HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-17-2016-13-5 - Information Item - Memorandum Regarding Impacts of Changing Recycling Collection Strategies INFORMATION ITEM
Memorandum
To: Board of Orange County Commissioners
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director
Subject: Impacts of Changing Recycling Collection Strategies
Date: May 9, 2016
At the April 19 BOCC meeting a commissioner petition inquired about the impacts to the County's
recycling collection program resulting from changing from two-stream' collection with paper in one
container and cans and bottles in the other to single stream with all recyclables in a single container to
be sorted at a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF).This memo provides a response, but limits the analyses
to the past four year period, thereby including the final two years of two-stream collection and the most
recent two-and-a-half years of single stream collection.
In the first two years of data shown in the table below, Orange County ran two-stream collection in
which paper of all types was kept separate from bottles and cans.The performance of a single-stream
collection system is reflected in the 2013-14 data and forward, [NOTE: Orange County does include
corrugated cardboard in curbside but collects it separately at drop-off sites and excludes it from its
commercial and multifamily recycling programs due to capacity issues.] No analysis is included of the
performance of the earlier more separated system which required a six-way sort that the County used
from recycling's inception in 1987 until 2007 when the collection was converted to two-stream.
In the data presented below, when comparing 2014-15 (the first full year of single stream using carts at
the curb plus carts and dumpsters in all other programs), to 2012-13,(the final year of two-stream using
bins at the curb and carts and dumpsters in other programs), total tonnage from the five programs
increased 14%. Urban curbside collection tonnage has increased 55%and rural curbside increased 14%.
The budgeted annual contract collection cost of the urban curbside recycling program for the current
fiscal year is$758,915. Had the cost per household remained at the same level it was in FY 12-13 when
recycling was collected two-stream in bins, the cost would have been 13.5% higher at$861,465, a
savings of$102,550, reflecting overall increases in collection efficiency and collector safety.
Improvements in rural curbside recycling program collection efficiency enabled the addition of more
households with no increase in staff or equipment. The percentage of urban households participating
increased using carts although weekly set out rates declined; using larger carts rather than smaller bins
results in a need for fewer set outs, another measure of efficiency improvement.
Drop-off tonnage declined 5%as might have been expected due to the convenience and increased
capacity of carts at the curb. In the two smaller programs, commercial declined 14%and multifamily
10%during this period. We are not sure why these latter two categories have declined in tonnage but
will continue to work on those sectors as well as overall program expansion and improvement.
When reviewing the data, it is important to take into account how the rapidly changing nature of the
waste and recyclable materials' stream affect the recycling picture.
The key metric of tonnage recycled, while valuable, has limitations. Three examples of the 'evolving ton'
as it's now spoken of in industry parlance, point out the difficulty in using weight as the sole criterion for
judging program performance.
1. Printed paper: Over the past five years,the volume and weight of printed paper has declined,
reducing the percent of fiber (paper) in the recycling stream from sixty-eight percent to fifty-
nine percent. Paper has historically been the backbone of monetary value of public recycling
and most sorting facilities were primarily designed to handle various paper grades. Cardboard
from mail order has offset somewhat the decline in newsprint and other printed papers.
2. Light-weighting of containers: When the aluminum can was introduced it took 16 twelve ounce
cans to generate a pound of recycling, now that number is 33. Similar light-weighting is taking
place with all other containers, e.g.you can feel the difference in water bottles 'flimsiness'.
3. Changing technologies: Ground coffee came in a steel can in the 1980s,the 1990's saw the
plastic bottle or jug (both recyclable using our current technology), and the current coffee
packaging is laminated, multi-layered light weight pouches that are not recyclable using current
technologies.
The fluctuating value of recyclable commodities also makes comparison of net costs difficult.
Recyclables are, like most other commodities, internationally traded and affected by the unified
world-wide economy. When markets for consumer goods or industrial goods decline or competing
sources of raw material (think oil) are cheaper,the market value of recyclable materials also
declines, although the environmental benefits and landfill space savings remain.
A third factor impacting any comparison is the changing nature of processing recyclables. For many
years Orange County kept paper separate from cans and bottles thereby reaping additional revenue
from MRFs. When all other communities selling to MRFs had converted to single stream, there was
no longer any market advantage to maintaining separate stream. In addition, the added
convenience and increased capacity of roll carts tends to increase participation and tonnage, over
and above the increase in contamination. Both those impacts are universally ascribed to the advent
of single stream programs everywhere. Orange County is not exempt from those influences. Bearing
these issues in mind, please see the data tables on the following page in answer to the question of
impact of conversion to single stream on County recycling programs.
PROGRAM
Year Total Tons Change in tons year- Annual Comments
Urban Rural Drop-Off Multi Commercial to-year Revenue
Curb Curb Family
All programs two-stream i.e.
2011-12 3,387 1,867 4,709 1,125 1,089 12,177 $755,891 paper vs.cans&bottles
(cardboard separate)
2012-13 3,578 1,715 4,607 1,255 1,205 12,360 $550,906 Final year of two-stream
%change 6% (-8%) (-2%) 12% 11% -- 2% (-27%)
Change to single stream in bins
2013-14 4,696 1,759 4,975 1,208 1,051 13,689 $427,230 at curb and in all other
programs(carts or dumpsters)
%change 31% 3% 8% (-4%) (-13%) 11% (-22%)
Single stream in bins change to
2014-15 5,563 1,947 4,376 1,128 1,034 14,048 $288,683 carts at curb. Other programs
remain same.
%change 18% 11% (-12%) (-7%) -2% -- 3% (-32%)
Overall%change:Last
year of two stream
(2012-13)vs. most 55% 14% (-5%) (-10%) (-14%) -- 14% (-62%)
recent year single
stream 2014-15
2014-15 first half) 2,828 1,195 2,397 579 576 7,575 $166,594
2015-16(first half) 2,847 1,724 1,940 550 529 7,590 $106,930 (continued dist.of rural carts
at curb)
%change 1% 44% (-19%) (-5%) (-8%) 0.2% (-36%)