An Assessment of Single and Dual Stream Recycling Waste Management - - PDF document

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

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)

1) An Assessment of Single and Dual Stream Recycling - WDO’s CIF Office

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

1) An Assessment of Single and Dual Stream Recycling - WDO’s CIF Office

4

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

1) An Assessment of Single and Dual Stream Recycling - WDO’s CIF Office

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

1) An Assessment of Single and Dual Stream Recycling - WDO’s CIF Office

6

4

CIF Study – Comparative Results

Performance Measure Single Stream (1) (Avg. 4 Programs) Dual Stream (1, 2) (Avg. 8 Programs) Niagara Region

• Kg. Marketed/Household

224 189 195 Net Cost/Household $45.17 $34.20 $34.65 Net Cost/Tonnes Marketed $206.41 $182.00 $177.98 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%

7

Comparison of Ontario Large Municipal Dual & Single Stream Average Program Performance with Niagara Region – Average of 2008-2010

1) An Assessment of Single and Dual Stream Recycling - WDO’s CIF Office 2) Dual stream includes Niagara Region’s program

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

1) An Assessment of Single and Dual Stream Recycling - WDO’s CIF Office

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
• ver 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

1) An Assessment of Single and Dual Stream Recycling - WDO’s CIF Office

CIF Study – Conclusions (cont’d)

• There is an insufficient body of research regarding the impacts
• f 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

1) An Assessment of Single and Dual Stream Recycling - WDO’s CIF Office

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 dual-

stream (based on the 2011 average program net cost) (1)

• $157.30/tonne (single-stream) vs. $135.81/tonne (dual-stream)

11

1) The Battle for Recycling – Daniel Lantz & Clarissa Morawski

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

12

1) The Battle for Recycling – Daniel Lantz & Clarissa Morawski

7

Why is Niagara Dual Stream?

• Collection Efficiencies and System Costs for Niagara

Region - 2007 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

• Study determined the Region should not consider

implementing a single-stream system given the high capital costs and the reduced revenue from the sale

• f 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

Why is Niagara Dual Stream? (cont’d)

8

Why is Niagara Dual Stream? (cont’d)

• Niagara had 4th 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