Council Attachment 1

Public Space Three Stream Waste Diversion Parks Pilot

Joint Report by Town of Newmarket and Regional Municipality of York

Environmental Service, Promotion and Protection Branch, November 2008

Executive Summary:........................................................................................................... 2 1.0 Background:............................................................................................................ 3 2.0 Pilot Project Overview............................................................................................ 4

2.1 Description of Study Objectives: ........................................................................ 4 2.2 Partnering Municipality ...................................................................................... 5 2.3 Pilot Area ............................................................................................................ 5 2.31 Tom Taylor Trail................................................................................................. 5 2.32 The Ray Twinney Recreation Complex.............................................................. 6

3.0 The Pilot.................................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Container Types and Lid Types:......................................................................... 6 3.2 Messaging and Marketing:.................................................................................. 8 3.21 Container Labeling.......................................................................................... 8 3.22 Information Brochure...................................................................................... 9 3.23 Park Signage: ................................................................................................ 10 3.3 Waste Audits..................................................................................................... 10 3.4 Other Elements of the Pilot............................................................................... 11 3.4.1 Testing of Compostable Pet Waste Bags:..................................................... 11 3.4.2 Debagging of Recyclables at Regional Waste Management Center : .......... 11

4.0 Results and Analysis:............................................................................................ 12 4.1 Container Analysis............................................................................................ 12 4.1.1 Steel Drum Receptacles ................................................................................ 12 4.1.2 Square Mesh Receptacles with Side Loading Lids and Flat Top Lids: ........ 13 4.1.3 Solid-Walled Container (Earl-Bales Design)................................................ 14 4.1.4 Tri-Sorters - Plastic and Stainless Steel ........................................................ 14 4.1.5 In-Ground MOLOK Units ............................................................................ 15 4.2 Waste Audit Analysis ....................................................................................... 16 4.3 Public Surveys: ................................................................................................. 20 4.4 Container Survey for Parks Collection Staff .................................................... 23

5.0 Financial Implications........................................................................................... 23 4 Conclusion: ........................................................................................................... 25 APPENDIX A: Standard Operating Procedure for Parks’ Waste Audits........................ 26 APPENDIX B: Container Locations Table ...................................................................... 30 APPENDIX C: Public Survey Questions ......................................................................... 36 APPENDIX E: Notes from Pilot Project Feedback Meeting, August 27, 2008 ............... 42

- 1 -

Executive Summary:

Public spaces are an untapped source of potential waste diversion for

municipalities. It is estimated that between 28%-30% (by weight) of public parks

waste is recyclable and 33%-37% (by weight) is organic waste. In the fall of

2007, York Region’s council authorized the three-stream waste diversion pilot

study to be conducted in two outdoor parks in the Town of Newmarket. The

objective of the pilot was to assess level of contamination in new containers,

assess effectiveness of messaging, and identify operational challenges and

potential solutions of the new system. The results of the pilot, conducted in the

summer of 2008, found that recycling and organics containers had a 23% and

11% contamination rate respectively. Although the contamination levels found

were higher than desired, public space waste diversion still offers benefit to the

Region by actively promoting waste diversion throughout the community.

Three public surveys were conduced throughout the summer indicating an

overall positive reception from the public for three stream waste diversion in

outdoor public parks. Operations staff was also surveyed for feedback on

preferred container attributes and challenges experienced throughout the pilot.

A financial analysis of costs and benefits for three stream waste diversion in

public space was not within the scope of this project however a project cost

break down shows that 10% of the project budget was spent on promotion and

education, which was determined to be the most valuable investment when

encouraging participation.

- 2 -

1.0 Background: The Joint Municipal Waste Diversion Strategy, adopted by Regional Council in

2006, outlined a number of recommendations to help York Region achieve 65%

waste diversion by 2010. Recommendations included expanding source

separated organics and optimizing Blue Box recycling programs. Public spaces

were also highlighted as an area of potential to increase diversion for the Region.

Lake Ontario

Figure

The nine local municipalities that

make up York Region, (Aurora,

East Gwillimbury, Georgina, King,

Markham, Newmarket, Richmond

Hill, Vaughan, and Whitchurch-

Stouffville) have a number of public space areas that are serviced for the public’s

recreational use. In 2006, the local municipalities of York Region reported their

works department collected more than 7,200 tonnes of waste from outdoor public

spaces within York Region1. Background waste composition studies conducted

in the GTA found that public space waste receptacles contained approximately

28% - 30% (by weight) of recyclables, 33% - 37% (by weight) of organics, and

the remainder considered residual waste2.

Figure 1: Map of York Region

Many Ontario parks and recreation facilities are beginning to offer waste

diversion opportunities to park users most commonly in the form of recycling.

There are only a handful of communities currently examining implementation of

three stream waste diversion in public spaces. Municipalities have not provided

three stream waste diversion in public space up until now for some of the

following reasons:

Waste diversion is not typically the concern of the operators;

Current parks waste collection systems are focused on mitigating litter first

and foremost ;

1 As reported by local municipalities Works Departments, 2006 2 MGM Management, GTA Public Space and Schools Opportunity, Technical Memorandum # 3, Stewardship Ontario, Enhanced Blue Box Recovory Project, March 2006

- 3 -

Parks budgets and staff resources allocated to waste collection in parks is

to provide the “basics” of general clean up.

Municipalities have started investigating waste diversion in public spaces now

because:

Public perception of being ‘Environmentally Friendly’ includes responsible

diversion of waste at home, work and play;

Residential waste diversion programs have educated the public to know

how to participate in three stream waste diversion elsewhere;

Strong potential for public space recycling to help improve the

municipalities waste diversion rate.

2.0 Pilot Project Overview In the spring of 2008 York Region partnered with the Town of Newmarket to pilot

a three stream waste management system along the Tom Taylor Trail and in a

neighbouring outdoor recreation complex. This was following the direction given

by York Region Council in the fall of 2007.

2.1 Description of Study Objectives:

The objective of this pilot was to implement a three-stream waste diversion

program for recycling, garbage, and organics in two distinct outdoor parks within

the town of Newmarket. This project looked at elements of messaging, container

type, lid type and container location, then evaluated elements through waste

audits and public surveys. Once the pilot project was complete, additional

surveys were conducted with collection staff to determine container preference

and challenges of the pilot.

- 4 -

Figure 2: Pilot Areas in Newmarket 2.2 Partnering Municipality

The town of Newmarket is located in the

central part of York Region and has a

population of 80,000. Prior to this pilot

project, the town of Newmarket did not

officially offer recycling to public park areas.

On special event days such as weekend

tournaments or scheduled festivals, the

town would supply roll-out carts for

recycling. In 2007 Newmarket collected an

estimated 110 tonnes of waste from their

parks.

2.3 Pilot Area

Two different outdoor public space environments were selected for this pilot to

compare behaviour, participation and waste generation of a sports field area with

a walking trail. Figure 2 shows the locations of the Newmarket test areas, the

Tom Taylor Trail and the Ray Twinney Recreation Complex. It has been

postulated that sport recreation centers have greater quantities of recyclable due

to the large amount of food and beverages consumed at sport events.

2.31 Tom Taylor Trail

This 11km trail extending from Green Lane to Mulock Drive and running through

the geographic center of Newmarket is a well used path for year round

recreational walking, cycling and public events. At various parts along the trail

events are hosted throughout the summer, which include the Windfall Ecology

Festival and Rib Fest. In this test area, the pilot examined different types of

containers along the trail to assess whether container attributes have an effect on

participation. Regular waste audits were conducted to determine where and

what type of containers had the most contamination. Public Surveys were also

done to assess the public preference of the messaging used for the labeling of

the containers.

- 5 -

2.32 The Ray Twinney Recreation Complex

The Ray Twinney Recreation Complex, located in the North West end of

Newmarket is one of the main outdoor recreation fields in the Town. It is well

used throughout the summer months for baseball, softball and soccer games and

tournaments. Sport fields are considered prime locations for recovering

recyclables due to large quantities of beverage containers generated from

sporting events. A major challenge identified by parks staff during the planning

of the pilot was that excessive litter was occurring after sporting events which

indicated a barrier to measuring effective participation if the current waste

receptacles were not being used. This test area was used to trial different public

messaging to motivate effective use of three stream waste diversion receptacles.

3.0 The Pilot

3.1 Container Types and Lid Types:

The initial focus of the pilot was to implement a three stream waste diversion

system for two isolated outdoor park settings and observe the level of

participation. While developing the pilot and looking at background research, the

project team identified an opportunity to also trial different types of containers

along with messaging to see if any additional variances could improve the level

of participation.

There were six different container types were tested in the pilot. These include

steel drums, mesh containers, solid walled (Earl Bales)3 units, tri-sorters and

Molok units. There were three main variations of lid types used which included

flat lids, side-loading and flip-up lids. Figure 3 summarizes the containers

tested in the pilot.

3 ‘Earl Bales’ refers to solid walled containers used in this project and initially designed as a pet waste and organics receptacle for the City of Toronto’s Earl Bales Park.

- 6 -

Container Type

Flat Lid Side Lid Pros Cons

# of Cont. in Pilot 48 10

Flat Lid Side Lid Pros Cons

# of Cont. in Pilot 15 12

Side lid Pros Cons

# of Cont. in Pilot 2

Side lid Pros Cons

# of Cont. in Pilot 1

Flip-up lid Pros Cons

# of Cont. in Pilot 12

Flip-up lid Pros Cons

# of Cont. in Pilot 5

STEEL DRUM CONTAINERS

SOLID WALLED (EARL BALES)

UNITS5

IN GROUND MOLOK UNITS6

-Large containers offer greater capacity and minimal maintenance costs -Lids keep rain and park animals out-Containers are durable

-Installation is expensive Containers are costly-Contamination is easily hidden

2MESH

CONTAINERS

PLASTIC TRI-SORTER

UNIT

STAINLESS STEEL

TRI-SORTERUNIT

3

4

-Mesh transparency of container allows collection staff to better gauge when a container requires emptying. -Square shape deters vandals from tipping and rolling containers -Flat lids allow for more messaging-Extremely durable -Side loading lids worked well for

-Not aesthetically pleasing to be bale to see organics-Park raccoons and squirrels ripped bags through the mesh-On windy days garbage bags would get blown in and close-Containers were heavy and side lids were clumsy to put back on

-All three waste streams are always side by side-Aesthetically pleasing-Side loading lid keeps three streams dry-locked lid mitigates illegal dumping

-Container is easy to tip over and requires additional equipment to be fixed in place-Not as durable -Requires collection staff have a key

-All three waste streams are always side by side-Aesthetically pleasing-Durable-Easy to clean spray paint off of stainless steel-Side loading lid keeps three streams dry-locked lid mitigates illegal dumping

-Container placement is permanent-Requires that collection to have a key

-Aesthetically pleasing for park users-Container design keeps out park animals

challenging to get bag liners inside -easy to hide contamination-poor lid design directed rain water directly into container

1

Lid Type Container Attributes

-Most inexpensive option-Meets the basic needs of the park-Relatively durable-Flat lids allowed better messaging

-Vandals will target containers for rolling into rivers and ditches-Not as aesthetically pleasing-Flat lids let more rain water in -Flat lids were targeted by vandals

Figure 3: Container Summary for Parks Pilot

- 7 -

3.2 Messaging and Marketing:

It was identified early on in the pilot that communicating a clear message to the

public would be critical to participation. Three main types of promotion and

education media were used in the pilot, which include:

Container Labeling;

Pilot Information Brochure for the Public;

Park Signage

3.21 Container Labeling

The messaging developed for the container labels needed to meet the following

criteria:

Easy to recognize images;

Use of bright colours to attract attention;

Constancy of green, blue and black for organics, recyclables and

garbage respectively and

Limit the use of wording

Photographic images of common park waste was used on the labels to clearly

show what materials are accepted in the three different streams.

FIGURE 4a : Labels for Sides of Park Containers

- 8 -

FIGURE 4b : Labels for Park Container Lids

3.22 Information Brochure

An information brochure was created to promote awareness in the community

about the pilot. The slogan “Make the Drop” was created for the information

brochure and park signage. The brochure was made available at public events

and public facilities such as the municipal town office, recreation facilities,

seniors’ centers and youth centers. The brochure was also available by mail out

to members of the public if requested.

FIGURE 6: Park Signage on park light standards

FIGURE 5: Parks Pilot Information Brochure

- 9 -

3.23 Park Signage:

Park signage was utilized in both test areas to promote and motivate park users

to participate in the pilot. Banners were fastened to light standards directly

above waste stations to direct park users to containers (see Figure 6). An

information sign with details about the pilot was displayed in high traffic area of

the trail to inform users of the trial about the new containers. Banners were

created specifically for the recreation field in a special effort to minimize litter and

motivate park users to utilize the bins provided. Figure 7a and 7b shows the two

banner concepts that were tested

FIGURE 7: Park Banners (Left)“Game Plan… Get it in the Can”, (Right) “Play clean, Keep our park Green”

7a. 7b.

3.3 Waste Audits

Prior to the pilot, base line audits were conducted on containers from the Tom

Taylor Trail to assess waste composition in the park. Five complete waste audits

were done throughout the summer, starting in July and running through until

September. Audits were scheduled on the regular park collection days. Every

audit collected up to 30 samples from 10 different container locations. Collected

samples were transported by truck to an enclosed facility where an audit team

sorted waste into the 14 categories. The Stewardship Ontario Provincial Waste

Audit guideline was used to develop the standard operating procedures for the

- 10 -

pilots waste audits (see Appendix A). A complete summary of audit results can

be found in section 4.0

3.4 Other Elements of the Pilot

3.4.1 Testing of Compostable Pet Waste Bags:

Pet waste makes up approximately 50% by weight of the organics stream in park

waste. Pet waste is typically collected in plastic bags that are tied in knots before

going into the organics receptacle. Some organics processors have indicated

too much plastic in the organics stream can be problematic because it can

reduce the quality of final processed material. For this reason the project team

investigated the use of compostable pet waste bags.

A large quantity of compostable pet waste bags were ordered and made

available in marked dispensers along the trail. Figure 8 shows an example of

labels used for the compostable pet waste bag dispensers in the park.

To test how well the compostable bags broke

down, a sample of over 200 unused compostable

pet waste bags were knotted and sent to York

Region’s organics processor on July 10th . On

August 22nd, approximately six weeks after bags

were put into organics processing tunnels, the

Region’s processor confirmed compostable pet

waste bags did indeed break down and were

undetectable.

FIGURE 8: Labels for compostable pet waste bags

3.4.2 Debagging of Recyclables at Regional Waste Management Center :

York Region’s Waste Management Center does not permit plastic film in the

recycling processing system as it can either tangle in machinery or end up in the

mixed fibre stream and severely downgrade the quality of material marketed. It

was for this reason Newmarket Parks staff were asked to debag recyclable

- 11 -

material at the tip floor of the recycling facility. Although this added more time

onto the staff, debagging was essential in maintaining the quality of the recycling

stream.

At the time of writing this report, it was unknown whether the plastic from the

Molok units affect the quality of the organics load. It is recommended that this be

examined in a follow up study.

4.0 Results and Analysis:

4.1 Container Analysis

Background research revealed that park users are particular about not touching

the lids of waste receptacles, especially if there is a dirty/sticky flap on the lid.

Flat top lids provide a lot of space for messaging and labeling however do not

offer as much protection from rain and elements as a side loading lid. Container

labeling and the set out patterns remained consistent throughout the pilot.

In total, 105 containers were set out for the study, 58 drums, 27 mesh, 12 solid

walled (Earl-Bales4) containers, 2 plastic tri-sorter units, 1 stainless steel tri-

sorter unit and 5 in-ground Molok units. All containers included in the pilot were

given identification tags and approximate GPS coordinates (see APPENDIX B)

4.1.1 Steel Drum Receptacles

The town of Newmarket has predominantly been using refurbished steel drums

with side loading lids as the main container type in their parks up until the pilot

due to the fact that drums are relatively inexpensive and meet the basic needs of

the park. This pilot sampled two different sizes of drums, 55 gallon and 33 gallon

units mostly for the reason that three large drums put side by side took up a

larger footprint than what was there before with only one container. By utilizing

the smaller volume container, less area was taken up in the park.

One draw back of the steel drum container design is that they are easy to roll and

are sometimes targeted by park vandals. Figure 9 shows park staff retrieving

drum containers that had been deliberately thrown into the nearby river.

- 12 -

Literature has also suggested that the public perception of drums is that they are

refuse containers and have been found to have the highest level of

contamination when being used for diversion systems5.

Figure 9: Photo of Side Loading Drums being retrieved from the River

4.1.2 Square Mesh Receptacles with Side Loading Lids and Flat Top Lids:

Transparent mesh containers offer some operational benefits as they allow

collection staff to better gauge when a container requires emptying. This saves

collection staff time and can prevent full or overflowing containers. The

transparent container also helps park users determine where to place their waste

by being able to see what is already in each container.

One drawback of this type of container is that

some park users do not view it as aesthetically

pleasing, especially for the organics stream.

Another drawback of the

container was that squirrels

and raccoons were able to

pull waste through the mesh

as shown in Figure 10.

Figure 1: Map of York Region

5 Quinte Waste Solutions, “Recycle Away” Public Parks, Sport Fields and Arena Recycling. Stewardship Ontario Effectiveness and Efficiency Fund Project #44. pg 24. February 2006.

- 13 -

4.1.3 Solid-Walled Container (Earl-Bales Design) Figure 11: Earl Bales Container Lid

Solid-walled square containers

were tested as an alternative to

the square mesh transparent

container. The solid walled

container with flip-up lid, also

referred to as the Earl-Bales

container, was designed with the

organics stream in mind to keep

animals and insects out and

mitigate odorous smells. The

container was successful in

keeping out park animals however did not mitigate smells or bugs any more than

other containers. Unfortunately, the design of this particular container was not

favorable for the collection staff as they found lids problematic in collecting rain

water and did not allow plastic bags to fit around the back of the in the container

(figure 11).

Bags could not go around the back of the container

4.1.4 Tri-Sorters - Plastic and Stainless Steel

A tri-sorter unit is a single container with three separate compartments for the

collection of three different waste streams. In our study we utilized the three

streams for collecting recycling, garbage and organics. One benefit of using a

three stream unit is that it ensures all three waste receptacles remain in one spot,

which was a challenge with some of the other container types like the drums that

had a tendency to be moved by park users. Research has shown that if all three

streams are not in the same location, park users are unlikely to walk out of their

way to dispose of waste in the appropriate receptacle.

One stainless steel unit was tested in the pilot. The stainless steel unit was

placed in an area of the trail known for graffiti or ‘tagging’ to measure the

durability of the unit. Figure 12 shows staff cleaning this unit after it had been

‘tagged’. After only a few minutes of applying a paint thinning solution the

- 14 -

container was clean. When surveyed by collection staff, this container was rated

high for ease of use. Unfortunately, due to the fact that there was only one of

these containers used in the pilot, it was difficult to tell if the container would

function the same in other locations.

Figure 12: Tri-sort units being cleaned

Two plastic tri-sorter units were tested in high traffic areas of the park. Both

units were chained to a wall or fence to prevent units from tipping over. Minimal

contamination was found in these containers, however, further analysis with a

larger sample size is recommended for future study to better assess these

containers.

4.1.5 In-Ground MOLOK Units

In-ground waste receptacles are designed to provide greater overall capacity that

translates into reduced maintenance time. These units also offer the advantage

of keeping waste cool below the surface, mitigating odor and insects.

These units were by far the most expensive to purchase and install however had

minimal maintenance costs. Five units were used in total for this pilot; three at a

picnic gazebo area for all thee streams and two units at a major trail junction for

garbage and organics only with mesh recycling units available beside container.

These containers took longer the fill than anticipated and were only emptied at

the time of writing this report. Waste audits were not conducted on these

samples. Figure 13a, 13b and 13c observational data was obtained to give a

basic assessment of level of contamination.

- 15 -

Figure 13b: Garbage from MOLOK Figure 13a: Organics from MOLOK

Recyclables in Organics

Figure 13c: (right) Recycling from MOLOK

4.2 Waste Audit Analysis

Five complete waste audits were conducted

from July through to the beginning of

September. A total of 174 samples were

collected; 59 recycling, 57 garbage and 58

organics. Each sample was sorted into 14

categories, weighed separately and recorded into a database. The waste audit

methodology for the pilot was developed from the Stewardship Ontario Waste

Audit methodology and is outlined in Appendix A.

The audit results, summarized in Table 1, highlights the level of contamination

found overall for the three waste streams implemented for the pilot. Results are

relatively positive finding the majority of material measured was in the correct

container. The organics stream had by far the best level of participation with

76% (by weight) of the material in the ‘compost’ receptacles being organic

material6. The recycling stream contained 55% (by weight) of recyclables in

containers measured with the remainder considered as residue.

The level of residual liquid from beverage containers was found to be 12% (by

weight) of the recycling stream. It should be noted that the relative light weight of

recyclables compared to the other streams can skew results' appearance when

presented in percentages. It is recommended that for future study, volumetric

6 Organic Material as what is accepted in the York Region Green Bin program.

- 16 -

measurements also be taken along with weight and communication be

developed for emptying liquids from containers before placing in receptacles. It

should be noted that illegal dumping that was left beside containers was not

audited.

Table 1: Parks Pilot Audit Results

Recycling 63.8 55%Garbage 14.1 12%Organics 12.4 11%Liquid from Beverage containers 13.7 12%Residual liquid in bag/Rain water 11.7 10%HHW 0.3 0%Illegal Dumping 0.2 0%

TOTAL 116.2 100%

Recycling 13.03 11%Garbage 48.52 40%Organics 26.9 22%Liquid from Beverage containers 2.41 2%Residual liquid in bag/Rain water 5.58 5%HHW 0.02 0%Illegal Dumping 24.49 20%

TOTAL 120.95 100%

Recycling 6.28 3%Garbage 18.65 8%Organics 176.8 77%Liquid from Beverage containers 4.03 2%Residual liquid in bag/Rain water 8.95 4%HHW 0 0%Illegal Dumping 15.44 7%

TOTAL 230.15 100%

Recycling Stream

Garbage Stream

Compost Stream

Recycling Stream

Garbage 12%

Organics 11%

Recycling 55%

Recycling

Garbage

Organics

Liquid from Beveragecontainers Residual liquid inbag/Rain waterHHW

Illegal Dumping

Garbage Stream

Illegal Dumping

20%

Garbage 40%

Recycling 11%

Organics 22%

Recycling

Garbage

Organics

Liquid from Beveragecontainers Residual liquid inbag/Rain waterHHW

Illegal Dumping

Organics Stream

Organics 76%

Garbage 8%

Recycling 3%

Recycling

Garbage

Organics

Liquid from Beveragecontainers Residual liquid inbag/Rain waterHHW

Illegal Dumping

- 17 -

The recycling stream was sorted into five main categories of plastics, glass,

paper packaging, printed paper and metals. Plastics made up 36% (by weight)

of the total recyclables found in the recycling stream, followed by glass and paper

packaging at 21% and 16% respectively.

The garbage stream was sorted into three main categories of snack waste,

glass/ceramics and miscellanious, which included plastic film and textiles. Snack

waste made up 78% (by weight) of the three categories.

Pet waste was found to be the dominant category in the organics stream making

up approximately 50% of the organics, followed by food waste at 43% (by weight)

and diapers at 7% (by weight).

Table 2: Waste Composition of Three Streams in Pilot Study

Waste Compositions for Three Stream Parks Pilot

16%

0%7%

78%

36%

21% 15% 12%22%

50%43%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Plastic

sGlas

s

Paper

Packa

ging

Printed

Paper

Metals

Snack

Was

te

Misc

ellan

eous

Ceramics

/ Glas

s

Pet Was

te

Food w

aste*

Diapers

Material Catigory

% b

y W

eigh

t

Recycling Stream Garbage Stream Organics Stream

- 18 -

Parks Pilot Waste Audit Summary for Sports Recreation Field (Ray Twinnet Complex)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Audit 1 Audit 2 Audit 3 Audit 4 Audit 5

21-Jul 14-Aug 21-Aug 25-Aug 8-Sep

Waste Audit Day

Wei

ght (

Kg)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ave

rage

Con

tain

er

Fulln

ess

RECYCLING CONTAINERS

GARBAGE CONTAINERSSSO CONTAINERS

RECYCLING VOLUME

GARBAGE VOLUMEORGANICS VOLUME

Half Full Bench Mark

Parks Pilot Waste Audit Summary for Park Trail (Tom Taylor Trail)

01020304050607080

Audit 1 Audit 2 Audit 3 Audit 4 Audit 5

21-Jul 14-Aug 21-Aug 25-Aug 8-Sep

Waste Audit Day

Wei

ght (

kg)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ave

rage

Con

tain

er

Fulln

ess

RECYCLING CONTAINERS

GARBAGE CONTAINERS

ORGANICS CONTAINERS

RECYCLING VOLUME

GARBAGE VOLUME

ORGANICS VOLUME

Half Full Bench Mark

Table 3:

Table 4:

A comparison of the two separate pilot areas are shown in Tables 3 and 4,

validating that the volume of recyclables collected at the recreation sports field

was higher than in the park. This is due to the fact that there is a higher

beverage consumption rate at the sports fields.

- 19 -

Participation Level Found for Recycling Containers

21%

40%

59%

69%

69%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

GROUND MT

EB-CUSTOM

DRUMS

MESH

TRI-SORT

Con

tain

er T

ype

% by weight of Recycling found in Recycling containers

Particpation Level

Table 5:

Table 5 shows the participation level of the different containers used for the

recycling stream. The Tri-sorters and the Mesh containers had overall less

contamination in the recycling stream compared to a higher participation level

than the other containers measured.

4.3 Public Surveys:

Three public surveys were conducted throughout the summer to assess different

aspects of the pilot. The first public survey was conducted one week prior to the

kick-off date of the pilot on June 8th. The second and third surveys were

conducted in July and August to assess the implementation of the pilot. A

sample of all three surveys can be found in Appendix C.

The first survey asked a number of questions about the messaging used on the

labels. Results of this survey found that the public preferred the label names of

Garbage, Recycle, and Green Bin for the three waste streams being collected as

shown in Table 6. Overall, the messaging used for the different containers was

understood by the public and scored well on the survey as shown in Table 7.

- 20 -

Table 6:

Public Preference for Container Name

age

Waste

Litter

Other:

Compos

t

Compo

stable

s

Green B

inOthe

r:

Recyc

le

Recyc

lables

Blue Box

Other:

Container Name

0%

30%

60%

90%

Garb

% o

f peo

ple

surv

eyed

that

pre

ferr

edna

me

Table7:

Public Rating of Messaging on Containers

87% 86% 86% 85%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Use of visualimagery

Clearmessaging

Use of Colour Visibility oncontainer

Rat

ing

Additional feedback was received from the public on how to improve messaging

which included common comments listed below:

“Larger lettering on top and on the sides” “Larger print for the aging population with sight issues” “Try putting messaging above containers at eye level” “Images could be spaced out more for better identification”

During the planning phase of the pilot project, it was identified that excessive

litter in the sport field areas meant an additional barrier to participation, in that

park users were not using the waste receptacles at all. The second public

survey, conducted on July 5th at the Ray Twinney Recreation Complex was

- 21 -

designed to determine the level of support for a “zero tolerance litter policy”

whereby teams could lose play time or be fined if excessive litter was left behind

after a game. Table 8 summarizes that of the 60 participants surveyed, 24 fully

supported the idea of punitive measures to reduce litter in the park. Those that

did not support the idea indicated it was too difficult to definitively determine

whose litter it was left the litter behind.

Public Survey on Parks Pilot Container

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

poor

good

excellent

Rat

ing

% of People Surveyed

Clear messagingEase of useLocation/VisibilityContainer Type

Support For "Zero Tolerance Litter Policy" for Sports Teams

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Do NotSupport

LessSupport

PartialSupport

MoreSupport

FullySupport

Level of Support

% o

f tho

se s

urve

yed

Of the 60 people surveyed in the park, 45% indicated full support for a zero tolerance litter by-law

Table 8:

Table 9:

The third public survey, conducted

on August 16th, again at the Ray

Twinney Recreation Complex, was

designed to get public feedback on

the pilot, containers and

messaging used at the sports field.

Table 9 summarizes the results of

the survey showing majority of

those surveyed rated the three

stream system as excellent or very

good.

- 22 -

4.4 Container Survey for Parks Collection Staff

At the end of the summer, staff from the Newmarket Parks Department were

asked to participate in a Project Feedback meeting that was aimed at gathering

information about the pilot and highlighting areas of improvement for program

implementation. A number of valuable points were made, most notably that

some of the containers added more time to the collection schedule than others.

Staff was also asked to complete a survey scoring containers based on 15

questions specific to container attributes. Collection staff rated the Tri-sorter

units most favourable and the Mesh units least favourable. Table 10 is the

average scoring of each container based on the survey results of the Parks Staff

members involved in the pilot.

A sample of the staff survey can be found in Appendix D of this report.

Staff Rating of Containers

0

6

10

15

29

49

87

101

105

0 20 40 60 80 100 12

Mesh Containers with Flat Lids

Small Drums with Flat Lids

Large Drums with Flat Lids

Mesh Containers with Side Loading Lids

Large Drums with Side-Loading Lids

Earl Bales Park Style Containers with Hinged Lids

Previous Blue Ground-Mounted Containers

Stainless Steel Three-Stream Units

Plastic Three-Stream All In One Units

Con

tain

er T

ype

Overall Container Score

0

Table 10

5.0 Financial Implications

A total cost break down of the project is summarized in Table 11. Implementation and upfront capital costs comprised the majority of the budget for

this project. The total cost of implementation is a function of the container type

- 23 -

selected and quantity purchased. Containers tested in this pilot ranged in price

from $90/unit to $2500/unit.

Table 11 Breakdown of Project Costs

cost ($) % of total Purchase of Containers 77,180.00$ 73%Implementation Costs 7,378.67$ 7%Promotion and Education Work 10,406.39$ 10%Operation Costs 11,200.00$ 11%Total 106,165.06$

Breakdown of Project Costs

Purchase of Containers

72%

Operation 11%

Implementat ion 7%

P&E 10%

The promotion and education costs for the project were approximately 10% of

the total project cost, however was the most valuable investment in the project.

The dollars invested in promotion and education for this pilot have resulted in

quality marketing materials that can be leveraged by all municipalities in York

Region as they rollout their public space three stream programs.

As more municipalities come on line with public space waste diversion, the

Region will need to carefully monitor the quality of material received. York

Region’s processing contract for both recycling and organics prohibits anything

greater than 10% of Undesirables7 and can reject and add additional cost to

management of these material.

A comparison of labour and maintenance costs for a three stream system verses

a conventional waste collection system was not fully examined in this pilot. The 7 Undesirables are defined as materials that cannot be processed as recyclables at York Region’s Waste Management Facility.

- 24 -

Town of Newmarket provided an estimated breakdown of operating costs for

their parks department over the three month period of the pilot, however it is not

clear what the full cost benefit is of public space waste diversion is at the local

municipal level and the Regional level.

4 Conclusion: The objective of the Newmarket public space waste diversion pilot project was to

assess level of contamination in outdoor parks and recreational facilities when

recycling and organics receptacles were introduced into two different parks

settings. Costs for implementing a parks waste diversion program are higher

than a convention system however there are strong benefits when aligning public

space waste diversion with residential programs, of which includes stronger

support for public participation. Waste audits conducted throughout the in the

summer found that recycling containers contained approximately 23%

contamination and organics containers contained 11% contamination (by weight).

Although the contamination levels found were higher than desired, public space

waste diversion still offers benefit to the Region by actively promoting waste

diversion throughout the community.

- 25 -

APPENDIX A: Standard Operating Procedure for Parks’ Waste Audits

EMS Controlled Document – Work Instruction Municipality: York Region Prepared by: Lisamaria Akeson Document Number: 574489

Revision Date: 2008-06-05

WORK INSTRUCTIONS for Three Stream Waste Composition Audit

SOP Reference: Conducting Composition Audit of Three Stream Waste for Public Space

Purpose: Describes procedures for assessing composition and contaminants of waste receptacles from three stream public space.

Scope: Sampling focuses on measuring contamination found in three different waste streams, Recycling, Compostable Organics and Garbage from a public park setting. Auditors will transport samples from the park and sample contents in a covered works facility. Testing will determine level of public’s participation of three-stream sort in Parks by determining the % of appropriate material (by weight and volume) found in each receptacle

Safety: Audit Team is required to drive Regional Vehicle to and from pilot area and waste audit location ) Receptacles in public spaces may contain materials that have been illegally dumped. Hazards may include: Broken glass, sharp metal pieces, syringes, house hold hazardous material, biohazardous pathogens, spores and organic contaminants. Organic material may deplete oxygen in a confined space environment. Provide adequate ventilation and proper protective equipment (ref. Personal Protective Equipment).

Instructions:

1. Required Equipment and Set Up The sampling team requires:

• 14 recycling containers for sorting and weighting • 20L pail for liquids from beverage containers • 2 tables – approximately 6ft with folding metal legs. • One table should have a ¼’’ lip around perimeter of the table to keep wet material

from dripping off tables • Large scale with capacity of 100 kg and accuracy of 50 g for weighing bulk

samples • 1 10ft x 12ft tarp for covering one for the tables • 1 10ft x 12ft tarp for under the sorting containers • 8 small spring clamps to hold tarp to table • Notepaper and pens • Masking tape to label sample • 30 Pre-printed sample record forms • Digital Camera and battery pack

- 26 -

• Calculator Each worker requires:

• One Tyvek ® suit with hood per work cycle • Boot covers • Latex or Nitrile gloves • Puncture protection gloves • Full face respirator with face shield and ammonia / N95 / odor cartridges • Indelible ink markers for labeling samples • 250 mm wide scoop or shovel for holding and transferring organic material • 25 mm stiff bristle brush for cleaning organic residue off plastic • 1L Spray bottle with soap and water • Paper towel roll to wipe down table • Metal Tongs for sorting materials • Spring loaded shears for cutting open bags • Hand cultivator for griping and tearing bags

2. Sample Preparation Audit Team will randomly pre-select 8-10 sample locations the week before the audit. Park Staff is to be contacted in advance of the audit to: (1) ask date of the last collection, (2) inform staff not to collect in the park for that morning, (3) request that Park staff collect audited material at final sorting location for end of the day, (no later than 3:00). (Contact: Jeff Bond, Newmarket Parks Supervisor, 905-955-0930). 3. Collection of Sample Audit Team will arrive at park for 7:00am in Regional Vehicle (Flatbed Truck) wearing York Region identification and Personal Protective Equipment. The Audit Team will drive slowly through the park collecting and labeling the 8-10 pre-selected samples in the park. Samples will be tied off and labeled by their bin identification number using permanent marker and masking tape wrapped around the top of the tied-off bag. Audit Team will take samples to sorting location (Newmarket Community Center), unload samples from truck and set up waste audit sorting location. 4. Set up of Waste Audit Sorting Location Set up the sample tables, scale and segregation bins inside the covered audit area. This area should be in a well ventilated location where testers can work safely away from any moving equipment of vehicle traffic. Table should be covered with a plastic tarp that is clamped to the table and wiped down with paper towel after each sample. Work area should have natural lighting to allow for photography. Provide a clean space for camera and note taking materials. Segregation bins should be labeled with bins tare weight and material category. Ensure that all segregation bins have been lined with garbage bag, and weighed and labeled. 5. Set up of Waste Audit Sorting Location Record total weight of sample bag first and record To audit a sample, auditor will grapple bag with hand cultivator and cut open the bag with spring-loaded shears. Contents of bag should be emptied onto the tarp covered table. Using tongs and utensils provided, sort material into labeled segregation bins. Any illegally dumped garbage, (usually shopping bags or other film bags filled and tied) should be counted by the bag and weighed, but not cut open or sorted with the other materials.

- 27 -

Any beverage containers more than ¼ full of liquids, put in a separate segregation bin for container counting. After counted, pour liquids into 20L pail and weighed separately. Any hazardous materials found should be noted and carefully set aside into separate containers and loaded into the regional vehicle to be transported to the HHW facility for the next day (NOTE: Please let Nikki know if there is any material to be dropped off).

Once all materials of a sample have been sorted, estimate the proportional volume % for each material category in a sample. Weigh the full segregation bins and record the difference between the tare weight of the bin and the full weight of the bin.

Once finished, empty segregation bins into garbage bags and place into three separate piles for Garbage, Recycling and Compost. Newmarket Parks Staff should be called at the end of the audit day to let them know they can come collect sorted samples.

Wipe down tarp, tables, sorting equipment with provided cleaning solution (or 1:10 bleach to water solution) and prepare for next sample. At the end of the day, ensure all equipment has been wiped down, floors have been cleaned and that equipment has been put away. SAMPLE AUDIT SHEET

- 28 -

Audit Data Sheet Auditors:

Container Code:

Date:

Weather Conditions since last collection:

Date container was last collected:

Total Weight of contents (Kg)

Weight (Kg)Estimated

% Weight (Kg) Estimated % Weight(Kg)Estimated

% Recyclables 0 0 0

Glass

Printed Paper

Paper Packaging

Plastic

Metals

Garbage 0

Snack waste

Ceramics/glass textiles/clothes

toys Organics 0

Pet Waste

Diapers

Food Waste

Liquid 0Number of

bottles Number of

bottles Number of

bottles

Bottles with 1/4 full 12

HHSW 0

Illegal Dumping 0

RECYCLING GARBAGE COMPOSTABLES

- 29 -

APPENDIX B: Container Locations Table

- 30 -

- 31 -

- 32 -

- 33 - - 33 -

- 34 -

- 35 -

Public Survey #2, July 5 2008 APPENDIX C: Public Survey Questions APPENDIX C: Public Survey Questions Public Survey #1, June 8th, 2008 Public Survey #1, June 8th, 2008

- 36 -

Public Survey #3, August 16, 2008

- 37 -

APPENDIX D: Collection Staff – Container Survey Questions

- 38 -

- 39 -

- 40 -

- 41 -

APPENDIX E: Notes from Pilot Project Feedback Meeting, August 27, 2008

1. What are key events for this project? Getting everything delivered and put in locations - Fastening containers at locations so they don’t roll into river - Waste audits - Collection weekly/biweekly of materials - Surveying of public - Feedback - Messaging on containers

2.What other events and significant conversations did you have ? - Park users have very positive things to say about program - Discussion with other municipalities and other regions about the program - Pros and cons for the different containers - Mesh containers are a pain and heavy - Locations and timelines

o Had a map o Didn’t have all the container we needed on time

- Discussions about the types of containers - Barrels rusted severely - Shifted locations of containers - 45 gallon containers were put out first then replaced with mesh when they became available - Any and his experience - Had to double up on some containers because of amount of materials being disposed - Sat down with user groups and staff to discuss Styrofoam - P&E discussion around messaging on labels, banners, brochures - Round lids were used as Frisbees by vandals - 3. Any Other events you would like to explain more? - When the drums were knocked into the water – vandalism

o Reality of running this program in a park near water - Graffiti/tagging on containers - Next time would include the landscape architect from beginning - 3 drums were chained to T-rail and vandals were still able to dislocate and throw drums into water - Containers chained to lamppost were most effective at curbing vandalism

4. What was a big surprise for this project? - Moloks – surprised how much they were able to hold

o Great o Don’t know how contaminated they are yet

- Willingness of the public to participate in pilot program - Awareness in schools has encouraged participation - Amount of rainwater in containers

- 42 -

- Parks waste projects should take liquid waste into account - The time it took to order and deliver containers – month late - How much time it took to collect and tip the material – 5 hours (normal) to 2 days (busy) 5. What was most frustrating? - Delivery of containers - Contents of bags/containers - Dog poo and diapers mixed with rainwater - Tipping @ WMC

o Could have been better coordinated and organized - Tipping weighing tipping weighing - Animals ripping bags

o Would lead to material ripping bag and falling into container then whole container would have to be lifted or pick materials up by hand

- Having to use different sized bags w different sized containers - Bags falling into containers - Couple employees felt there were too many containers in park (aesthetics) - Weather : Windy day – bags fall into container

o People won’t reach in and open bag, they just throw materials in 6. What did we learn for things that went well?

- Surprised at level of participation o The way people used the containers o Dog litter bags – how fast they broke down

- Mesh container don’t work – animals pull and rip bags - Mesh containers allow you to see how full the container is - Aesthetic issues w mesh containers - Want to expand program to more parks next year - Side loading lids are better than flat top lids - Communication between Newmarket and York

o Willing to listen to opinions and thoughts o

7. What did we learn from times that we struggled? - Don’t like mesh containers

o Added time to collection - Side loading lids for barrels fit too tightly - YR should hire waste audit company to perform audits - Location placement and securing of containers is key - Metal tri collector graffiti easily wipes off - Can’t unlock trisorter – reduces contamination - Screwed aircraft cabling to barrels/flat top lids

o Come up with better way to secure lids - Scale was not precise enough

o Look at different types of scales - Went for tour of MRF – was really impressed with operation of facility

8. How will our experience of this project affect the way we do things next time? - Type of containers

- 43 -

- 44 -

- Lead time required to get containers - No recourse if vendor doesn’t deliver on time - Special ordering of plastic bags - Biodegradable waste bags - Supplies – having everything we needed - Trisorter only had one key – should have asked for more - Scope of project too big - Tried to do way too much on this project

o Too many containers o Too many lids o Too many locations

- Not entirely clear what we were measuring - Reason for project is to increase level of diversion - Newmarket needs to get more departments involved

o Rec/culture, communications o More collaboration o This time around was done on the fly and not well-planned

9. What would we do differently for next time? - P&E was done on the fly - Info package for booking coordinator – stronger communication plan with sports recreation dept - Look at type of containers - Focus the project more - Advertising in the paper - Documentation of how often materials were being collected from specific containers - Putting banners up @ launch of project - Use organics instead of compost - Simplify - Change the pighnage for the pet waste bags so that is shows what container the waste goes into - Find better labels as the ones we purchase are peeling after a month - P&E could have started in advance of project – a teaser - Timing of marketing (sooner) - Location of containers @ top of trail aren’t used very much 0 different containers would have been

better - Collaboration with east gwillimbury and other municipalities - Waste auditing procedure

o How to deal with liquids and rainwater - Definition of illegal dumping - Test signage on a post behind container @ eye level - Simplify signage - too wordy and busy - Pictures on labels were good