By wisely investing time and energy in the up-front planning processes to support competitive procurement of collection services as part of integrated residential waste management systems, a successful balance can be achieved between service level improvements, diversion improvements and collection efficiencies with associated cost savings.
Janine Ralph
After the first flush of implementing new municipal diversion systems, comes performance review and adjustments. Collection services are the connecting link or interface, between the generator of waste materials and the processing or management systems used to find a home for diverted materials. Getting the collection system right is an essential part of a high-performance diversion program.
The large majority of municipalities in Ontario, Canada have three-stream curbside residential collection systems, designed to collect and divert recyclable and organic materials, sending the remaining garbage to disposal. While curbside collection of recyclables has been in effect in some form for over 20 years in most jurisdictions, curbside organics (food scrap) collection has been a recent adjustment to service delivery, with most programs coming into effect since 2005. At the same time, many jurisdictions have imposed some form of restriction on garbage collection in the form of limits to material quantities (e.g., limits on acceptable container sizes or number of bags set-out weekly) or changes to collection frequency by shifting to every-other-week pick-up. Program performance varies, with most large jurisdictions having three-stream residential programs in effect, diverting on average 47 percent of the total residential waste stream from disposal as of 2010 with around half of that attributed to recycling and half to organics diversion through curbside green bin collection.1
Over the past four years, several Ontario municipalities have reviewed their three-stream programs from both a diversion and economic performance perspective. Average large municipal diversion performance increased to 50 percent as of 2012, with some jurisdictions such as Simcoe County achieving almost 58 percent diversion. Others, such as the City of Ottawa, lagged behind the others in performance in 2012 with a 43 percent diversion rate, but have implemented new programs resulting in significant improvements in 2013.2 Through the remainder of this article, we will examine the approaches that municipalities have used to adjust their systems to achieve high diversion and improved collection efficiency resulting in reduced residential program costs.
The City of Ottawa
The City of Ottawa is Canada’s capital city, with a population of almost 900,000, covering a region of over 1,000 square miles with the majority of its population concentrated in a single relatively contiguous urban area. The City serves in the order of 268,000 curbside collection units (stops).
As of 2010, the City of Ottawa implemented a green bin program to divert residential food and yard waste from disposal. This program was added to the City’s existing residential system that included:
- Weekly garbage and bulky waste collection (three item limit);
- Alternating week two-stream recycling collection;
- Spring and fall leaf and yard waste collection.
The system involved three to four collection passes each week depending on the season, with a separate vehicle fleet for each material stream.
The City of Ottawa is one of the few jurisdictions in Canada that collects paper recyclables one week and glass/metal/plastic containers the next. This program has consistently performed well compared to other two-stream and single-stream recycling programs, with material recovery rates around the median (182 kg/household annually) at a lower than average cost of $27 per household annually (average large Ontario programs typically run around $40 per household per annum). The City collects a full range of recyclables including ONP, OCC, OBB, glass, steel, gable top cartons, aluminum packaging and foil, empty aerosol and paint cans, plastic resins #1 through #5 and #7.
One year into the new organics collection program, the City determined that performance improvements were needed as organic recovery rates and overall diversion performance were not meeting expectations. The City initiated a collection Service Level Review in early 2011, to select an improved collection system approach. The findings of the Review were intended to inform the new tender for collection services scheduled for implementation in late 2012. Technical elements of the Service Level Review included development of a collection model used to compare different collection system configurations (fleet requirements and costs), residential curbside composition audits used to determine material generation rates and capture rates for diverted materials, and a customer satisfaction survey regarding current service levels and acceptability of program changes.
The city-wide collection system model allowed for the comparison of various collection system configurations including different weekly co-collection scenarios in order to reduce the fleet requirements and alternating week garbage collection in order to provide an incentive for higher organic material capture rates. An adjustment to the collection area boundaries was also modeled to find the most efficient grouping of collection routes. In addition, single stream collection options were examined and found to be unfeasible due to the lack of availability of single-stream processing capacity and generally higher overall system costs. The City’s customer survey indicated a high degree of satisfaction with the City’s alternating week two stream program, with the majority preferring no changes to the recycling program.
The Service Level Review determined that the collection system which offered the most advantages was one with: alternating week garbage collection, continued alternating week two-stream recycling, weekly green (organics) bin collection with separate peak leaf and yard waste collection. The transition to alternating week garbage collection was the element that offered the greatest potential program improvements, encouraging use of the green organics bin and recycling program with potential increase in diversion to 54 percent, potential cost savings of up to $9 million annually, a significant increase in organics capture rates and decreases in greenhouse gas emissions. The transition to alternating week garbage collection was linked to implementing a special considerations program for households with excess diapers and expansion of organics collection to the rural areas of the City.
The new collection system was tendered and implemented in late 2012. Immediate improvements in collection system performance achieved in year-one of implementation included:
- Savings of over $10 million in collection costs for the first year of service compared to 2011;
- A 65 percent increase in organic material capture rates, from 34 percent of the total available food and compostable paper fiber in 2011 to 56 percent as of 2013;
- An increase of total food and compostable paper recovered from 26,500 to 46,300 tons per year, a shift from 202 to 339 lbs per household annually; and,
- An increase in diversion from 43 percent in 2012 as of the end of 2013.
Continued improvement in diversion performance is anticipated as residents fully adjust to the new program.
The County of Simcoe
The County of Simcoe is located north of Toronto, ON and covers a large geographic area of over 1,800 square miles with a population of more than 260,000 with one of the fastest growth rates in the province. The County is comprised of 16 member municipalities and has a strong tourism industry with a large seasonal population. The County’s collection system serves over 132,000 curbside collection units spread through both urban nodes and broad rural areas.
As of 2009, the County was providing residents with a three-stream collection system consisting of:
- Weekly garbage collection, co-collected with green bin (food scrap) materials on a split truck;
- Weekly dual-stream collection of recyclables;
- Some leaf and yard collection, brush collection, bulky material and/or scrap metal collection services offered inconsistently between member municipalities;
- Convenient drop-off service at four depots distributed across the County, collecting a broad range of materials for diversion or disposal.
The County had garbage restrictions in effect, allowing collection of one ‘free’ bag of garbage per week and PAYT for additional bags.
This program was achieving one of the best diversion rates in Ontario, achieving 55 percent diversion as of 2009. While this performance was excellent, the County had limited landfill capacity remaining at its four small operating sites (around 7 to 10 years of remaining capacity), and was determined to seek continuous improvement both in regards to diversion and in regards to controlling waste program costs. One of the issues facing the County was inconsistency in delivery of collection services across the 16 member municipalities and provision of service through five collection contracts.
The County completed a system-wide Solid Waste Management Strategy in 2010, setting the stage for implementing residential collection system changes as of 2013. Supporting activities for the strategy included development of a detailed collection system model, completion of curbside residential waste composition audits and extensive public consultation including online surveys and events. Collection options considered by the County included increased garbage collection restrictions including bi-weekly garbage collection, consolidation of collection services through an RFP for County-wide collection service, and transition to a common level of service for yard waste, bulky materials and metals.
Based on assessment of potential diversion performance and costs, the strategy recommended in the near-term that the optimal residential collection system would include:
- No change to weekly garbage and green bin organics co-collection or to the weekly dual-stream recycling collection service as these services were both efficient and were effectively managing all three material streams;
- That the PAYT cost for additional containers of garbage sent to disposal should be increased;
- That consolidation of collection services for garbage, green bin organics and recyclables under one County-wide contract offered great efficiencies in service provision;
- A uniform level of service across the County for leaf and yard, Christmas trees and bulky materials offered more diversion potential and opportunities for collection efficiencies.
The County issued an RFP reflecting these collection service changes in 2011. The new service was implemented in 2013 resulting in:
- Savings of $2.6 million per annum in collection costs compared to 2011;
- An increase in the level of service to provided to all residents through consistent County-wide leaf and yard, Christmas tree and call-in bulky collection service.
As of the end of 2012, the County was achieving a residential diversion rate of almost 58 percent. Further system improvements are planned for implementation with the intent of achieving 70 percent diversion or more as of 2020 with a particular focus on improving green bin organic capture rates.
The City of Winnipeg
Ontario municipalities are not the only Canadian jurisdictions seeking to improve collection system performance and higher diversion goals. The City of Winnipeg has a population of near 700,000, with more than 190,000 residential units served with curbside collection services. As of 2009, it was estimated that the residential sector of the City generated 375,000 tons of waste, with 15 percent of this material being diverted. The City of Winnipeg followed a similar approach to Simcoe County, completing a Comprehensive Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) in 2011. The plan was intended to dramatically increase waste diversion rates while supporting licensing of the continued operation of the City’s landfill by the provincial regulator.
Opportunities for significant improvements were identified for the City’s collection programs which included single stream blue box recycling collection, varying types of garbage collection service and relatively minimal curbside yard waste collection. Garbage collection services were provided through automated cart collection, manual collection of cans/bags, use of communal bins and carts with no incentive for diversion. As of 2009, collection services were provided over five collection service areas, through 12 separate collection contracts.
Collection system modeling was undertaken as part of the CIWMP, resulting in recommendations to:
- Adjust the collection service areas in a more efficient manner;
- Consolidate the majority of collection services through one procurement process and fewer contracts;
- Implement automated cart collection for garbage and single stream recyclables across the City;
- Implement City-wide leaf and yard waste alternating week collection service as part of the phased implementation of organics diversion.
It was estimated that these changes would result in a reduction in garbage collection costs of more than $1 million annually, offsetting in part the cost of the new leaf and yard waste collection service.
The City began implementation of the CIWMP as of late 2011, with the first major system change coming into effect in late 2012 with the implementation of a uniform level of automated cart collection across the City for recycling and garbage, along with weekly collection of leaf and yard and bulky waste materials. The City realized efficiencies in collection service provision, while increasing the overall level of service provided to residents, resulting in a decrease in garbage collection costs from $9.3 million in 2011 to $8.4 million in 2013 and a decrease in recycling collection costs from $6.2 in 2011 to $5.58 million in 2013.
The new collection system has significantly increased residential diversion rates from 15 percent in 2009 to more than 28 percent as of 2013, with overall tons diverted increasing from 52,300 to 82,700 tons and residential tons disposed decreasing from over 248,000 tons as of 2009 to less than 193,000 tons as of 2013. The City is two years ahead of schedule in achieving its near-term 35 percent diversion goal.
Investing Time and Energy
All three municipalities presented in this article, wisely invested time and energy in upfront planning processes to support competitive procurement of collection services, as part of integrated residential waste management systems. The planning approach and decision making tools applied, including development of collection models, allowed for comparison of system performance, and selection of approaches that successfully achieved a balance between service level improvements, diversion improvements and collection efficiencies with associated cost savings.
Janine Ralph co-leads the Organics Practice at HDR Inc. (Omaha, NE). She has spent the last 15 years developing integrated waste management plans and residential organics diversion programs. This has included developing collection system models and analytical tools to help municipalities improve collection system performance. She can be reached at (905) 380-9568, via email at [email protected] or visit www.hdrinc.com
Notes
- Waste Diversion Ontario, 2010 GAP by Municipal Grouping, Large Urban and Urban Regional Municipalities
- Waste Diversion Ontario, 2012 GAP by Municipal Grouping, Large Urban and Urban Regional Municipalities