FINAL REPORT AND PROJECT EVALUATION SOLAR POWERED COMPACTORS FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIAL CONTAINERS

Similar documents
Multi-Family Recycling Discussion Paper

Welcome to the 2014 Solid Waste Convenience Center Workshop

Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority 360 Fairview Ave. West, Suite 211 ESSEX, Ontario N8M 3G4 Internet:

Request for Decision. Review - Garbage Collection Policies. Resolution. Presented: Monday, Feb 01, Report Date Wednesday, Jan 20, 2016

ESSEX-WINDSOR PUBLIC DROP OFF DEPOT MUNICIPAL HAZARDOUS OR SPECIAL WASTE (MHSW) DEPOT YARD WASTE DROP OFF DEPOT

Waste Management Report

THAT Report No. FES re: Award of RFP, Fire Fleet Tanker Replacement be received for information;

Organic Residuals Collection Frequency and its Impact on Contamination Levels

Bin There, Done That? Challenges in Recycling (and waste) Jay Donnaway Resource Conservation Manager Sumner School District

Transfer Station Recycling Update SWANA Technical Session-Waste Diversion 4 2/24/2017 2/28/2017

STAFF REPORT. TO: Larry Gardner DATE: April 10, 2015 Manager, Solid Waste Services MEETING: RSWAC April 16, 2015

Single Stream Recycling Background

Valley Waste Resource Management. March 3, 2009 Brian Van Rooyen

WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING PLAN FOR STOWE CELEBRATES SUMMER STOWE, VERMONT

2 USE OF KRAFT BAGS FOR COLLECTION OF YARD WASTE MUNICIPAL RESPONSES

Recommended Garbage and Recycling Master Plan Frequently Asked Questions

Town of Kapuskasing SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

DUPAGE COUNTY WASTE AND RECYCLING REPORT 2017

District of Muskoka Transportation Study

Broomfield Garbage & Recycling Survey. Draft Report of Results

Cork County Energy Agency

CIF Project #810.3: Durham Region MRF Baler Final Report

WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY

2015 & 2016 WASTE MANAGEMENT GUIDE TOWNSHIP OF LAKE OF BAYS

STAFF REPORT INFORMATION ONLY. Vacuum Waste Collection Systems SUMMARY. Date: March 19, Executive Committee. To: Deputy City Manager.

Landscaping Securities August 28, 2014

ROYAL PINES SECURITY REVIEW - REPORT TO PBC

Keep lids on Avoid breaking glass Empty and rinse material

It is recommended that the Commission receive this report on subway garbage disposal and recycling and note the following:

Lake County Recycling Survey. February Highlights

Pebble Beach Community Services District

Housing Recycle. December 2016 Recycle Monthly Average Pounds Per Home 89 Tons collected UNCLASSIFIED 1. Goal is 36 Pounds per Household

Carpet Recycling in West London

Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

Composting of Fibre Products

HUMBER BAY PARK EAST BUILDING PROJECT Architectural Community Resource Group Meeting #2 July 5, 2017

Waterfront Land Use Planning Survey! Celebrating 20 years of Partnership

NASA Services, Inc. SERVICE GUIDE. Commercial Solid Waste and Recycling Services

Food Service Products

ABC Container Recycling - A Guide for Permit Holders

BWS 1000 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL

This is not a New Idea! Food scraps collection 100 years ago:

Mechanical Redesign, Proposal Elizabeth C. Krauss Mechanical Option September 18, 2013

FAQs. (Version 2.5) RECYCLE BC AND CHANGES TO THE DISTRICT S RECYCLING COLLECTION PROGRAM

WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING PLAN FOR CLINTON LIONS CLUB AGRICULTURAL FAIR CLINTON, ME

Single Stream Recycling. What it Means and Doesn t Mean for Winnebago Co Communities Winnebago County Board of Supervisors, January 6, 2009

BY-LAW NO AND WHEREAS Council has, by By-law Number adopted a Forest Fire Management Plan for the Town of Bracebridge;

On-street Recycling Pilot Project Report 2016/2017

Recycling and Solid Waste Management Report

A New Plan For The Calgary Region June calgary.ca call 3-1-1

TOWN OF DEWEY BEACH

Service Business Plan

Food Scraps Diversion Cart Tag Study

TCHC Recycling Room Pilot Project Continuous Improvement Fund Project #237

Business Recycling. Prepared by Charmaine Johnson, Rusk County Recycling Coordinator

Swatara Township Stormwater Program. 1. There are no storm sewers on or near my property. Why should I pay a fee?

Business Recycling. Presented by: Charmaine Johnson, Rusk County Recycling Coordinator

Chicagoland s Leader in Waste, Recycling and Roll Off Services

Scott Mouw NC DENR 10/22/2013

SUMMARY. Fleurieu Regional Waste Authority Kerbside Waste and Recycling Services Audit

King County Multi-Family Recycling Education Pilot Program Case Studies of Three Complexes

Home Fires Involving Heating Equipment

Albemarle Regional Solid Waste Management Authority

4/8/2015 Item #10D Page 1

How Food Waste Disposers Can Benefit Municipalities

LU Encourage schools, institutions, and other community facilities that serve rural residents to locate in neighboring cities and towns.

Recycling/Composting at DIA. September 2013

Scarsdale Conservation Advisory Council. Sanitation Study. December (Please print double-sided)

TOWN OF WHITBY REPORT RECOMMENDATION REPORT

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA

City of Colville Municipal Services 170 S. Oak, Colville, WA 99114

Progress On The Implementation Of A Program To Assist In Properly Installing Child Safety Car Restraints

Property Manager Recycling Services Kit

Business Recycling. Prepared by Charmaine Johnson, Rusk County Recycling Coordinator

Sanitation Pickup 1. Residential Curbside Pickup

WASTE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP SEMINAR INTEGRATED RECYCLING & REFUSE COLLECTIONS.

Co-collection of duvets and pillows with clothing in textile banks theoretical example

Backyard Composting. A Do-It-Yourself Guide. 70 Pine St. Bracebridge, ON P1L 1N3 Phone: (705) Fax: (705)

RECYCLINGPARTNERSHIP.ORG CAPTURE RATE STUDIES USING DATA TO DRIVE RECYCLING IMPROVEMENTS

Major Appliance Recycling Roundtable Study of Major Appliance Recycling

cartons, drink boxes, plastics #1-7, newspapers, magazines, mail, shopping ads, windowed envelopes, mixed paper and cardboard in container provided.

A Growing Community Rural Settlement Areas

Benefits of Recycling Why should I recycle? What will happen if I don t recycle?

Branch Fire Rescue Services

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Solid Waste Characterization Study Fall 2015

Pilot Program: StopWaste City of Fremont Residential Food Scrap Recycling

Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. Design Review Panel DRAFT REPORT

New Automated Garbage and Recycling Collection Frequently Asked Questions

Apartment Recycling & Green Bin Handbook

Pocono Pines Community Association Garbage Update December 21, 2018

Reduce Reuse Recycle How, Why, What s the ROI?

Appendix F PENNSYLVANIA LOCAL PARKS AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE

Companies Located North America

RECYCLINGPARTNERSHIP.ORG USING DATA TO DRIVE RECYCLING IMPROVEMENTS

Florida Green Lodging Program How to Set Up a Hotel Recycling Program

Macalester College Baseline Study and Zero Waste Recommendations

Arlington County Recycling & Refuse Tonnage Report

CITY CLERK. Parkland Acquisition Strategic Directions Report (All Wards)

Recycling and Solid Waste Management Report

Forbes, Laurie From: Sent: To: Subject: Allen, Rian November :28 AM Pink, David; Forbes, Laurie FW: Butterfly Lake Resort application for amend

Transcription:

FINAL REPORT AND PROJECT EVALUATION FOR SOLAR POWERED COMPACTORS FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIAL CONTAINERS AT EVELEIGH (PORT CARLING), McLEAN (BAYSVILLE) AND FRANKLIN (DWIGHT) WASTE TRANSFER STATIONS IN THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, CIF #303 Friday November 4, 2011 THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA 70 PINE STREET BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3

1. Executive Summary 1.1. Communities in the cottage country region of Ontario, specifically the District Municipality of Muskoka (Muskoka) are confronted with unique waste management issues such as seasonally fluctuating populations, large rural road networks and long distances to recycling material processing facilities and markets. These obstacles present operational and economic challenges for the Muskoka recycling program. Muskoka in association with Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO), The Continuous Improvement Fund (CIF) and Stewardship Ontario entered into an agreement to install equipment to improve efficiency and reduce transportation costs at three of Muskoka s seven Transfer Stations. The three selected Transfer Stations were McLean and Franklin, both of which are located in the Township of Lake of Bays, and Eveleigh, which is located in the Township of Muskoka Lakes. 1.2. The following equipment was installed at the selected Transfer Stations: 4 model RJ 225 Ramjet Stationary Solar Compactors (two each at Eveleigh and McLean) 2 model TC 220T Trash Commander Tank Stationary Solar Compactors at Franklin 9 Forty cubic yard roll-off containers three for each site The addition of this equipment has dramatically increased the efficiency of Muskoka s recycling operations. Regardless of seasonal fluctuations in quantities the key area of improvement is the reduction of transportation costs. A related benefit is the reduction of Green House Gases. Two 5 month periods one before and one after the installation of the compactors have been analyzed to demonstrate the benefits of the new equipment. When the two periods are compared, it is clear that the reduction in transportation costs justify the installation of the compaction equipment. For transportation of recyclables without the compactors, Muskoka s invoices for the three selected transfer stations would total $65, 936.40 in 2011. With

compaction the total cost is projected to be $25, 438.94 for the year, a net saving of $40, 497.46. 2. Background 2.1. The District Municipality of Muskoka was created in 1971. Muskoka is an upper tier municipality with responsibility for solid waste management. Muskoka contains six lower tier municipalities which are predominately rural with urban centres within each of the municipalities. The six lower tier municipalities are The Towns of Huntsville, Bracebridge and Gravenhurst and the Townships of Georgian Bay, Lake of Bays and Muskoka Lakes. Muskoka s year-round population is roughly 57, 000 with an additional 76, 000 residents in the summer bringing the total population closer to 133,000. The land area of Muskoka is 4, 761 square kilometres containing over 600 lakes. 2.2. Solid waste management in Muskoka is a blend of curbside garbage and recycling pickup, staffed waste transfer stations where residents drop-off garbage and recyclable materials, and un-staffed small bin sites for both garbage and recyclables. The focus of this project was the recyclable streams at staffed waste transfer stations. Muskoka has seven such facilities with at least one in each Township. The three transfer stations chosen for this project were Eveleigh in the Township of Muskoka Lakes, and Franklin and McLean both located in the Township of Lake of Bays. All three of the facilities offer seven day a week service to residents in the summer with reduced hours/days of operation in the winter season. Recyclables at all three of the selected locations are handled in the same manner and are diverted into three streams. There is an open top bin for cardboard and a side loading depot style bin for containers and mixed paper. Prior to the installation of the compactors, uncompacted recyclables were hauled by BFI Canada to the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) located in Bracebridge. The current recycling operation with the compactors in place remains similar, with three streams. However, the side loading depot bins have been replaced with dedicated compactor bins for mixed paper and container streams. Cardboard is still collected in an un-compacted open top bin.

2.3. Muskoka was incurring expensive transportation costs prior to the installation of the compactors due to the frequent lifts of recyclable materials. The loose fill depot bins only held an average of 1.28 metric tonnes of containers and 1.35 metric tonnes of mixed papers. The low capacity of the loose fill containers in conjunction with the high number of monthly trips to the recycling facility, an average of 17 trips/month for containers and 18 trips/month for mixed paper caused recycling costs at the Transfer Station to come under scrutiny. As a result, economical and environmentally friendly solutions that would reduce transportation costs and increase the efficiency of the transfer stations were explored. 3. Monitoring & Reporting 3.1. Budget 3.1.1. Upon review of the transportation costs associated with Muskoka s recycling program a plan was developed to increase the efficiency of the program and an application was made to the Continuous Improvement Fund (CIF) administered by Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO). The District Municipality of Muskoka in association with WDO, CIF and Stewardship Ontario entered into an agreement to install six solar powered compactors and nine forty cubic yard roll-off bins at the three selected Transfer Stations. A detailed budget was prepared and a synopsis of budgeted versus actual costs is as follows: CIF #303 Transfer Stations Recycle Compactors Project Costs Expenses Budget Actual Project Administration and Approvals (3 sites) $9,000 $26,718 Site Works & power supply $63,867 $76,369 9 Forty Yard Bins $79,605 $78,870 2 Franklin Site Compactors, incl training & delivery $70,400 $78,870 2 McLean Site Compactors, incl training & delivery $70,400 $70,270 2 Eveleigh Site Compactors, incl training & delivery $70,400 $70,270 Contingency Allowance $54,552 $23,823 Total $418,224 $425,190

3.1.2. Upon installation and commissioning of the compactors, the actual costs of the project were within 2% of the budget. The slight departure from budgeted costs was due primarily to costs for site works and a change order for the Franklin compactors to cross cylinder models. The date of Substantial Performance for the project was January 31, 2011. 3.2. Maintenance 3.2.1. Upon completion of the installation of the solar powered compactors and forty cubic yard roll off bins a few trouble shooting initiatives took place. Solar power inverter issues were resolved under warranty. Otherwise, there were no deficiencies and the compactors have operated well since their installation. 3.3. Labour 3.3.1. The compactors do not directly reduce labour time. In fact, there is a requirement for the site attendant to go to the compactor bin and initiate a compaction sequence when a light in the Transfer Station scale house illuminates. The light is activated by a level sensor in the compactor chamber. Site attendants have been able to successfully fit this extra duty into their routine. At the Muskoka Lakes Transfer Station it was necessary to supplement staffing with a student on summer weekend afternoons because the full-time site attendant could not keep up with the demand for service. 3.4. Transportation Savings 3.4.1. The installation of the solar powered compactors and forty cubic yard roll off bins have provided immediate positive results and savings. To properly quantify the transportation savings, environmental value and the increase in efficiency at the Transfer Stations, the actual lifts for the Spring and Summer seasons of 2010, without the equipment have been compared to

the actual lifts for the Spring and Summer seasons for 2011 with the equipment, as follows: Pre CIF #303 Recycle Bin May Sep 2010 Activity Containers Lifts Tonnes Mixed Paper Lifts Tonnes Total Tonnes May 10 17 21.11 6 8.05 29.16 Jun 10 20 25.01 9 12.97 37.98 Jul 10 34 47.39 16 24.35 71.74 Aug 10 33 51.17 18 23.15 74.32 Sep 10 18 26.86 12 20.15 47.01 Total 122 171.54 62 88.68 260.22 Post CIF#303 Recycle Compactor Bins May Sep 2011 Activity Containers Lifts Tonnes Mixed Paper Lifts Tonnes Total Tonnes May 11 4 12.76 3 13.65 26.41 Jun 11 4 15.2 4 20.23 35.43 Jul 11 10 41.47 7 33.27 74.74 Aug 11 11 46.26 7 34.2 80.46 Sep 11 6 21.89 3 21.21 43.1 Total 35 137.58 24 122.56 260.14 3.4.2. Since the installation of the compactors and roll-off bins, Muskoka has handled a similar tonnage of recycling material while requiring fewer lifts from BFI Canada. Examination of the table above demonstrates that in the five month period in which compactors were in place, approximately the same amount of material was transported in 68% fewer lifts than in a similar period without the compactors. Another way of looking at this is to calculate the number of lifts that would have been required in 2011 had the compactors not been in place. This can be done by dividing the total weights of materials collected in 2011 by the tonnes per lift calculated for 2010. Based on 1.28 and 1.35 tonnes per lift for containers and mixed paper respectively, in 2011, without the compactors, 107 lifts and 90 lifts would have been required for containers and mixed paper respectively, for a total of 197 lifts. As noted in the table above, with the compactors, only 35 lifts and 24 lifts were required for containers and mixed papers respectively for a total of 59 lifts a 70% reduction. These financial benefits are in addition to the reduction of green house gases.

4. Conclusion 4.1. The completion of CIF #303 has increased efficiency at three of Muskoka s waste transfer stations. As was anticipated during the project application, the solar powered compactors and forty cubic yard roll off bins have reduced the number of lifts of recycling materials to the MRF. When 2011 projected recycling totals for mixed paper and container streams are assessed by converting to uncompacted lifts required for the transportation of the 2011 projected tonnage, the amounts saved post CIF#303 are as follows: Compacted vs. Un compacted Recycle Bins at McLean, Franklin & Eveleigh Lifts BFI Lift Fees 2011 Un Compacted (annualized) 345 $65, 936.40 2011 Compacted (annualized) 103 $25, 438.94 Projected Annualized Savings 242 $40, 497.46 4.2. The annualized recycling lift activity demonstrates a significant reduction in costs. Theoretically, with the compactors installed Muskoka saves over $40,000 over the course of the year. Based on this saving, the project payback period will be 10.5 years with the CIF portion of funding comprising 4.9 years of that total. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests that the quality of the recyclables in the compacted forty cubic yard roll off bins is higher, with less contamination than is found in the un-compacted recycle depot bins.