Recycling Initiatives in Multi-Unit Buildings: A Comprehensive Overview
This report outlines the various recycling services provided to residents living in multi-unit buildings, including solid waste collection, curbside collection, depot collection, special collections, and composting. It also discusses curbside diversion rates, recycle depot tonnage from 2009 to 2014, and compares the recycling efforts between depots and curbsides. Additionally, it provides data on the number of buildings and units participating in these recycling programs.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
RECYCLING FOR Multi-unit Buildings COUNCIL-IN-COMMITTEE January 19, 2015 ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS
Solid Waste Collection Service Solid Waste Collection Diversion services to residents Curbside collection Depot collection Special collections Spring yard waste Fall leaf collection Composting
Curbside Collection current service Single residences: Duplexes: 1,274 x 2 3-units: 4-units: 13,515 units 2,548 units 576 units 728 units 17,367 units 192 x 3 182 x 4 As of September 2014
CURBSIDE DIVERSION RATES MT = metric tonnes YEAR 2009 WASTE RECYCLABLES TOTAL DIVERSION 12528 MT 1656 MT 14184 MT 11.7% 2010 12819 1589 14407 11.0% 2011 12920 1535 14455 10.6% 2012 12844 1448 14292 10.1% 2013 12784 1382 14166 9.8% 2014 est. 13000 1400 14400 9.7% AVERAGE 12815 1501 14317 10.5%
Recycle Depot tonnage 2009-2014 Metric Tonnes Cost per MT Cost ** 2009 332 MT $157.51 $52,293 2010 450 157.51 70,879 2011 490 160.82 78,802 2012 452 166.45 75,234 2013 439 169.28 74,314 2014 463 170.80 79,080 Average 438 **not including site maintenance; estimate $7,000 in 2014
Buildings & Units Apartments buildings 63 67 8 33 7 11 94 50 38 19 27 417 Condominiums buildings 0 3 0 1 0 1 9 7 9 4 3 37 TOTALS No. Units per Building 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-151 units 315 402 56 264 63 110 1388 1283 1359 863 2041 8144 units 0 18 0 8 0 10 137 186 333 180 196 1068 buildings 63 70 8 34 7 12 103 57 47 23 30 454 units 315 420 56 272 63 120 1525 1469 1692 1043 2237 9212
Buildings & Units 2500 120 2237 103 RED number of buildings 100 2000 BLUE number of units 1692 80 1525 1469 70 1500 63 57 60 1043 47 1000 40 34 30 23 500 420 20 315 272 12 8 7 120 63 56 0 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >51 UNITS PER BUILDING
Recycle Comparison Type Number Units Annual Kg per unit per year Recyclables (MT) Depots 9212 438 48 Curbsides 17367 1501 86
Fredericton Apartment Owners Association Supportive of recycling initiative in principle Concerned about costs & resources for: Managing on-site containers Sorting materials Managing contamination More than bi-weekly pickup required Level playing field (Mandatory) Education for tenants
Provincial Recycling NB Department of Environment, Remediation and Materials Management Section NB Environment is in the very early stages of looking into a PPP (Printed Paper and Packaging) Extended Producer Responsibility program. It is much too early to indicate whether or not a PPP EPR program, if implemented in NB, would include the ICI sector and/or multi-unit residential buildings. Time frame for implementing a PPP-EPR program in NB is unknown
ISSUES Size of wheeled carts 360 lhousehold dolly 660 l or 1100 l commercial carts Number of units per cart Between 10 and 20 units per dolly cart One cart each for grey and blue materials Containers Access Storage Contamination Participation Cost Enforcement
ISSUES Containers Safe and efficient access by contractor to on-site storage Minimize backing-up of trucks Alternate placement of carts curbside Access Storage Contamination Participation Enforcement Cost
ISSUES Containers Suitable location of recycle carts on-site Located in a safe and accessible spot for tenants Any loss of parking stalls Access Storage Contamination Participation Enforcement Cost
ISSUES Containers Access Largest single detriment to successful and effective recycling Issue identified by multiunit owners and FRSW Storage Contamination Participation Enforcement Cost
ISSUES Containers Access Support from residents, owners & the City Accessible, easy Education Storage Contamination Participation Enforcement Cost
ISSUES Containers Participation; contamination Mandatory collection? Is provincial legislation structured to permit City By-laws to address enforcement Applicable to existing curbside collection program Enforcement resources Access Storage Contamination Participation Enforcement Cost
ISSUES Containers Four main components Access 1. Cost of supplying recycling carts 1,400 carts @$70 = $ 98,000 2,000 carts @$70 = $140,000 Cost borne by City or Owners 2. Cost of existing recycle depots Estimate $86,000 for 2015 Storage Contamination Participation Enforcement Cost
ISSUES Containers 3. Cost of collection Many variables / parameters Rough estimate: $250,000 annually Access Storage Contamination Participation Enforcement 4. Owners Cost and Resources Cost
Summary Current system Goal Diversion (13,000 mt solid waste collected in 2014) 1501 mt curbside 438 mt depots 950 mt Special collections (Spring and Fall) Cost effectiveness
Options 1. Council may direct Staff to continue with the current depot system, providing service to multi-unit buildings. Council may direct staff to explore options for enhancing the depot system and bring forward for consideration as part of the 2016 budget process. Council may direct staff to further explore the provision of onsite recyclable collection at multi-unit buildings, and bring forward for consideration as part of the 2016 budget process. Council may direct staff to explore other options relating to recycling service to multiunit buildings. 2. 3. 4.
Recommendation It is recommended that Council in Committee adopt Option 2: Direct staff to explore options for enhancing the depot system and bring forward for consideration as part of the 2016 budget process.
