COUNTY OF SIMCOE
To:
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Section:
Consent - Corporate Services - Solid Waste Management
Item Number:
CCW 16-080
Meeting Date:
February 25, 2016
Subject:
2015 Single-Family Curbside Waste Audit Results and Analysis
Recommendation:
THAT Item CCW 16-080, regarding the results of the 2015 single-family curbside waste audit, be
received for information.
Executive Summary:
This Item provides the results and analysis of the 2015 single-family curbside waste audit. The
comprehensive four-season audit was completed in 2015 to coincide with the Solid Waste Management
Strategy 5-year update.
Results from the 2015 audit provide the following information:


Blue Box capture rate of 87%, an increase of 2% from 2012
Organics capture rate of 38%, a decrease of 6% from 2012
Analysis of the audit data shows the overall waste generation remained similar to 2012 levels at
574.30 kilogram per household per year. Further analysis revealed that nearly 50% of the material in a
typical household garbage bag could be diverted through existing curbside programs.
Background/Analysis/Options:
Curbside waste audits were recommended in the Solid Waste Management Strategy (Strategy) as a
performance indicator to sort and measure household waste generation rates on a per unit basis and to
monitor the quantity and types of materials residents place curbside. The comprehensive four-season
audit was completed in 2015 to coincide with the Strategy 5-year update.
In 2015, the County was one of several municipalities which participated in a curbside waste audit
partially funded by the Continuous Improvement Fund and Stewardship Ontario with the audit work
being conducted by 2cg Environmental Consulting Services. This project has been delivered with the
assistance of the Continuous Improvement Fund (CIF), a fund financed by Ontario municipalities and
stewards of the blue box waste in Ontario. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the
February 25, 2016
Committee of the Whole CCW 16-080
2
views of the author(s), and CIF, Waste Diversion Ontario and Stewardship Ontario (SO) accept no
responsibility for these views.
The waste audit is conducted over two-week periods on a quarterly basis in order to gather a whole
year assessment and to capture seasonal trends and variations. Waste materials generated at
100 households, representative of the County’s demographic (10 units in 10 zones of the County are
broken down by assessment values and settlement area type), are collected then sorted into more than
60 categories for each waste stream (garbage, recycling, and organics) and weighed in order to
determine waste generation and capture rates.
Waste Generation
Staff has analysed the results of the 2015 audit and compared against previous curbside audit data
results from 2010 and 2012. The table below summarizes the waste generation rate on a kilogram per
household per year (kg/hh/yr) basis. While the County observed a significant increase in overall waste
generation between the 2010 and 2012, audits rates remained similar between 2012 and 2015.
Table 1: Summary of Audit Results – Waste Generation Rate
Total Waste Generated
average kg/hh/yr
2010 Audit
2012 Audit
2015 Audit
Garbage
145.73
167.06
167.85
Recycling (Blue Box material)
197.73
211.42
204.11
Organics
186.03
195.39
202.34
Total
529.49
573.87
574.30
Capture Rates
Staff notes that recycling capture rates have increased slightly – a result of the already high rates
achieved which has left little opportunity for substantial growth. However, the capture rate of curbside
organics continues to decline year over year with a noteworthy drop of 6% between the 2012 and 2015
audits. Increasing the capture rate of curbside organics remains the single greatest opportunity to
decrease the amount of waste destined for disposal and improve the County’s relatively stagnant
diversion rate.
Table 2: Summary of Audit Results – Capture Rate
Capture Rates
2010
2012
2015
Recycling (Blue Box material)
83%
85%
87%
Organics
47%
44%
38%
As indicated in Table 1, a slight decrease in the average kg/hh/yr of recycling (Blue Box material) was
observed, with the decrease being partially attributed to light-weighting of container packaging and an
overall decrease in fibres related to lower uptake of newspapers and magazines. Improved capture
rates, however, of approximately 1% for both containers and fibres were observed.
February 25, 2016
Committee of the Whole CCW 16-080
3
The most notable increases in capture rates were for #1 Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) which
increased by 30%, composite cans (spiral wound containers) which increased by 17%, PET
thermoform packaging (including items such as bakery trays, vegetable trays) increasing by 6% (with
an 82% capture rate), #5 Polypropylene bottles, jars, and jugs by 10%, and 77% for coloured PET (new
SO category). The lowest capture rates were observed for items such as aluminum foil and foil trays at
29%, steel aerosol cans at 49%, and aseptic containers, which actually decreased by 10%, to 65%.
Curbside Waste Stream Composition
Audit results indicate that an average household in the County generated 574.30 kg of waste in 2015.
The data reveals the maximum curbside diversion rate possible (with the current blue box and green
bin program) is 70% – this assumes a 100% participation with a 100% capture rate of recycling and
organics. The chart below illustrates the waste stream composition of curbside material for a typical
household in the County.
Curbside Waste Stream Composition – 2015
average kg/hh/year
Plastic Film
(11.78 kg)
2%
Textiles
(11.74 kg)
2%
HHW
(1.14 kg)
0.2%
Diapers & Sanitary
Products
(26.10 kg)
5%
Styrofoam
(3.06 kg)
1%
Residual Garbage
(69.58 kg)
12%
Blue Box
Containers
(75.69 kg)
13%
Pet Waste
(44.45 kg)
8%
Blue Box Fibres
(128.42 kg)
22%
Green Bin Materials
(202.34 kg)
35%
February 25, 2016
Committee of the Whole CCW 16-080
4
Curbside Garbage Stream Composition
The chart below illustrates the composition of a typical bag of household garbage destined for disposal.
Based on audit data, nearly 50% of the current household garbage material could be diverted through
the County’s existing curbside blue box recycling and green bin programs. The greatest opportunity for
improvement remains the green bin program with 40% of the average residential garbage bag being
made up of food waste and other divertible green bin materials such as tissues, paper towels, and
paper cups and plates.
Curbside Garbage Stream Composition – 2015
Blue Box Containers
3%
Blue Box Fibres 5%
Styrofoam
1%
Plastic Film
3%
Residual Garbage
20%
Textiles
4%
HHW
0.3%
Green Bin Materials
40%
Pet Waste
15%
Diapers & Sanitary Products
9%
Residual garbage material (non-recyclable) includes – paper and plastic laminates, durable
plastics (toys etc), construction and renovation material, non-recyclable glass, metal, paper,
plastic, and film packaging items.
Financial and Resource Implications:
The County was approved for approximately $27,000 in funding from the Continuous Improvement
Fund and Stewardship Ontario. The balance of the audit cost, $31,000, was funded through the Solid
Waste Management Department operating budget. The County was responsible for approximately
40% of the cost for the blue box and garbage portion of the audit and 100% of the costs associated with
the green bin material audit.
February 25, 2016
Committee of the Whole CCW 16-080
5
Relationship to Corporate Strategies:
The Solid Waste Management Strategy recommended performing comprehensive curbside waste
audits approximately every three years and also following any major program change in order to
measure the participation, compliance, capture and generation rates of the waste system.
Reference Documents:
There are no reference documents attached to this Item.
Attachments:
Schedule 1: 2010 – 2015 Single-Family Waste Audit Comparison
CCW 16-080 Schedule 1.pdf
Prepared By:
Jillian Fairchild, Project Coordinator
Stephanie Mack, P.Eng., Special Projects Supervisor
Approvals:
Date
Rob McCullough, Director, Solid Waste Management
Debbie Korolnek, General Manager, Engineering, Planning and Environment
Trevor Wilcox, General Manager, Corporate Performance
Mark Aitken, Chief Administrative Officer
February 9, 2016
February 9, 2016
February 16, 2016
February 17, 2016