Laserfiche WebLink
■"During" versus "Before." The single-stream routes yielded increased quantities of paper compared <br />to the same areas collected as dual-stream routes in the "Before" period. <br />■"Durin�" versus _"Before." The single-stream routes generated lower quantities of inetals, glass and <br />plastics compared to the same areas collected as dual-stream routes in the "Before" period. <br />■ The quantities of contaminants (non-targeted materials at the curb} in the single-streatn x'outes were <br />higher than the quantities of contaminants faund compared to the same areas collected as dual-stream <br />routes in the "Before" period. <br />■"During" versus "Durin�." The quantities of contaminants in ihe single-stream routes were higher <br />than the quantities of contaminants found in the combined "During" dual-stream pilot routes. <br />Dual-Stream <br />■ "Durin�" versus "Before." The composition of materials collected in the combined "During" dual- <br />stream pilot azeas was not significan�ly different from the compasition coinpared to the same areas in <br />ihe "Before" period. <br />■ "During" versus "During." The composition of materials collected in each of the "During" dual- <br />stream pilot areas (Weekly, Two Bins, Edncation) vvere not statistically different from each other. <br />Tonnages of Material Recovered for Recycling <br />The overall goal of this pilot program was to help the City refine its curbside recycling program to capture <br />more recyclable material. Thus, this section includcs an analysis of how xnuch additional material was <br />recovered in each of the tested pilot approaches. <br />As discussed in the Pilot Desigt� and Methodology section, a key issue is how to address material that is <br />collected at the curb but is not ultimately recovered and recycled. Such contamination or residuals falls inio <br />three categories: <br />■ Non-ta�rgeted materials, at the curb: Materials that are defined by ihe municipality as not acceptable <br />but are frequently iu�cluded by residents i:n their curbside bin. This issue is addressed under <br />Comparison of Tonnages Callected During Pilot Collection Routes. <br />■ Processing residuals, at the facility: Materials that are disposed as txash as an unwanted by-product <br />af�er processing of recyclable materials at MRFs. Th�is isst�e is addressed under Processing Residuals <br />and in Appendix G. <br />Contaminants in marketed product, at the mill: Inciusion of materials that a�re proiiibited or which <br />exceed specifications far an end-marke#. This issue is also addressed under Process�ng Residuals. <br />Comparison of Tonnages Collected During Pilot Couectian Rovtes <br />Appendix H includes several tables leading to Table 7 in th�.s summary below. <br />The first step was to develop average gross weights collec#ed per route for each. week of the study for which <br />data. was collected (three weeks in the "Before" period, and five weeks in the "During" period except nine <br />weeks for the Weekly pilot). These gross weights were then converted to an average gross weig�t collected <br />per household per route, to negate the slight differences in nutnbers of households in each pilot area. <br />During the material composition sorts and analysis, weights of contaminants included by residents with their <br />recyclab�es {non-targeted materials) were calcuiated for each pilot area. Overall contaminants in the <br />"During" single-stream areas were found to be statistically significantly higher than the dual stream "Before" <br />areas. <br />19 <br />