2018 WASTE COMPOSITION MONITORING PROGRAM METRO VANCOUVER SUBMITTED TO: Metro Vancouver Solid Waste Services Metrotower III 4730 Kingsway Burnaby, BC PREPARED BY: TRI Environmental Consulting 6961 Russell Avenue Burnaby, BC, V5J 4R8 Phone: 604-436-3384 Fax: 604-436-5914 Email: [email protected]PROJECT NO.: T18-125 DATE: 7 June 2019
72
Embed
2018 WASTE COMPOSITION MONITORING ROGRAM METRO … · The largest components of the waste composition were compostable organics (26.0%), paper (18.1%), and plastic (16.4%). Compostable
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
2018 WASTE COMPOSITION MONITORING PROGRAM METRO VANCOUVER
SUBMITTED TO: Metro Vancouver Solid Waste Services Metrotower III 4730 Kingsway Burnaby, BC PREPARED BY: TRI Environmental Consulting 6961 Russell Avenue Burnaby, BC, V5J 4R8 Phone: 604-436-3384 Fax: 604-436-5914 Email: [email protected] PROJECT NO.: T18-125
TRI Environmental Consulting (TRI) a division of Canadian Construction Materials Engineering & Testing Inc. (CCMET), is pleased to present the findings of the 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program (“the Study”). The project was completed for Metro Vancouver (the ‘Client’). The purpose of the Study was to provide current data on the composition of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the Metro Vancouver region for the following sectors:
• Single-Family (SF) residential waste;
• Multi-Family (MF) residential waste;
• Commercial/Institutional (C/I) waste;
• Drop-Off (DO), or self-haul; and
• Streetscape waste. This study was completed at four (4) facilities in the Metro Vancouver region. Samples of waste were sorted at the Vancouver South Transfer Station (VSTS), the Coquitlam Transfer Station (CTS), the Surrey Transfer Station (STS), and the Metro Vancouver Waste to Energy Facility in Burnaby (WTE). Collection and sorting of streetscape waste samples was also completed for this study. Streetscape waste was collected from eight (8) municipalities in the Metro Vancouver region. This included sampling bins from areas with multiple streetscape waste streams.
Waste Composition SF, MF, C/I, and DO waste was sorted into thirteen (13) primary categories. Table A summarizes all the waste composition results by primary category for all sectors and the combined overall composition. A more detailed breakdown is presented later in the report.
Metro Vancouver Project No.: T18-125 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program 7 June 2019 Page ii
Combined Waste Composition The largest components of the waste composition were compostable organics (26.0%), paper (18.1%), and plastic (16.4%). Compostable organics was mainly composed of food waste (14.0%), 7.4% of which was considered avoidable food waste and 6.6% was unavoidable. Paper mainly consisted of other compostable paper (4.4%), such as tissues/towelling, followed by other soiled cardboard (2.4%) and clean recyclable cardboard (1.8%). Plastic mainly consisted of consumable packaging (2.5%) and other plastic film (2.2%) A historical comparison of waste disposed per capita by primary category for the region is presented in Figure A. The results from the Study were compared with disposal results from studies completed in 2013, 2015, and 2016 for Metro Vancouver.
Figure A – Regional Waste Disposal per Capita (Excluding Construction and Demolition Waste)
Streetscape Waste Due to the highly variable nature of streetscape waste and the relatively low number of recycling stream samples, the streetscape composition results within this report cannot be used to compare one system to another. The results are intended to provide a general idea of the types of items and range of composition that may be found in streetscape bins. Other municipalities within the region have also completed dedicated streetscape composition studies with more comprehensive results for their specific
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2013 2015 2016 2018
Dis
po
sal (
kg/c
apit
a)
Fines
Bulky Objects
Household Hygiene
Household Hazardous
Electronic Waste
Building Material
Glass
Metals
Non-Compostable Organics
Compostable Organics
Compostable Products andPackaging
Plastic
Paper
Metro Vancouver Project No.: T18-125 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program 7 June 2019 Page iv
streetscape bin configurations and design that may better reflect the contents of streetscape bins in those communities. Streetscape waste was collected from eight (8) municipalities and sorted into fourteen (14) primary categories. The number and types of streams sampled differed between municipalities. The streams sampled included garbage, single-stream recycling, containers, paper, and organics. Liquids in containers or coffee cups were excluded from the composition analysis and the total weight of the samples. The composition of streetscape garbage receptacles audited is presented in Figure B.
Figure B – Streetscape Garbage Composition
Pet waste represented approximately half of the material by weight in the streetscape receptacles audited, however the presence of pet waste is highly dependent on whether or not the receptacle is located near dog-walking areas. Pet waste also tends to have a relatively high density compared to other items found in streetscape receptacles, and would typically not compose a large proportion by volume. The next most prevalent material types were compostable material (19%) and recyclable containers (13%). Only 6% of the material found in streetscape garbage receptacles was determined to be not readily divertible. Table B summarizes the composition of the different streetscape recycling streams sampled. It is difficult to draw conclusions between different recycling streams and bin configurations as the type of material disposed of in a specific receptacle is highly location dependent. For example, configurations including organics receptacles are likely located in areas where high volumes of organics are expected to be generated and therefore cannot necessarily be compared to locations without organics receptacles. Additional factors such as the age of the program, bin design, and program communication, such as signage, can also influence how accurately the materials are deposited.
Pet Waste49%
Garbage6%
Compostable Material19%
Depot3%
Recyclable Paper10%
Recyclable Containers13%
Metro Vancouver Project No.: T18-125 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program 7 June 2019 Page v
Streetscape bins for the paper stream yielded the highest proportion of targeted materials with 92% of the composition consisting of recyclable paper and only 8% consisting of improperly sorted items or contamination. Levels of contamination in single-stream recycling and containers bins ranged from 18% to 47%, depending on location and configuration. In organics bins, only 45% of the audited contents contained organics, with 47% of the bin composed of recyclable material (31% containers/beverage deposit and 16% paper) and 8% containing garbage.
Stream Composition1
Streetscape Recycling Stream
Configuration 1 Configuration 2 Configuration 3
Single-Stream Recycling Paper Containers Single- Stream
Recycling Organics
Weight % Weight % Weight % Weight % Weight %
Beverage Deposit 48% 1% 23% 6% 3%
Containers 25% 2% 42% 33% 28%
Paper 9% 92% 12% 13% 16%
Organics 7% 3% 11% 26% 45%
Garbage 11% 2% 13% 21% 8%
Total 100% 100%2 100% 100% 100%
NOTE TO THE READER The samples collected and sorted for this study are “snapshots” in time, meaning the reported quantities are estimates and only represent the conditions for the period of time in which they were collected. Seasonal and annual variability, weather, and other factors can affect the amount and composition of waste and recyclables generated by the various sectors at any given time. Throughout the report, the term C/I refers to Commercial and Institutional Waste.
Metro Vancouver Project No.: T18-125 2018 Waste Composition Study 7 June 2019 Page vi
2.0 Scope of Work .......................................................................................................................... 1
3.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 Design of the Sampling Program ............................................................................................... 3 3.2 Transfer Station Based Audit ..................................................................................................... 3 3.3 Streetscape Waste Composition ............................................................................................... 4 3.4 Data Evaluation – Garbage and Streetscape ............................................................................. 4 3.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures .................................................................. 4
4.2 Metro Vancouver Waste Disposal Per Capita ......................................................................... 12 4.3 Historical Comparison ............................................................................................................. 13
1.0 Introduction TRI Environmental Consulting (TRI) a division of Canadian Construction Materials Engineering & Testing Inc. (CCMET), is pleased to present the findings of the 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program (“the Study”)
1.1 Objective The purpose of the Study was to provide current data on the composition of the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and the disposal rates of MSW within the Metro Vancouver region. The Study included the following sectors:
• Single-Family (SF) residential waste;
• Multi-Family (MF) residential waste;
• Commercial, and Institutional (C/I) waste;
• Residential Drop-off (DO) waste; and
• Streetscape Waste. This study was completed at four (4) facilities in the Metro Vancouver region. Samples of waste were sorted at the Vancouver South Transfer Station (VSTS), the Coquitlam Transfer Station (CTS), the Surrey Transfer Station (STS), and the Metro Vancouver Waste to Energy Facility in Burnaby (WTE). Collection and sorting of streetscape waste samples was also completed for this study. Streetscape waste was collected from eight (8) municipalities in the Metro Vancouver region. This included sampling bins from areas with multiple streetscape waste streams. This report summarizes the methodology employed for each of the sectors within the composition study, results of the characterization and provides an analysis of the data.
2.0 Scope of Work The scope of work was as follows:
• Prepare Site-specific Health and Safety Plans for each sorting facility.
• Prepare schedule and complete Streetscape Waste Composition Monitoring Program.
• Complete one (1) week of Transfer Station Waste Composition Monitoring at each of the four (4) locations which includes the Vancouver South Transfer Station (VSTS), Waste to Energy (WTE), Coquitlam Transfer Station (CTS) and Surrey Transfer Station (STS) The waste sources will be as follows:
o Single-Family (SF) o Multi-Family (MF) o Drop-off (DO) o Commercial/Institutional (C/I)
• Complete data entry and analysis of all samples collected.
• Complete draft report for review.
• Complete two rounds of reviews prior to the completion of the final report.
Metro Vancouver Project No.: T18-125 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program 7 June 2019 Page 2
The sampling locations and dates are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 – Study Location and Dates
Location Sector Sampled Sample Dates (2018)
Various Streetscape October 15 – October 24
VSTS SF, MF, C/I, and DO November 5 – November 9
CTS SF, MF, C/I, and DO November 13 – November 16
STS SF, MF, C/I, and DO November 19 – November 23
WTE SF, MF, C/I, and DO November 26 – December 3
Table 2 summarizes the number of samples collected from each sector, the total weight audited and the average weight of each of the samples.
Table 2 – Sector Sampling Information
Load Source Number of samples
Total Weight of Material audited (kg) Average weight (kg)
Single-Family 18 1,816.5 100.9
Multi-Family 20 2,028.1 101.4
Commercial, and Institutional 37 3,781.5 102.2
Drop-Off 22 1,990.0 90.5
Total 97 9,616.0 99.1
Streetscape samples were collected from eight (8) municipalities (A – H) located within Metro Vancouver. Tables 3 summarizes the number of samples collected and types of bin configurations from streetscape for each municipality.
Table 3 – Streetscape Sampling Information
Municipality Bin Configuration # of Samples
A Garbage, Containers, and Paper 10
B Garbage Only 18
Garbage, Containers and Paper 2
C Garbage Only 30
D Garbage, Single-Stream Recycling, and Organics
10
E Garbage Only 2
F Garbage Only 27
Garbage, Containers, and Paper 2
G Garbage Only 9
Garbage, Containers and Paper 7
H Garbage Only 11
Garbage and Single-Stream Recycling 5
Garbage, Single-Stream Recycling and Organics
3
Metro Vancouver Project No.: T18-125 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program 7 June 2019 Page 3
3.1 Design of the Sampling Program The sampling for the waste composition monitoring program was based on industry accepted techniques 1,2, and previous experience gained by TRI, with modifications made according to the requirements of the present Study. Samples for waste composition were collected from five (5) different sources of municipal solid waste (MSW). MSW received at the previously mentioned transfer stations was classified as originating from one (1) of the following five (5) sectors:
• Single-family residential (SF)
• Multi-family residential (MF)
• Commercial, and Institutional (C/I)
• Drop-Off (DO)
• Streetscape
3.2 Transfer Station Based Audit Collection of SF, MF, C/I, and DO samples was completed at the four (4) transfer stations included in the Study. The field supervisor selected samples by asking waste haulers about the originating sector and municipality. The field supervisor then contacted the appropriate transfer station personnel to allow for the hauler to tip on the floor or the area designated for sample collection by the site manager. At VSTS, samples were initially selected by the scale house crew, however, the sample selection methodology was changed after 2 days. This was because initially, it was unclear whether these samples were arriving from the multi-family or C/I sector. Following this, the field supervisor started selecting samples by asking the haulers about the originating sector of the waste. This was then communicated to the loader operator. Drop-off samples were collected by speaking to residents coming to the transfer stations who were asked the reason as to why they were disposing waste at the transfer station. Once samples were identified at VSTS and STS, one loader bucket of material that weighed between 300-500 kg was then delivered to the sorting area. The team then collected a sample of approximately 100 kg from each of the load using a rough grid to ensure sample collection was not affected by bias. At CTS, trucks were instructed to tip at the last receiving door where the auditing team collected a sample directly from the total contents of the truck. This was different from VSTS and STS, where a loader brought a sample once the truck had tipped on the floor. At the WTE, haulers tipped the last quarter of their load on the apron of the receiving floor.
1 Recommended Waste Characterization Methodology for Direct Waste Analysis Studies in Canada, SENES Consultants Ltd.; April 30, 1999.
2 Procedural Manual for Municipal Solid Waste Composition Analysis; Ministry of Environment; November 1991.
Metro Vancouver Project No.: T18-125 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program 7 June 2019 Page 4
Samples were weighed prior to sorting. Samples were then sorted into appropriate category bins and weighed with each bin tared weight subtracted to determine the net weight. A full list of material categories can be found attached in Appendix I. Categories also included single-use items (SUI) which were weighed and counted. Midway through the Study one more category was added to due to foam takeout containers not having an appropriate category. A new category for foam takeout containers (#6 PS Foam Takeout Containers) was added. The added SUI category did not change the overall composition due to those items still being weighed in a category of a similar description (#6 PS Foam Foodware).
3.3 Streetscape Waste Composition Streetscape samples were collected by municipal crews from each respective municipality. Streetscape sample locations were chosen by the municipalities. The contents of each sample were emptied into bags and labelled with the appropriate waste stream (garbage, paper, containers etc.) by municipal crews. All samples were delivered by municipal crews to either VSTS or to the respective municipality’s works yard where the sorting was to take place. The samples were weighed and separated into the different streams prior to sorting. Samples were then sorted into the appropriate category bins and then weighed once sorting was complete. The tared weight of each bin was recorded to find the net weight of each sample. Similar to the transfer station-based audit, SUIs were counted and weighed.
3.4 Data Evaluation – Garbage and Streetscape Data was compiled into spreadsheets throughout the course of the fieldwork. Quality control was completed to ensure the accuracy of the collected data. The pre-sorted weight of each sample was compared to the final calculated sample weight after sorting to ensure that the results were within +/- 3%. The average was calculated using the weighted mean for each waste sector and material category. The confidence interval for each waste sector was calculated to the 90% confidence level.
3.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures In the field, raw waste composition data was reviewed on a daily basis following the sorts. This review allowed the field supervisor to determine if items had been omitted from the data sheets. All samples were weighed at the beginning before sorting occurred, and then again after sorting was complete to ensure all material was accounted for. In the office, staff reviewed the accuracy of 100% of the data that was transcribed into spreadsheet format. The accuracy of all data was reviewed by calculating the difference between the sum of the sorted category masses and the unsorted sample mass.
4.0 Results
4.1 Waste Composition Results The results and the analysis of the data collected from this study are presented in the sections below, including the composition of waste from all sectors which includes single-family (SF), multi-family (MF), industrial, commercial and institutional (C/I), and drop-off (DO).
Metro Vancouver Project No.: T18-125 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program 7 June 2019 Page 5
4.1.1 Single-Family Waste Composition Table 4 shows primary categories that comprised over 10% of the total SF waste, along with significant (largest 1, 2, or 3 categories making up more than 50% of the primary category) secondary and tertiary sub-categories within each primary category. The garbage consisted primarily of compostable organics, plastics, household hygiene, and paper.
Table 4 – Breakdown of Primary Categories (>10%) for Single-Family Waste Composition
17.3% Paper 9.5% Other Paper 7.1% Other Compostable Paper
Note: Percentages shown in Table 4 are relative to total SF waste composition. Not all secondary and tertiary categories are shown for each
corresponding primary category, only more significant components. See Appendix I for a complete breakdown.
Other compostable paper mainly consisted of soiled tissues/towelling and paper plates. Over half of the food waste was comprised of unavoidable food (9.5%). The remaining food categories were summed to provide an outlook on how much of the food waste was avoidable (8.5%).
The composition results and the 90% confidence intervals are shown in Table 5. The confidence intervals show that there was consistency in the sampling with only household hygiene greater than 4%. The primary categories that contribute less to the total composition show greater consistency. A breakdown of all subcategories can be found in Appendix II.
Table 5 – Single-Family Waste Composition Results
Material Category Weighted Mean (%) 90 % Confidence Interval
Compostable Organics 23.1% ±3.7%
Plastic 21.6% ±2.1%
Household Hygiene 18.2% ±4.2%
Paper 17.3% ±2.5%
Non-Compostable Organics 6.6% ±2.2%
Fines 3.2% ±0.3%
Metals 3.1% ±0.6%
Building Material 3.1% ±1.7%
Glass 1.9% ±0.7%
Electronic Waste 1.0% ±0.5%
Household Hazardous 0.8% ±0.5%
Compostable Products and Packaging 0.0% ±0.0%
Bulky Objects 0.0% ±0.0%
Metro Vancouver Project No.: T18-125 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program 7 June 2019 Page 6
4.1.2 Multi-Family Waste Composition Table 6 shows primary categories that comprised over 10% of the total MF waste, along with significant secondary and tertiary sub-categories. The composition consisted mainly of compostable organics, plastic, paper, and household hygiene.
Table 6 – Breakdown of Main Primary Categories (>10%) for Multi-Family Waste Composition
The other compostable paper mainly consisted of soiled tissues/towelling and paper plates. Food waste consisted of more avoidable food waste (10.7%) than unavoidable food waste (7.7%).
The composition and the 90% confidence intervals for the MF waste results are shown in Table 7. The primary categories that contribute less to the total composition show greater consistency. A breakdown of all subcategories can be found in Appendix II.
Table 7 – Multi-Family Waste Composition Results
Material Category Weighted Mean (%) 90 % Confidence Interval
Compostable Organics 25.8% ±4.6%
Plastic 21.7% ±3.0%
Paper 21.4% ±3.7%
Household Hygiene 11.9% ±3.3%
Non-Compostable Organics 5.6% ±2.4%
Metals 4.8% ±1.7%
Fines 2.1% ±0.4%
Electronic Waste 2.0% ±1.4%
Building Material 1.9% ±1.5%
Glass 1.7% ±0.6%
Household Hazardous 1.2% ±0.9%
Compostable Products and Packaging 0.0% ±0.0%
Bulky Objects 0.0% ±0.0%
Results of the total composition for Multi-family waste with each primary category is presented in Figure 2.
4.1.3 Commercial/Institutional (C/I) Waste Composition Table 8 shows primary categories that comprised over 10% of the total C/I waste, along with significant secondary and tertiary sub-categories within each primary category. The composition consisted of mainly compostable organics, paper, non-compostable organics, and plastic.
Table 8 – Breakdown of Main Primary Categories (>10%) for Commercial/Institutional Waste Composition
Note: Percentages shown in Table 8 above are relative to total C/I waste composition. Not all secondary and tertiary categories are shown for
each corresponding primary category, only more significant components. See Appendix I for a complete breakdown.
Food waste consisted of more avoidable food (7.3%) than unavoidable food waste (7.1%). The other portion of clean wood mainly consisted of wood pallets (5.17%). Other compostable paper consisted of tissues/towelling and paper used in an industrial setting.
The composition and the 90% confidence intervals for the C/I waste results are shown in Table 9 along with the results from the samples taken at each of the four transfer stations. The confidence intervals show that there is more variability in the categories that contribute the most to the total waste composition. A breakdown of all subcategories can be found in Appendix II.
4.1.3 Drop-Off (DO) Waste Composition Table 10 shows primary categories that comprised over 10% of the total waste, along with significant secondary and tertiary sub-categories within each primary category. The composition consisted mainly of non-compostable organics, building material, and compostable organics.
Table 10 – Breakdown of Primary Categories (>10%) for Drop-Off Waste Composition
11.9% Compostable Organics 6.8% Clean Wood 6.8% Other Wood
4.8% Yard and Garden 4.8% Small Yard Waste
Note: Percentages shown in Table 10 are relative to total DO waste composition. Not all secondary and tertiary categories are shown for each
corresponding primary category, only more significant components. See Appendix I for a complete breakdown.
Other inorganics consisted of different building material such as insulation, linoleum flooring, and one sample containing a high percentage of plaster.
Paper21.6%
Plastic14.6%
Compostable Organics32.0%
Non-Compostable Organics
15.3%
Metals3.6%
Glass1.9%
Building Material5.2%
Electronic Waste0.7% Household Hazardous
1.0%
Household Hygiene3.0%
Bulky Items0.1%
Fines0.9%
Metro Vancouver Project No.: T18-125 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program 7 June 2019 Page 10
The composition and the 90% confidence intervals for the DO garbage results are shown in Table 11 along with the results from the samples collected at each of the four transfer stations. The confidence intervals show that there is much higher variability in the categories that contribute the most to the total waste composition. This is due to fact that DO samples typically consist of few categories. A breakdown of all subcategories can be found in Appendix II
Table 11 – Drop-Off Waste Composition Results
Material Category Weighted Mean (%) 90 % Confidence Interval
Non-Compostable Organics 49.7% ±16.6%
Building Material 16.2% ±9.3%
Compostable Organics 11.9% ±8.1%
Plastic 6.4% ±2.7%
Glass 5.4% ±6.8%
Metals 3.8% ±3.3%
Bulky Objects 3.2% ±3.7%
Paper 3.0% ±1.9%
Electronic Waste 0.3% ±0.2%
Household Hazardous 0.2% ±0.3%
Fines 0.0% ±0.0%
Compostable Products and Packaging 0.0% ±0.0%
Household Hygiene 0.0% ±0.0%
Results of the total composition for DO waste with each primary category is presented in Figure 4.
4.1.4 Combined Waste Composition Results Table 12 presents the combined (SF, MF, C/I, DO) weighted average of the primary material composition. To calculate the results each sector was weighted differently according to the total tonnage disposed of for each sector in 2017. The weightings used were: SF = 17.4%, MF = 25.1%, C/I = 43.0%, DO = 14.5%. The largest component of the combined results was compostable organics (26.0%) followed by paper (18.1%), and plastic (16.4%). Compostable organics was mainly composed of food waste (14.0%) of which 7.3% of composition was considered avoidable food waste and 6.7% was unavoidable. Paper mainly consisted of other compostable paper (4.4%) such as tissues/towelling followed by other soiled cardboard (2.4%) and clean recyclable cardboard (1.8%). Plastic mainly consisted of consumable packaging (2.5%) and other plastic film (2.2%).
4.2 Metro Vancouver Waste Disposal Per Capita Metro Vancouver waste disposal per capita by primary categories for each sector of waste is presented in Table 13. The population by sector and corresponding disposed of tonnage from the previous year (2017) was provided by Metro Vancouver. This data was used to generate waste disposed of per capita based on the data collected during the 2018 Study.
Paper18.1%
Plastic16.4%
Compostable Organics26.0%
Non-Compostable Organics
16.3%
Metals3.8%
Glass2.4%
Building Material5.6%
Electronic Waste1.0%
Household Hazardous0.9%
Household Hygiene7.4%
Bulky Objects0.5%
Fines1.5%
Metro Vancouver Project No.: T18-125 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program 7 June 2019 Page 13
1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding The number of employees was used instead of the population for C/I. Employment
number was based on Statistics Canada’s Employment by census metropolitan areas and occupation, annual 2017 data
2 DO per capita was based on estimated SF population reported by Metro Vancouver
3 Tonnages based on 2017 Metro Vancouver updated disposal information.
4.3 Historical Comparison Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9 compare the primary categories displaying changes in per capita disposal for each sector. Figure 10 compares the changes in regional disposal per capita for each primary category.
Metro Vancouver Project No.: T18-125 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program 7 June 2019 Page 14
The following is a summary of trends observed in Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10 below:
• Compostable organics decreased every year for SF, MF, and DO. For C/I, compostable organics increased from 2016 (69 kg/employee) to 2018 (88 kg/employee).
• Regionally, compostable organics have decreased 40% from 151 kg/capita in 2013 to 91 kg/capita in 2018. Metro Vancouver imposed an organics ban in 2015. Between 2015 and 2018, compostable organics disposed has not changed (91 kg/capita in 2015 and 2018).
• SF compostable organics in 2018 decreased by 65% from 68 kg/capita in 2013 to 24 kg/capita in 2018. MF decreased by 51% from 104 kg/capita in 2013 to 53 kg/capita in 2018.
• Paper and plastic disposed of per capita in MF has steadily increased from 2013 to 2018.
• Plastic disposed of in 2018 for MF was the highest over the previous studies, increasing from 35 kg/capita in 2016 to 45 kg/capita.
• Household hygiene increased from 12kg/capita in 2016 to 19 kg/capita in 2018 for SF and from 17 kg/capita in 2016 to 25 kg/capita in 2018 for MF.
• Since 2016, plastic disposal decreased in C/I from 58 kg/employee to 42 kg/employee in 2018, while non-compostable organics doubled from 22 kg/employee to 44 kg/employee in that same period of time.
• Building material has comprised a large portion of the waste composition for both C/I and DO over the past few years. However, building material decreased in 2018 (14 kg/capita C/I and DO) from 2016 (23 kg/capita C/I, 24 kg/capita DO) in both sectors. There was an increase in non-compostable organics in both sectors from 2016, with DO increasing from 27 kg/ capita in 2016 to 44 kg/ capita and C/I increasing from 22 kg/capita in 2016 to 42 kg/capita in 2018.
5.0 Streetscape Composition Due to the highly variable nature of streetscape waste and the relatively low number of recycling stream samples, the streetscape composition results within this report cannot be used to compare one system to another. The results are intended to provide a general idea of the types of items and range of composition that may be found in streetscape bins. Other municipalities within the region have also completed dedicated streetscape composition studies with more comprehensive results for their specific streetscape bin configurations and design that may better reflect the content of the streetscape bins in those communities. Streetscape waste was collected from eight (8) municipalities and sorted into fourteen (14) primary categories. The number and types of streams sampled differed between municipalities. The streams sampled included garbage, single-stream recycling, containers, paper, and organics. Liquids in containers or coffee cups were excluded from the composition analysis and the total weight of the samples.
Metro Vancouver Project No.: T18-125 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program 7 June 2019 Page 20
Table 14 summarizes the municipal bin configurations and the number of samples audited from each streetscape bin.
Table 14 – Municipal Bin Configurations
Bin Type Total Samples
Garbage
Stand-Alone 97
Paired with Recycling 36
Subtotal 133
Recycling
Single-Stream Recyclables 5
Separate Containers and Paper 17+17
Single-Stream Recyclables and Separate Organics 13+13
Subtotal 65
Figure 11 summarizes the composition of all streetscape garbage receptacles sampled in this study.
Figure 11 – Streetscape Garbage Composition
Pet waste represented approximately half of the material by weight in the streetscape receptacles audited, however the presence of pet waste is highly dependent on whether or not the receptacle is located near dog-walking areas. Pet waste also tends to have a relatively high density compared to other items found in streetscape receptacles, and would typically not compose a large proportion by volume. The next most prevalent material types were compostable material (19%) and recyclable containers (13%). Only 6% of the material found in streetscape garbage receptacles was determined to be not readily divertible.
Pet Waste49%
Garbage6%
Compostable Material19%
Depot3%
Recyclable Paper10%
Recyclable Containers13%
Metro Vancouver Project No.: T18-125 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program 7 June 2019 Page 21
It was noted during the audit of the streetscape waste that illegally dumped household waste was prevalent in the garbage and organics bins. This was mostly contained within single-use plastic bags. Most of the illegally dumped house waste found in streetscape waste contained items that had strong odours, such as expired food (especially meat), diapers and household hazardous waste. Table 18 summarizes the percentage of household waste found each stream, relative to the total weight of the samples for each type of streetscape sample.
Table 15 – Percent of Household Waste Found in Each Stream
Sample Type Garbage Paper Containers Organics Single Stream Recycling
Total Weight Sampled (kg) 985.2 81.4 29.2 20.5 40.0
Percent Contamination 11.9% 0.0% 0.0% 12.4% 0.0%
Garbage bins that had no organics associated with them contained 17.5% organic material by mass, while bins with organic bins associated with them had 14.6% organic material, a difference of 2.9%. Table 16 summarizes the composition of the different streetscape recycling streams sampled. It is difficult to draw conclusions between different recycling streams and bin configurations as the type of material disposed of in a specific receptacle is highly location dependent. For example, configurations including organics receptacles are likely located in areas where high volumes of organics are expected to be generated and therefore cannot necessarily be compared to locations without organics receptacles. Additional factors such as the age of the program, bin design, and program communication, such as signage, can also influence how accurately the materials are deposited.
Table 16 - Streetscape Recycling Composition
Streetscape bins for the paper stream yielded the highest proportion of targeted materials with 92% of the composition consisting of recyclable paper and only 8% consisting of improperly sorted items or contamination. Levels of contamination in single-stream recycling and containers bins ranged from 18% to 47%, depending on location and configuration. In organics bins, only 45% of the audited contents
Stream Composition1
Streetscape Recycling Stream
Configuration 1 Configuration 2 Configuration 3
Single-Stream Recycling Paper Containers Single- Stream
Recycling Organics
Weight % Weight % Weight % Weight % Weight %
Beverage Deposit 48% 1% 23% 6% 3%
Containers 25% 2% 42% 33% 28%
Paper 9% 92% 12% 13% 16%
Organics 7% 3% 11% 26% 45%
Garbage 11% 2% 13% 21% 8%
Total 100% 100%2 100% 100% 100%
Metro Vancouver Project No.: T18-125 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program 7 June 2019 Page 22
contained organics, with 47% of the bin composed of recyclable material (31 % containers/beverage deposit and 16% paper) and 8% containing garbage. Figure 12 presents the different streetscape recycling bin types and the percentage of acceptable/contaminated material found in each stream. For this analysis, single-stream recyclables with and without adjacent organics receptacles are presented together:
Figure 12 – Streetscape Bin Contamination
62%65%
92%
45%
12%
3%
38%
23%
5%
55%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Single-Stream Recycling Containers Paper Organics
Wei
ght
Per
cen
tage
(%
)
% Contamination
% ImproperlySorted
% AcceptableMaterial
Metro Vancouver Project No.: T18-125 2018 Waste Composition Monitoring Program 7 June 2019 Page 23
6.0 Limitations and Sources of Error Small discrepancies between the total sample mass and the sum of the sorted category masses can occur at the end of sorting a sample. Sample material falling to the floor and changes in moisture content during the sort would result in a sorted category mass that was different than the total sample mass. Additionally, errors in the recording of field data are possible reasons for the sum of the category masses being different from the total sample mass. Such errors were minor and are controlled by our QA/QC procedures for error checking the data. Midway during the Study, additional categories were included for the single-use items (SUIs) count, therefore the data analysis was limited for the additional categories of SUIs. The data for SUI were analyzed prior to the new categories being added and after the additional categories were included caused the overall data to be skewed.
7.0 Closure and Professional Statement TRI Environmental Consulting prepared the foregoing report for the exclusive use and information of Metro Vancouver. The information and data were collected and compiled in accordance with the general level of care and skill normally exercised by environmental science and engineering professionals practicing under similar circumstances. During the preparation of this report, TRI has relied on reports, data, studies, specifications, documents and other information provided by others. TRI has taken care to verify the information provided where possible but makes no warranty as to the accuracy of the reports, data, studies, specifications, documents and other information prepared by others and accepts no responsibility for information contained in them. Any use by a third party of the foregoing report, or any reliance upon or decisions made by a third party based upon them, are the sole responsibility of such third parties. TRI Environmental Consulting accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on the foregoing report.
13 Other Paper Single-Use Cups - Hot Coffee, tea, drinks, etc., not including compostable
14 Single-Use Cups - Cold Fountain drinks, slurpees etc.
15 Single-Use Cups - Compostable
16 Single-Use Straws
17 Compostable Takeout Containers
Fibre based to-go containers
18 Non-Compostable Takeout Containers
Fibre based to-go containers - coated
19 Retail Carryout Bags Grocery bags
20 Other Recyclable Paper Kraft paper, moulded pulp, recyclable polycoat containers
21 Other Compostable Paper paper plates, tissue paper, towelling, etc.
22 Non-compostable, non- recyclable paper
Tar paper, laminated paper. Coated paper etc.
23 Plastic
Film Re-Used Retail & Grocery Bags Re-used as kitchen catchers: HDPE & LDPE retail and grocery carry out plastic bags containing waste e.g. household or for containing recyclables or organics
24 Empty Retail & Grocery Bags Empty: HDPE and LDPE retail and grocery carryout bags that have not been reused
Dry cleaning bags, bread bags, frozen food bags, milk bags, toilet paper and toweling over-wrap, lawn seed, soil, peat moss, fertilizer, multi-layer plastic films; meat, poultry and fish wrap; vacuum sealed bacon; luncheon meat and cheese; cereal liners; chip bags and other snack food bags; candy wraps; pasta bags; boil in a bag; plastic based food pouches; bubble wrap; cling wrap; etc.
26 Garbage Bags Sandwich/Freezer Bags
HDPE & LDPE garbage bags, kitchen catchers, blue or clear bags for recyclables
27 Freezer Bags HDPE & LDPE sandwich, freezer bags, ziplocs and other food use bags
28 Deposit Beverage Pouches
29 Other Plastic Film Pallet/distribution wrap and lumber wrap (nonwoven), tarps, other plastic film
30 Textiles (Synthetic) Clothing and accessories Wearable or formerly wearable, potentially donatable
31 Household Linens, blankets etc.
32 Other All other textiles (e.g., filter fabric, artificial turf)
33 Rigid Beverage Containers Dairy or Dairy Substitute
34 Deposit Containers – Water Water Bottles
35 Deposit Containers – Other All other deposit beverage bottles: juice, pop, alcohol
36 Single Serving Cups PE, PS, coffee, tea, drinks, etc.
37 Other Non-deposit juice, water or pop containers
38 Rigid (non-beverage) # 1 PETE – Bottles and Jars Other Bottles and Jars: #1, cooking oil, peanut butter, dish soap, mouthwash, etc. (excluding bottles that contained HHW)
39 #1 PETE – Other Packaging Other Packaging: #1, bakery, clamshells, trays, ovenable trays, egg cartons
40 #2 HDPE – Bottles and Jugs Other Bottles and Jugs: #2, laundry soap, shampoo, windshield washer fluid, etc. (excluding bottles that contained HHW)
41 #2 HDPE – Tubs and Lids Wide mouth tubs and lids, dairy tubs, pails, lawn, garden, pool supplies, kitty litter, etc.
118 Other Inorganics Other Inorganics Insulation, Linoleum, Laminate, Stucco etc.
119 Electronic Waste
Computers and Peripherals Desktop Computers
120 Notebook Computers
121 Computer Peripherals Including keyboard, mouse, cables, modems, routers and external hardware other than below
122 Computer Monitors
123 Printers, Scanners
124 Televisions & AV Equipment Televisions
125 Other Audio/Video
126 Telephones & Telecommunications Equipment
Mobile Phones & Accessories
127 Other Landline phones and accessories, fax machines
128 Small Appliances & Floor Care Appliances
Small Appliances & Floor Care Appliances
Microwaves, toasters, vacuum cleaners, coffee makers, corded and cordless, etc.
129 Electronic Toys Electronic Toys
130 Smoke Detectors Smoke Detectors
131 Other Electronics Other Electronics
132 Household Hazardous
Batteries Lead Acid Car, truck, boat, wheelchair, golf cart batteries over 2 kg under BCBCP Stewardship Program
133 All Other Batteries All types of Rechargeable and Non-Rechargeable Batteries Ni-Cd, Ni-MH, Li-ion and Small Pb under 1 kg, Dry cell, alkaline, copper top, button cell and other household batteries
23 Flexible Film Packaging Single-use - plastic bags grocery and retail carry-out bags
24 Other # 2 HDPE & # 4 LDPE film, dry cleaning bags, bread bags, frozen food bags, milk bags, toilet paper and paper towel over-wrap, lawn seed bags
25 Flexible Film Products and Other Plastic Packaging (Non-PPP)
non-packaging such as Garbage bags, kitchen catchers, Ziploc bags, tarps, pallet wrap, laminated plastic film - chip bags, vacuum sealed bags, cereal liners, candy wraps, pasta bags, boil in a bag, food pouches, film plastic other than # 2 HDPE and # 4 LDPE including PLA, PHA, PHB plastic packaging, PE foam packaging, blister packaging
26 Durable Products Single-use - straws straws
27 Single-use - utensils cutlery such as forks, spoons, knives
28 Other non-packaging such as tapes, toys, household objects
29 Synthetic Textiles polyester, fleece, goretex
30 Metal Refundable Deposit bottle deposit metal
31 Recyclable metal containers
32 Other/Non-Recycle BC metal objects
33 Glass Refundable Deposit bottle deposit glass
34 Recyclable glass containers
35 Other/Non-Recycle BC glass and ceramic objects
36 Compostable Plastic/PLA
Foodware, Film Single-use - cold cups Certified compostable or biodegradable cold drink cups
37 Single-use - take out containers
Certified compostable or biodegradable take out containers
Bagged Household Waste Illegally dumped items: typically, small tied bags containing household items that would clearly not be generated in a park or on the street (e.g. diapers, bag of kitchen or bathroom waste)