Report to: General Committee -                                                Report Date: April 16, 2007

Community Services and Environment

 

 

SUBJECT:                          2006 Program Update and Proposed 2007 Pilot Projects

PREPARED BY:               Claudia Marsales, Manager, Waste Management, Ext. 3560

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the report titled, “2006 Program Update and Proposed 2007 Pilot Projects” be received,

 

And that staff be authorized to proceed with developing pilot projects to test the use of translucent bags for garbage, and a netted blue box lid as methods for increasing Markham’s solid waste diversion rate,

 

And that staff report back on the details of the proposed pilot projects including location, timelines, and financial implications,

 

And that Staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Not applicable

 

 

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Not applicable

 

1. Purpose                     2. Background                      3. Discussion                        4. Financial        

 

5. Others (Environmental, Accessibility, Engage 21st, Affected Units)             6. Attachment(s)

 

PURPOSE:

To update Council on the performance of the 3-Stream waste collection program and to inform of two proposed pilot projects to further increase waste diversion.

 

 

BACKGROUND:

Markham has the Highest Diversion Rate in Ontario

2006 was the first full year of Markham’s 3-Stream waste collection system.  The results have been compiled and, at 69%, Markham has the highest diversion rate in York Region and of any urban centre in Ontario.

 

The Region of York has released Table 1, below, which lists the Region’s 2006 Waste Diversion Rate and provides a breakdown by Area Municipality for materials processed by the Region.  Of the materials Markham sent to the Region for processing and disposal, 67.1% was either composted or recycled. 

 

Table 1.  York Region 2006 Waste Diversion Rates by Area Municipality

 

2006 TONNES

2006           DIVERSION RATE

SOURCE

DISPOSAL

DIVERSION

TOTAL TONNAGE

AURORA

12,722.84

6,710.07

19,432.91

34.5%

EAST GWILLIMBURY

6,025.55

3,416.10

9,441.65

36.2%

GEORGINA

14,009.84

6,339.41

20,349.25

31.2%

KING

5,232.66

2,505.86

7,738.52

32.4%

MARKHAM

27,601.90

56,187.89

83,789.79

67.1%

NEWMARKET

17,812.17

11,119.97

28,932.14

38.4%

RICHMOND HILL

38,639.00

17,226.07

55,865.07

30.8%

VAUGHAN

56,832.01

27,029.66

83,861.67

32.2%

W – S

7,120.13

3,082.23

10,202.36

30.2%

ICI

5,970.33

1,232.15

7,202.48

17.1%

ALL SOURCES

191,966.43

134,849.40

326,815.83

41.3%

AREA MUNICIPALITIES

186,052.59

133,617.25

319,613.35

41.8%

Table 1 does not include materials collected through Markham’s ancillary programs which are not processed by the Region. These include items collected at recycling depots, the public space recycling program, large appliances, and Home Composting.  This additional tonnage added 2% to Markham’s diversion rate for a total of 69% in 2006.  Markham’s Mission Green diversion rate target is 70%.

 

Table 2 illustrates how Markham’s various waste management programs contributed to the Town’s 2006 69% waste diversion rate. 

 

Table 2. Markham’s 2006 Waste Diversion Rate by Program

 

 

2006 Actual Diversion

 

 

Tonnes

%

%

Garbage

Curbside

23,895

31%

31%

 

Multi-Residential

2,994

 

Public Space

60

Recycling

Blue Box

23,851

31%

69%

 

Multi-Residential

683

 

Depots

2,108

 

White Goods

463

 

Public Space

34

Organics

Yardwaste

7,287

38%

 

Green Bin

23,081

 

Christmas Trees

68

 

Home Composting

2,700

TOTAL

 

87,222

100%

100%

This was a significant increase over the 52% of Markham’s 2005 diversion rate when 3-Stream was first launched and Markham’s pre-3-Stream waste diversion rate of 35%.

 

 

OPTIONS/ DISCUSSION:

 

More Can Still be Done to Reduce Waste

The launch of the 3-Stream collection included a detailed waste audit analysis to test the effectiveness of the new program and to determine the potential diversion that 3-Stream could achieve.

 

This analysis revealed that the Green Bin and the newly expanded Blue Box were not capturing all the materials they could.  Of the waste going to landfill, about 66% was material that could go in the Green Bin and the Blue Box.  And 27% of the remainder was items that could be diverted through Markham’s re-use programs.  Table 3 provides a breakdown of the residual stream in the waste audit by material categories.

 

Table 3.  Breakdown of Residual Waste Stream

RESIDUAL COMPOSITION

44%

Waste*

31%

Organics

19%

Blue Box Paper

2%

New Blue Box Items (paint cans, aerosol containers, rigid plastic food containers)

2%

Blue Box Glass

1%

Blue Box Metal

1%

Blue Box Plastic

100%

TOTAL

*27% of which could be diverted through re-use programs

 

When the organics in the waste stream are allocated to the Green Bin, the recyclables are allocated to the Blue Box, and the reusable materials are allocated to re-use programs, Markham’s potential diversion rate increases to 90%.  Table 4 compares the make-up of Markham’s potential diversion rate with the 2006 actual diversion rate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.  Potential Diversion Rate Compared to Actual

 

2006 Actual Diversion

Potential Diversion*

 

(%)

(%)

Organics

38

69%

41

90%

Recycling

31

45

Reuse

0

4

Residual

31

31%

10

10%

TOTAL

100

100%

100

100%

 

 

Staff Proposes Two Pilot Projects

Clear Bags for Garbage

Table 3 shows that waste currently being sent to landfill is made up of 66% divertible materials.  Regular garbage bags make it easy for people to hide recyclables and organics in the garbage because they are opaque.  People hide recyclables and organics in the garbage in instances of convenience and the lack of adequate sorting in the bathrooms, the laundry room, or the home office.

 

Eliminating the ability to hide divertible materials in the garbage would encourage residents to better utilize the blue box and the green bin and further boost the waste diversion rate.

 

Staff proposes to develop and report back on the logistical and financial implications testing the use of clear bags for the collection of garbage. 

 

 

 

Blue Box Lid

Table 3 shows that the waste currently being sent to landfill is made up of 25% blue box recyclables.  A major reason for people to put recyclables in the garbage is the limited capacity of blue boxes.  When blue boxes are full, residents can’t just start filling up another blue box that they do not have.

 

Many people already have 3-4 blue boxes and purchasing additional blue boxes is not practical.  Additional blue boxes take up space and each blue box requires a dedicated trip to the curb on collection day.  Most people simply put recyclables that don’t fit in their blue boxes in the garbage.

 

The two most recent waste management pilot projects, “Markham’s on a Roll!” and “Bag It!” proved that recycling could increase by up to 50% just by increasing the volume of recycling containers.

 

Staff has investigated a new design for a flexible blue box lid which has the potential for several benefits.  It can;

1.      increase the capacity of a blue box by up to 30%

2.      significantly reduce the amount of litter caused by material blowing out of blue boxes

3.      allow residents to carry two blue boxes at once to the curb

 

This lid is basically a type of netting with a rigid bar on one end that affixes permanently to one top edge of a blue box, and a rigid bar with a handle on the other end that clamps to the opposite top edge of the blue box.  Because the lid is made of a netting material, it expands to accommodate a pile of recycling on top of the blue box and effectively increases the volume of the blue box by as much as 30%.  Also, by having a handle, residents could carry two blue boxes to the curb at one time.

 

Staff recommend developing a pilot test and reporting back on the logistical and financial implications of evaluating the following attributes of this blue box lid;

  1. potential to increase recycling
  2. potential to reduce litter
  3. impact on recycling collection efficiency
  4. ease of use
  5. public acceptance

 

 

FINANCIAL TEMPLATE: (external link)

[Forward Excel document to Clerks for attachment]

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Developing opportunities for increased waste diversion is consistent with the Town of Markham’s corporate goal of “Environmental Focus” and Council’s 2006 priority of “Improving Environmental Protection and Management”.  Testing the use of clear bags for garbage and the proposed netted blue box lid are specific examples of opportunities to increase the diversion of waste from landfill.

 

 

ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS:

None.

 

ENGAGE 21ST CONSIDERATIONS:

[Insert text here or delete section]

 

 

BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:

None.

 

 

RECOMMENDED

BY: ________________________                                          ________________________

                                      [Insert text here]                                 [Insert text here]

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

[Insert text here]