Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. "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 />. "During" versus "Before." The single-stream routes generated lower quantities of metals, 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-stream routes were <br />higher than the quantities of contaminants found compared to the same areas collected as dual-stream <br />routes in the "Before" period. <br />. "During" versus "During." The quantities of contaminants in the single-stream routes were higher <br />than the quantities of contaminants found in the combined "During" dual-stream pilot routes. <br /> <br />Dual-Stream <br />. "During" versus "Before." The composition of materials collecteq in the combined "During" dual- <br />stream pilot areas was not significantly different from the composition compared to the same areas in <br />the "Before" period. <br />. "During" versus "During." The composition of materials collected in eacl:1.ofthe "During" dual- <br />stream pilot areas (Weekly, Two Bins, Education) were not statistically different from each other. <br /> <br />Tonnages of Material Recovered for Recycling <br />The overall goal of this pilot program was to help the City refineitscurbside recycling program to capture <br />more recyclable material. Thus, this section includes an analysis ofh{)w much additional material was <br />recovered in each of the tested pilot approaches. <br /> <br />As discussed in the Pilot Design and Methodologys~ction,ak~yi~s~e is how to address material that is <br />collected at the curb but is not ultimately recovered al1drecycled..Such contamination or residuals falls into <br />three categories: <br />. Non-targeted materials,at the curb: Materials thilt are defined by the municipality as not acceptable <br />but are frequently inCludeq.py resigents in their curbside bin. This issue is addressed under <br />Comparison of Tonnages COUectedI?wing Pilot Collection Routes. <br />. Processing re~iduals,~tthe faCility: Matefialsfhat are disposed as trash as an unwanted by-product <br />after proce~sing of recyslable materials at MRFs. This issue is addressed under Processing Residuals <br />and in Appendix G. <br />. Contaminants in marketed product, atthe mill: Inclusion of materials that are prohibited or which <br />exceed specifisations for an end-market. This issue is also addressed under Processing Residuals. <br /> <br />Comparison of Tonnages (:;ollectellDuring Pilot Collection Routes <br />Appendix H includes severaltaph~sleading to Table 7 in this summary below. <br /> <br />The first step was to develop average gross weights collected 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 weight collected <br />per household per route, to negate the slight differences in numbers of households in each pilot area. <br /> <br />During the material composition sorts and analysis, weights of contaminants included by residents with their <br />recyclables (non-targeted materials) were calculated 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 /> <br />19 <br />