collection) Potential for lower program participation May be regarded as less convenient Some potential to collect less materials, resulting in lower diversion from disposal Potential for lower collection efficiency and higher collection costs as multi-compartment collection reduces vehicle payload, and manual collection increases collection times per stop Difficult to control scavenging, litter and protects recyclable materials from elements Potential for higher worker injury and compensation costs for manual collection More difficult to structure collection system to allow for co-collection with other materials 4 2

3 Single Stream Recycling Processing Pros (1) Cons (1) None identified May reduce value of recovered materials if quality control not maintained Increased MRF capital and operating costs Potential for higher net recycling system costs per hhld and per tonne marketed Potential operational and cost impacts to manufacturers, reprocessors, if market specifications are not met Reduced glass recovery Potential for higher % of processing residue, revenue loss of materials to residue stream & higher disposal costs 5 Dual Stream Recycling Processing Pros (1) Cons (1) Lower MRF capital and operating costs Potential for lower net recycling system costs per hhld and tonne marketed Potential for higher market revenues through marketing higher quality material and recovery during processing Higher glass recovery rates Potential for lower % of processing residue, reduced loss of materials to residue and residue disposal costs None identified 6 3

4 CIF Study Comparative Results Comparison of Ontario Large Municipal Dual & Single Stream Average Program Performance with Niagara Region Average of Performance Measure Single Stream (1) (Avg. 4 Programs) Dual Stream (1, 2) (Avg. 8 Programs) Niagara Region Kg. Marketed/Household Net Cost/Household $45.17 $34.20 $34.65 Net Cost/Tonnes Marketed $ $ $ P&E Cost/Household $1.25 $0.94 $0.65 Collection Cost/Household $32.27 $32.47 $28.02 Residue Rates 14.41% 6.91% 4.76% 2) Dual stream includes Niagara Region s program 7 CIF Study - Conclusions Neither single or dual stream recycling provides a specific best practice or offers the most benefits, when examining recycling program performance: (1) increased collection efficiency & program participation (single-stream); lower residue rates & MRF costs, higher market revenues (dual stream) When making choices in regards to system changes, municipalities should assess options for both program configurations, considering local conditions and the potential effects of other best practices that could improve program performance: (1) increased size of curbside recycling container; automated recycling cart or co-collection; disincentives for garbage 8 4

5 CIF Study Conclusions (cont d) The research undertaken for this Study indicated that there were gaps and issues in the way that single and dual stream recycling programs have been studied, which can influence the analysis and understanding of the potential implications of both systems: Many studies or analysis of the potential benefits of one system over another undertaken for municipal clients have relied on anecdotal evidence and/or a small set of data sources. Many studies examining the potential differences in collection costs associated with transitioning from a multi-sort or dual stream collection to single stream compared a new single stream to the existing baseline system in those communities. (1) 9 CIF Study Conclusions (cont d) There is an insufficient body of research regarding the impacts of various container types on recycling system performance. Many of the existing studies regarding single stream and/or dual stream performance could become dated as the residential waste stream has changes. There has been little comparative analysis regarding the potential impacts on diversion and material capture rates associated with single stream programs, where the effects of single stream have been isolated from other effects such as garbage disincentives and increased promotion and education (1) 10 5

6 The Battle for Recycling - Conclusions Single-stream recycling gaining momentum as more North American municipalities see it as low-cost, high-diversion (1) Higher costs and risks associated with mixing recyclable materials has some municipalities not making the shift or switching back to dual-stream (1) Cities of Ottawa and London Single-stream has always been more expensive than dualstream (based on the 2011 average program net cost) (1) $157.30/tonne (single-stream) vs. $135.81/tonne (dual-stream) 1) The Battle for Recycling Daniel Lantz & Clarissa Morawski 11 The Battle for Recycling Conclusions (cont d) The convenience of single-stream collection for residents may not always result in higher capture rates for diversion (1) 198 kg/hh in 2011 (single-stream) vs. 208 kg/hh (dual-stream) With an ever-increasing list of recyclable materials to be managed in the future, single-stream will not be able to control costs, when compared to dual-stream (1) Uncertainties related to single-stream are numerous and have the potential to impact recycling & its potential environmental and social benefits in the future (1) costs of extensive equipment upgrades & technological improvements to process array of packaging types risk of material values decreasing as more higher-quality materials become available under end-of-waste provisions & mandated source-separation 1) The Battle for Recycling Daniel Lantz & Clarissa Morawski 12 6

7 Why is Niagara Dual Stream? Collection Efficiencies and System Costs for Niagara Region Study by Genivar reviewed single vs. dual stream collection programs in Ontario: Single stream program costs were higher than dual stream; require additional capital to upgrade MRF to single stream; moving to single stream would increase costs by 1.5% per tonne and 16.5% per household; Single stream increases processing requirements for recyclables (separating fibres from containers, and sorting) Single stream did not divert more than dual stream 13 Why is Niagara Dual Stream? (cont d) Study determined the Region should not consider implementing a single-stream system given the high capital costs and the reduced revenue from the sale of recyclables versus the savings in collection costs. Further this option was not considered cost effective when factoring in the cost of carts - the estimated 10 year cost is approximately $4.6 million higher than under a system without carts 14 7

8 Why is Niagara Dual Stream? (cont d) Niagara had 4 th lowest 2011 net Blue Box program cost of $148.87/tonne in municipal comparator group (population greater than 250,000) Niagara receives higher market revenues and has lower Blue Box residue rates compared to single stream programs Region s next service level review will include an updated assessment of single vs. dual stream for collection and processing given Niagara s context 15 Questions and Discussion 16 8