Integrated Resources & Solid Waste Management Plan Update - Dec 2009

Home

4.0 RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS Diversion Potential. Using results from the County's 2008 waste composition study, assuming about 37,000 households would be served and a 90 percent capture rate, a green waste collection program might result in additional recycling of 5,600 tons. This estimate assumes no extra green waste from collection at recycling and transfer stations. Estimated Cost. The factors affecting the cost of curbside recycling discussed above would also help determine the cost of green waste collection. Costs would depend on what other curbside services are provided (for example, garbage, recycling). Curbside collection of green waste including processing and material marketing would probably cost between $20 and $30 per household per month. 4.5.4 Add Food and Other Organics to a Residential Curbside Recycling and Green Waste Collection Program Throughout the United States, Canada, and elsewhere, many large and small communities with a commitment to zero waste are modifying their waste collection programs to include food and other organics such as food - spoiled paper. Some examples of existing programs and how they are organized follow: San Francisco: Weekly collection of garbage, recyclables, and organics in plastic 32- gallon rolling carts. Fully - automated collection with garbage and recyclables in a dual collection truck (separate compartments for each material), organics in a separate truck. Variable rate for garbage. No curbside green waste collection. • Seattle: Starting in 2009, service will be same as San Francisco with variable rates and can sizes for both garbage and organics. Major difference is that all streams are collected in separate trucks (no dual collection trucks). • Toronto: Weekly collection of organics in 20- gallon rolling carts, and recyclables and garbage collected on alternating weeks in 32- gallon rolling cart. Variable rate for garbage. These three basic types of systems have been implemented in a number of communities, both large and small. They require residents to learn new ways of managing food and other organics and program managers must clearly communicate to residents what materials must go in each bin. Most of these systems have some type of variable rate to encourage behavior that minimizes garbage. In general, after initial pilot testing and consumer research, these programs have typically been well received by residents. Current research efforts are focusing on ways to increase participation by residents: many programs report less than 30 percent of residents participate in organics recycling10. Implementation of aggressive pay -as -you throw rates is one method communities are using to improve participation rates. 10 Goldstein, Nora. Source Separated MSW Composting in the U.S. BioCycle December 2005, Vol. 46, No. 12, p. 20 December 2009 4 -19