canadianresidentialplasticspackaging:recycling ... plastics access report... · access.ane...
TRANSCRIPT
Canadian Residential Plastics Packaging: Recycling
Program Access Report
Determining the level of access to recycling of plastic materials via residential recycling programs and return to
retail programs for plastic bags
NOVEMBER 2017
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
| 2
Table of Contents Background ......................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 4 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................ 8
Return to Retail (R2R) Recycling of Plastic Shopping Bags ................................................... 12 Canadian Programs by Categories of Materials Accepted .................................................... 16
Material Summaries .......................................................................................................... 30 Container Plastics ................................................................................................................. 30 Non-‐container or Specific-‐use Plastics ................................................................................. 47 HDPE, LDPE Film and Bags and Plastic Shopping Bags by Region ......................................... 49
Key Findings: Access to Recycling of Plastic Shopping Bags in Municipal Recycling Systems and Return-‐to-‐Retail Programs .......................................................................................... 68
PS Foam Food Packaging by Region ..................................................................................... 74
Provincial Summaries ................................................................................................. 90 British Columbia ................................................................................................................... 90 Alberta .................................................................................................................................. 92 Saskatchewan ....................................................................................................................... 94 Manitoba .............................................................................................................................. 96 Ontario ................................................................................................................................. 99 Quebec ............................................................................................................................... 102 New Brunswick ................................................................................................................... 104 Nova Scotia ......................................................................................................................... 106 Prince Edward Island .......................................................................................................... 108 Newfoundland and Labrador .............................................................................................. 110
National Access Rates 2004-‐2017 ..................................................................................... 112 Plastic Containers ............................................................................................................... 113 Non-‐container or Specific-‐use Plastics ............................................................................... 114 Provincial Access Rates 2004-‐2017 ..................................................................................... 115 British Columbia ................................................................................................................. 116 Alberta ................................................................................................................................ 118 Saskatchewan ..................................................................................................................... 121 Manitoba ............................................................................................................................ 123 Ontario ............................................................................................................................... 125 Quebec ............................................................................................................................... 128 New Brunswick ................................................................................................................... 130 Nova Scotia ......................................................................................................................... 132 Prince Edward Island .......................................................................................................... 134 Newfoundland and Labrador .............................................................................................. 136
Appendix A: Keywords/Terms Used to Determine Acceptability of a Material/Container Type in a Recycling Program ............................................................................................ 138
| 3
Background During the past two decades, the popularity of recycling has grown dramatically. Recycling programs are now in place in most major Canadian cities. The participation level of recycling, however, varies quite widely from province to province. While some of this variability can be explained by differences in levels of household income, education, general interest, and age of residents, one of the key factors influencing recycling rates in Canada is whether people have access to recycling programs. Access rates for various types of plastic packaging are constantly changing, and the specific list of materials accepted in a residential recycling program varies from municipality to municipality. As extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes proliferate across the country, it is becoming increasingly important for manufacturers and retailers of packaged food and consumer goods to know what percentage of Canadians have access to recycling programs for the packaging they place on the market. In this report, having “access” to recycling means the opportunity is available for consumers to recycle their plastics packaging through residential curbside recycling programs, municipal recycling depots, deposit-‐return programs for beverage containers, or return-‐to-‐retail (R2R) for empty beverage containers and plastic bags/film. For the first time, this year’s report will include the R2R programs for plastic bags and film. In previous years, this information was included in a separate report, and overall access to recycling plastic bags and film was determined by combining the access rate to R2R programs and the access rate to residential recycling programs. This year, we are delivering all of this information in one report. The format of the report has not changed, but the section on plastic bags and film has been expanded to include the R2R element.
| 4
Purpose This report aims to provide the Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA) and other stakeholders with information on what percentage of Canadians have access to recycling programs for the plastics packaging materials put into the market. The list of materials researched by CM Consulting is as follows:
Plastics
• PET beverage bottles • PET bottles, jugs, and jars • HDPE beverage bottles • HDPE bottles, jugs and jars • PVC bottles, jugs and jars • LDPE bottles, jugs and jars • PP bottles, jugs and jars • Other (#7) bottles, jugs and jars • PET non-‐bottle rigid containers • HDPE non-‐bottle rigid containers • PVC non-‐bottle rigid containers • LDPE non-‐bottle rigid containers • PP non-‐bottle rigid containers • PS non-‐bottle rigid containers • Other non-‐bottle rigid containers • HDPE, LDPE film and bags (residential and R2R programs) • Retail shopping bags (residential and R2R programs) • PS foam food packaging • PS foam protective packaging • HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS tubs and lids <4L • HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS tubs and lids >4L • Bulky plastics • Caps • Horticultural rigid plastic
Methodology In order to estimate recycling access rates for each of the plastic packaging materials identified, CM Consulting began by determining the population residing within each municipality, regional district, or subdivision having a defined area, collectively referred to as Recycling Program Areas (RPA). Populations for each RPA were determined using 2015 Statistics Canada census data. The second step in the research was to determine which materials were accepted in each recycling program. To do this, CM Consulting visited the municipal/regional websites of each of the roughly 400 RPAs, and looked for specific key words or phases. This task required a certain degree of interpretation. For instance, if a website listed “bakery trays” as accepted and also stated that PET (or #1) and Polystyrene (or #6) were acceptable materials, then PET and polystyrene non-‐bottle rigids were considered accepted. Furthermore, if a material was not listed as accepted on the website – either explicitly or implicitly – it was assumed that the RPA did not accept that material for recycling. For the film and bag categories, where we combined the residential and R2R access rates to determine an overall rate, the methodology is much more complex. Determining access to recycling film and bags through residential programs follows the same methodology as that used for other plastics materials. The process of determining R2R access begins with a list of 1,165 retailers accepting plastic film and bags, which was provided by the CPIA. The stores accepting these materials were mapped using GIS (Geographic Information Systems), and then census data was used to determine the population residing within 10km of one of the locations. These populations were compared to those served by municipal recycling programs to determine what percentage of the country has “access” to R2R plastic bags and/or municipal plastic bag recycling. Figure 1 provides an illustrative example of how this was done. The areas in light green represent RPAs that accept both plastic film and bags in their municipal recycling programs, while those in red represent those where film is excluded from the program. The circles represent a radius of 10km around retail locations that currently accept plastic shopping bags for recycling. The circles are transparent so that one is able to distinguish between stores that cover an area where there is municipal service and stores that cover an area that does not have municipal access. The blue circles represent areas where people have access to recycling under both the municipal and R2R system, while the purple circles represent areas where the only access to recycling plastic shopping bags is through the R2R program.
| 6
The small, dark red areas of the graph show populations of over 4,000 that have no access to residential recycling for this material, and that live more than 10km from a participating retailer. These are the areas that the CPIA should be targeting to increase retailer participation in the R2R plastic bag program. NOTE: Important Change in Methodology for Manitoba In previous reports, Manitoba was divided into 8 regions, and the largest city in each region was used as a proxy for the entire region. For the most part, this approach made sense and resulted in accurate estimates; however, it did not allow for small differences between programs in the same geographical region, and it did not account for the small parts of the population that are unserved (resulting in 100% access rates, which were not necessarily accurate). It was also inconsistent with the majority of the other provinces, which were based on programs being run by municipalities, and only measured those with 5,000 people or more. For this year’s report, CM Consulting and the CPIA agreed to change the methodology in Manitoba to one that includes any RPA of 4,000 or more (giving us 17 RPAs with easy to discover program details). CM Consulting also created a new RPA intended to cover all those who do not live in a RPA with 4,000 or more people, but that are served by the MMSB, which provides access to recycling of most plastic containers (and most other recyclables) to 94% of the province’s population. To create this new RPA, CM Consulting took the number of people served by the MMSB (1,206,492, representing 94% of the province’s population of 1,278,365) and subtracted those covered by the first 17 RPAs (887,390). This leaves 319,102 people that we know have access to residential recycling, but who do not live in one of the population centres of 4,000 or more. It was assumed that these people live in the southern part of the province or along the highways that connect southern Manitoba with La Pas and Flin Flon to the west, Thompson and beyond to Churchill in the north. A new RPA was created to incorporate these people until the 319,102 number was reached. It is important to note that while the maps may not be a perfect representation of Manitoba access, CM Consulting feels that the accuracy of the data provided is more important, as the new RPA accurately reflects the actual number of people served by the MMSB.
| 7
| 8
Key Findings
National Access Rates Figures 1 and 2 present national recycling access rates for residential recycling programs for two categories of materials:
• Plastic containers; and • Non-‐container or specific-‐use plastics
Note that the access rate for shopping bags and plastic film does not include R2R access. As shown in Figure 1, plastic containers are recycled at a very high rate in Canada. Most resins now show access rates over 90% for bottles, jugs, and jars, as well as non-‐bottle containers. Containers made of the most difficult to recycle resin, PS, now have access rates over 70% nationally. Also worth noting is that there is near countrywide access to recycling of PET and HDPE beverage containers. In most provinces, these containers are recovered under a deposit return program. The exceptions are Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, where they are collected at curbside. Non-‐container or specific-‐use plastics are not accepted in as many programs as container plastics. With that said, most of the materials in these categories show increases in access rate since the last time this report was prepared.
| 9
Figure 1
In general, most programs now accept all types of containers, and are not limited to bottles, jugs, or jars. Plastic containers (bottles, jugs, jars, or non-‐bottles) numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 show national access rates of 89% or higher. Access to recycling containers made from PVC (#3) and other (#7) types of plastic has increased from 82% and 86%, respectively, to 89% and 90-‐91%, respectively, since the last report. Of all plastic container resins, polystyrene (PS) continues to be the most difficult to find a market for, and shows the lowest access rate to recycling. That being said, the increase from 63% in 2014 to 71% today is significant.
98% 95% 99% 96%
89% 93% 95%
71%
91% 95% 95%
89% 93% 95%
71%
90%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
NaWonal Access Rates -‐ 2017 Container PlasWcs
| 10
Figure 2
Many programs in Canada only accept plastic containers. Some types of non-‐container special plastics, like plastic bags and foamed PS, show high rates of acceptance in specific RPAs (generally the more populated ones), while other plastic formats (e.g. multi-‐material laminate pouches) are not accepted in any of the country’s programs. The access rate for the “all film and bags” category is now at 66%, up from 55% in 2014, and a slight increase from 2015. Most of this increase can be attributed to the City of Toronto, which expanded its recycling program to all types of plastic bags and film;
66% 70%
41% 44%
71%
61%
23%
6% 0% 0% 1%
60%
82%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
NaWonal Access Rates -‐ 2017 Non-‐Container or Specific-‐Use PlasWcs
| 11
previously, only retail shopping bags were included. Retail shopping bags now have an access rate of 70%, up from 67% in 2014. PS foam food and protective packaging show access rates of 41% and 44%, respectively. Access to recycling foam products is concentrated in specific regions, with British Columbia (which has nearly universal depot access) and Ontario residents having the highest level of access, while PS foam recycling in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba is almost non-‐existent. Although the promotional materials for most programs do not specify if medium-‐ and large-‐size buckets and tubs are accepted for recycling, these materials are considered recyclable if the program accepts all containers of all material types. Such containers over 1 litre but under 4 litres are accepted in programs serving 71% of the Canadian population. Some programs indicate a size limit, which was interpreted to mean that buckets and tubs of 4 litres and above were not accepted. One example is the City of Calgary, which states that no containers “bigger than a basketball” are accepted. These larger containers show an access rate of 61%.
| 12
Return to Retail (R2R) Recycling of Plastic Shopping Bags The residential access rate of 70% for plastic shopping bags is further supported by a network of retailers (mostly major grocery chains) that accept this material for recycling at their stores. A 2017 study provided to CM Consulting by the CPIA identified 1,165 stores across Canada that accept plastic shopping bags for recycling. These stores were mapped using GIS (Geographic Information Systems);census data was then used to determine the population with access to recycling shopping bags at a participating retailer. Access in this case was defined as residing within 10km of a participating store. Based on this definition, 77% of Canadians have access to recycling plastic shopping bags, and R2R access is highest in British Columbia (91%), Alberta (82%), and Ontario (84%). Because stores that accept bags tend to be in the most densely populated areas of the country, a small number of stores can serve a large portion of the province. In each province, at least 60% of the population is within 10km of the nearest participating store. Table 1: Provincial and National Access to R2R Recycling of Plastic Shopping Bags
Province
Population Within 10km of R2R Location
Total Population
Percentage of Total Population with Access to Recycling Plastic Shopping
Bags via R2R Canada 27,016,822 35,151,728 77% British Columbia 4,224,455 4,648,055 91% Alberta 3,349,501 4,067,175 82% Saskatchewan 720,000 1,098,352 66% Manitoba 927,677 1,278,365 73% Ontario 11,309,109 13,448,494 84% Quebec 4,985,813 8,164,361 61% New Brunswick 470,041 747,101 63% Nova Scotia 631,561 923,598 68% Prince Edward Island 83,369 142,907 58% Newfoundland and Labrador 315,296 519,716 61%
To determine the percentage of Canadians that have access to recycling plastic shopping bags via at least one of the systems (a residential program and/or R2R program), CM Consulting overlaid the municipal access rate of 70% with the R2R access rate of 77% and determined that 92% of Canada’s population lives within 10km of a participating retailer, or resides in a RPA
| 13
(municipality, district, etc.) that accepts plastic shopping bags for recycling, or both. This means that of the 10 million people who do not have access to recycling plastic shopping bags in their municipal recycling system, a retailer covers 7 million of them.
| 14
| 15
As shown in Table 2, retail stores can be very effective at adding to opportunities for consumers to recycle plastic shopping bags. Of Canada’s 10.6 million residents who live in RPAs that do not collect shopping bags for recycling, over 7.5 million of them live within 10km of a store that does.
The retail network is particularly effective at increasing access in Manitoba and Newfoundland where residential access to recycling shopping bags is 0%. In these two provinces, retailers alone provide access to 73% (nearly 1 million people) and 61% the population, respectively. In Ontario, the retail network provides access to over a third of the population (nearly 5 million people) that otherwise would not be able to recycle plastic bags. Almost 700,000 people in Alberta live in areas where plastic bags are not accepted in municipal recycling programs, but are within 10km of a retailer. Table 2: Provincial and National access to R2R recycling of plastic shopping bags
Province Population 2016
Municipal Access
R2R Access
Municipal and/or R2R
Access
Population With Municipal and/or R2R Access
Total 35,151,728 70% 77% 92% 32,174,958 British Columbia 4,648,055 99% 91% 100% 4,630,629 Alberta 4,067,175 71% 82% 88% 3,563,438 Saskatchewan 1,098,352 36% 66% 68% 746,126 Manitoba 1,278,365 0% 73% 73% 927,677 Ontario 13,448,494 55% 84% 92% 12,367,183 Quebec 8,164,361 94% 61% 97% 7,937,924 New Brunswick 747,101 70% 63% 83% 620,180 Nova Scotia 923,598 100% 68% 100% 923,598 Prince Edward Island 142,907 100% 58% 100% 142,907 Newfoundland and Labrador 519,716 0% 61% 61% 315,296
When looking at this table, it is important to remember that access does not translate directly into participation. In other words, just because 92% of the population has an opportunity to recycle plastic bags, does not mean that they will. To utilize the R2R access route, a consumer must physically go to that store, which could be up to 10km away. On the other hand, participation in municipal programs usually just requires consumers to place their materials at the curb on a specific day, or sometimes bring them to a depot (where they may already be going to drop off garbage). Of the two types of programs, CM Consulting believes that municipal collection is more convenient, and is therefore more likely to enhance participation.
| 16
Canadian Programs by Categories of Materials Accepted In the 2011 U.S. Plastic Recycling Collection: National Reach Study conducted by Moore Recycling Associates (MRA), recycling programs were defined as accepting one of several broad categories of materials; for example “All Bottles and Non-‐Bottle Rigid Containers” or “All Bottles Only.” For comparison purposes, the CPIA has requested that CM Consulting use the same categories as MRA for the 2017 study. The categories used by MRA are:
§ All plastic § All rigid plastics § All bottles and non-‐bottle rigid containers and specific plastics § All bottles and non-‐bottle rigid containers § All bottles and specific plastics § All bottles only § PET and HDPE bottles and specific plastics § PET and HDPE bottles only § Other specific plastics § No plastic program
It is important to note that the categories used in the MRA study included caps. Unlike many U.S. recycling programs, many Canadian programs do not accept caps for recycling; therefore CM Consulting has tracked caps as a distinct category. In consultation with CPIA, CM Consulting decided to add a category that covered several programs that could not be properly categorized using the categories developed by MRA. That program category is “All PET, HDPE, and PP bottles and containers.” The results of the categorization are summarized in the following table.
| 17
68% All Plastic Containers
96% All PET and HDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
Table 3: Summary of Plastics
Summary of Plastics Percentage of Canadians with
Access to Recycling
All plastic 0% All rigid plastics 0% All bottles and non-‐bottle rigid containers and specific plastics
47%
All bottles and non-‐bottle rigid containers
21%
All bottles and specific plastics
0%
All bottles only 0% All PET, HDPE, and PP bottles and containers
24%
PET and HDPE bottles and specific plastics
3%
PET and HDPE bottles only
1%
Other specific plastics 0% No plastic program 4% There has been a trend towards accepting all household plastic containers in recycling programs. Many programs, especially in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario, now incorporate PVC, PS, and #7 (other) plastic into their programs. This was first noted in 2014 when the access rate for all plastic container categories increased to 61% from 53%. This 2017 update shows that this trend has slowed down but continues. Currently 68% of Canadians have curbside or depot access to recycling all plastic containers. The national access rate for recycling programs that do not accept all plastic containers but that accept PET and HDPE bottles has remained steady at 96%. In 2014, CM Consulting added regional maps to this study for the first time. In this year’s report, we offer regional maps dividing the country into six regions to show the specific areas where recycling programs offer all plastic container recycling (the 68% referred to in the graphic above).
| 18
British Columbia Recycling Program Areas (RPAs) in British Columbia are determined by municipal district. Many of the programs use Recycle BC’s (formerly MMBC) list of accepted materials, which includes all plastic containers. While most of these districts are signed on with Recycle BC, there are a few regions that have not signed on, but are taking the same list of materials. There are a few regional districts that accept some but not all plastic containers for recycling. The most populated of these are East Kootenay and Sunshine Coast, shown on the map below in pink.
| 19
Alberta RPAs in Alberta are a combination of municipalities, counties, and groupings of populations served by waste management associations. Many parts of the province are rural and therefore not studied; these are depicted by yellow on the map. The map shows that the more heavily populated urban areas and a few of the smaller ones collect all plastic containers in their programs. With Red Deer now accepting all plastic bottles, jugs, and jars, and all plastic non-‐bottle rigid containers, there is no RPA covering over 25,000 people that does not accept all plastic containers.
| 20
Saskatchewan/Manitoba Due to low population density and the lack of a stewardship program plan (such as the programs in Ontario and BC), Saskatchewan does not have many programs with extensive plastic recycling. Saskatoon, Regina, and every other city over 11,000 people recycle all plastic containers, however, many of these do not show up very well on the map because they are small geographically. In Manitoba, the map looks very different this year because of the methodology change referred to on page 6. Similar to Saskatchewan, some of the programs do accept all plastics but do not show up very well on the map. These programs that do accept all plastic containers represent 59% of the province.
| 21
Ontario Geographically, large segments of Ontario are left out of this study because of their small population density. It is worth noting, however, that only 3% of the population lives in these areas. Many of the programs that serve the larger populations accept the full range of plastic containers. Eighty-‐eight percent of the population lives in one of these regions, in green. Almost all of the pink regions have plastic recycling programs that accept most plastic containers but do not accept one or two resins such as PVC or #7 (other).
| 22
Quebec Regions, districts, cities, or other groupings that accept all plastic containers appear in green on this map. Many programs in Quebec accept all plastic containers except those made from PS (#6) plastic; these programs are not considered to take all plastic containers and are shown in pink. Programs that accept all rigid plastic containers serve 17% of the population.
| 23
Atlantic Provinces Due to differences in geography and population density, the programs in Canada’s Atlantic provinces have evolved in different directions. All of the RPAs that make up New Brunswick accept at least all PET and HDPE bottles, jugs, and jars. Only a couple of service commissions accept PS containers; these show up in green on the map and represent 37% of the population. The province of Nova Scotia has universal access to recycling of all plastic containers. All of Prince Edward Island (PEI) participates in the Waste Watch program, which is managed by Island Waste Management Corporation (IWMC). Waste Watch accepts all PET and HDPE bottles as well as many other plastics, but not PS (#6). Because of this, PEI is pink on the map. Two regions in Newfoundland and Labrador have programs that offer access to recycling of all plastic containers. These regions are home to 68% of the population.
| 24
| 25
Provincial Access Rates The following tables show the level of access to recycling various materials, by province. For example, Table 4 shows that of the 10 provinces surveyed, seven have universal access to recycling PET and HDPE beverage containers due to container deposit laws and depot/retailer return options. The exceptions were Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, where these are recycled via curbside programs, which are not available to 100% of the province. Non-‐deposit plastic bottles, jugs, and jars still show mostly high access rates, particularly those made of PET, HDPE, LDPE, and PP. We can see in this table that some of the less commonly recycled materials, such as PVC, are less likely to be accepted in programs in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland. Similarly, access to recycling of #6 PS is lowest in Prince Edward Island (0% access) and Quebec (at only 17%). Table 4 -‐ Provincial Access Rates -‐ Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
Province Population PET Beverage
PET Bottles, Jugs, and
Jars
HDPE Beverage
HDPE Bottles, Jugs, and
Jars
PVC Bottles, Jugs,
and Jars
LDPE Bottles, Jugs, and
Jars
PP Bottles, Jugs, and
Jars
PS Bottles, Jugs, and
Jars
Other Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
British Columbia 4,648,055 100% 99% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 98% Alberta 4,067,175 100% 91% 100% 92% 90% 90% 90% 89% 90% Saskatchewan 1,098,352 100% 60% 100% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% Manitoba 1,278,365 94% 94% 94% 94% 62% 94% 94% 59% 93% Ontario 13,448,494 98% 98% 98% 98% 92% 95% 96% 93% 88% Quebec 8,164,361 99% 99% 99% 99% 91% 96% 99% 17% 99% New Brunswick 747,101 100% 100% 100% 100% 62% 80% 96% 37% 76% Nova Scotia 923,598 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Prince Edward Island 142,907 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% Newfoundland 519,716 100% 69% 100% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% CANADA 35,151,728 98% 95% 99% 96% 89% 93% 95% 71% 91%
| 26
Non-‐bottle rigid plastic containers follow the same pattern as bottles, jugs, and jars. PET, HDPE, LDPE, and PP are accepted nearly universally in most provinces, with the exception of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. PVC non-‐bottle rigids are widely accepted in all provinces except for Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland, where access rates are in the 60% range. Access to recycling PS non-‐bottle rigid is low in Quebec, New Brunswick, and is non-‐existent in Prince Edward Island.
Table 5 -‐ Provincial Access Rates -‐ Non-‐Bottle Rigid Containers
Province Population PET non-‐Bottle Rigid
HDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
PVC non-‐Bottle Rigid
LDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
PP non-‐ Bottle Rigid
PS non-‐ Bottle Rigid
Other non-‐Bottle Rigid
British Columbia 4,648,055 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 96% Alberta 4,067,175 89% 91% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Saskatchewan 1,098,352 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% Manitoba 1,278,365 94% 94% 62% 94% 94% 59% 93% Ontario 13,448,494 96% 956% 92% 95% 96% 93% 88% Quebec 8,164,361 99% 99% 91% 96% 99% 17% 99% New Brunswick 747,101 100% 100% 62% 80% 96% 37% 76% Nova Scotia 923,598 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Prince Edward Island 142,907 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% Newfoundland and Labrador 519,716 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% CANADA 35,151,728 95% 95% 89% 93% 95% 71% 90%
| 27
Table 6 -‐ Provincial Access Rates -‐ Non-‐Container or Specific-‐Use Plastics (Part One)
Province Population HDPE,
LDPE Film and Bags
Retail Shopping Bags
PS Foam Food
Packaging
PS Foam Protective Packaging
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets and Tubs >1L, <4L
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets and
Tubs >4L
British Columbia 4,648,055 95% 99% 93% 91% 93% 89% Alberta 4,067,175 68% 71% 5% 7% 87% 62% Saskatchewan 1,098,352 33% 36% 0% 0% 60% 60% Manitoba 1,278,365 0% 0% 0% 0% 58% 58% Ontario 13,448,494 53% 55% 47% 62% 93% 77% Quebec 8,164,361 94% 94% 36% 27% 17% 17% New Brunswick 747,101 19% 70% 32% 32% 45% 45% Nova Scotia 923,598 83% 100% 24% 24% 100% 100% Prince Edward Island 142,907 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Newfoundland and Labrador 519,716 0% 0% 0% 0% 69% 69% CANADA 35,151,728 66% 70% 41% 44% 71% 61%
The materials in the non-‐container or specific-‐use plastics category show a wide range of access rates. As shown in Tables 6 and 7, British Columbia has the highest (or close to the highest) access to recycling rate for each of the materials. Film and bags show high rates of access in British Columbia, Quebec, and Nova Scotia; access for a majority of the people in Alberta (very close to the national average); and just over half of Ontario’s population. All other provinces have access rates below 50%. In the smaller sub-‐category ‘retail shopping bags’, the numbers are just a few points higher in most provinces except New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, where it is standard for a program to accept retail shopping bags, but not other plastic films.
| 28
In the PS foam categories, we see that foams are widely accepted in British Columbia (usually in depots, not curbside) but not so much in the rest of the country. Ontario shows a 47% access rate for foam food packaging, but only 62% for foam protective packaging. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia show access rates in the 20 and 30 percent range for foam, while foam recycling is non-‐existent in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland. Table 7 -‐ Provincial Access Rates -‐ Non-‐Container or Specific-‐use Plastics (Part Two)
Province Population Lids Single Serve Coffee Disc
Straws and Stir sticks
Multi Material Plastic Laminate Bag/Pouch Bulky Plastic Caps Horticultural
Rigid Plastic
British Columbia 4,648,055 87% 37% 0% 0% 0% 86% 98% Alberta 4,067,175 4% 0% 3% 0% 0% 60% 50% Saskatchewan 1,098,352 31% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 60% Manitoba 1,278,365 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 56% 90% Ontario 13,448,494 21% 0% 0% 0% 1% 43% 79% Quebec 8,164,361 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 92% 99% New Brunswick 747,101 32% 34% 0% 0% 32% 44% 67% Nova Scotia 923,598 52% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 98% Prince Edward Island 142,907 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% Newfoundland and Labrador 519,716 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 69% CANADA 35,151,728 23% 6% 0% 0% 1% 60% 83%
| 29
For many of the other non-‐container or specific-‐use plastics we see very low access rates. Single serve coffee discs are only recyclable in British Columbia and New Brunswick. Straws and stir sticks can be recycled in a couple of RPAs in Alberta, but nowhere else. Not a single RPA studied accepts multi-‐material plastic laminate pouches for recycling, and bulky plastic is only accepted at a few depots in Ontario and in three pick-‐up programs (special pick-‐ups, not with standard curbside materials) in New Brunswick.
Caps are accepted universally in Prince Edward Island and nearly universally in British Columbia and Quebec. Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and New Brunswick also have some programs that accept caps. Recycling of horticultural rigid plastic is accessible to at least half the population in each province, and in some provinces is nearly universal.
| 30
Material Summaries
Container Plastics
PET Beverage Bottles PET beverage bottles show a nearly universal access rate across Canada. Only in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec are these containers not collected via deposit return programs. In these provinces, most of the population has access to recycling this material in their residential recycling programs. Figure 3
100% 100% 100% 94% 98% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 PET Beverage Bo@les
| 31
PET Bottles, Jugs, and Jars Bottles, jugs, and jars made from PET show a 95% access rate nationally. Only in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland are the access rates below 90%. It is primarily in the rural, low population density areas of these provinces where this material is not permitted in the curbside/depot recycling system. Figure 4
99% 91%
60%
94% 98% 99% 100% 100% 100%
69%
95%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 PET Bo@les, Jugs, and Jars
| 32
HDPE Beverage Bottles HDPE beverage bottles show the same access rates as PET beverage bottles. This is because both materials are included under deposit in the same provinces. Figure 5
100% 100% 100% 94% 98% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 HDPE Beverage Bo@les
| 33
HDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars HDPE bottles, jugs, and jars show similar access rates to PET bottles, jugs, and jars. This material is highly recyclable throughout most of Canada, but remains difficult to collect in the less populated RPAs of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. Figure 6
The map below shows regions of Canada (in green) where bottles, jugs, and jars made from PET and HDPE are collected in municipal recycling programs. In all urban areas of the country, and in all regions of Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, programs provide access to recycling for bottles, jugs, and jars made from both of these resins. Close inspection shows that the parts of Saskatchewan that accept both of these materials are geographically small, and thus difficult to see; that being said, they do include the cities of Regina and Saskatoon, which together account for 57% of the province’s population. Jurisdictions that accept bottles, jugs, and jars made from both resins cover roughly 95% of the country’s population.
99% 92%
60%
94% 98% 99% 100% 100% 100%
69%
96%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 HDPE Bo@les, Jugs, and Jars
| 34
| 35
PVC Bottles, Jugs, and Jars Plastic bottles, jugs, and jars made from PVC show a national access rate of 89%. Rates are highest in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, both of which have 100% access. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec also have high access at over 90%. The lowest access rate for this material is in Saskatchewan (60%). Figure 7
99% 90%
60% 62%
92% 91%
62%
100% 100%
69%
89%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 PVC Bo;les, Jugs, and Jars
| 36
LDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
LDPE plastic containers show slightly lower access rates than the more commonly recycled PET or HDPE containers, but the national rate is still high at 93%. Most of the programs that serve the more populated RPAs accept this material.
Figure 8
99% 90%
60%
94% 95% 96% 80%
100% 100%
69%
93%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 LDPE Bo;les, Jugs, and Jars
| 37
PP Bottles, Jugs, and Jars PP bottles, jugs, and jars show the same access trends as containers made from most other resin types. Access rates of 90% or higher can be seen in all provinces except Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. Figure 9
99% 90%
60%
94% 96% 99% 96% 100% 100%
69%
95%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 PP Bo;les, Jugs, and Jars
| 38
Other (#7) Bottles, Jugs, and Jars Of all container plastic types, #7 (other) is one of the most difficult to recycle. Still, it has a national access rate of 91%. The provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec, and Nova Scotia all show access rates of 90% or higher for this material. The only province that has zero access to recycling #7 bottles, jugs, and jars is PEI. Figure 10
98% 90%
60%
93% 88% 99%
76%
100%
0%
69%
91%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 Other (#7) Bo;les, Jugs, and Jars
| 39
PET Non-‐Bottle Rigid Containers Regardless of the format it is in (e.g. bottle or clamshell), PET is a desirable resin for plastics reclaimers and therefore access to recycling non-‐bottle rigid containers is high. The two exceptions where access is relatively low are Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. Figure 11
The map on the next page shows regions in Ontario that accept PET non-‐bottle rigids in the recycling program (in green). The pink regions represent areas where these are not accepted. The areas in pink surrounded by a red border (e.g. Thunder Bay, City of Sault Ste. Marie) are those that have a population of 50,000 or greater and do not accept these containers.
99% 89%
60%
94% 96% 99% 100% 100% 100%
69%
95%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 PET Non-‐Bo;le Rigid Containers
| 40
| 41
HDPE Non-‐Bottle Rigid Containers Like PET, HDPE is a desirable resin for plastics reclaimers and therefore access to recycling of non-‐bottle rigid containers is high. Again, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland are the two exceptions, showing lower access rates (below 70%) than other provinces. Figure 12
99% 91%
60%
94% 96% 99% 100% 100% 100%
69%
95%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 HDPE Non-‐Bo;le Rigid Containers
| 42
PVC Non-‐Bottle Rigid Containers PVC non-‐bottle rigid containers have a national access rate of 89%. While access is lower in some of the smaller provinces, it is the unserved populations in the more populated provinces of Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec that bring the national rate down. Figure 13
99% 90%
60% 62%
92% 91%
62%
100% 100%
69%
89%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 PVC Non-‐Bo;le Rigid Containers
| 43
LDPE Non-‐Bottle Rigid Containers LDPE non-‐bottle rigid containers show nearly the same access rates as LDPE bottles, jugs, and jars. Nationally, the rate is 93%, with the more populated and densely populated provinces showing the highest rates. The only provinces showing rates below 90% are Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland. Figure 14
99% 90%
60%
94% 95% 96%
80%
100% 100%
69%
93%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 LDPE Non-‐Bo;le Rigid Containers
| 44
PP Non-‐Bottle Rigid Containers Like other non-‐bottle rigid containers, those made from PP are highly recyclable in most provinces, with the exception of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. These provinces still have access, but the rates are between 60% and 69%. Figure 15
99% 90%
60%
94% 96% 99% 96% 100% 100%
69%
95%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 PP Non-‐Bo;le Rigid Containers
| 45
PS Non-‐Bottle Rigid Containers Polystyrene is one of the most difficult to recycle plastic resins. In Quebec, the second most populated province, there is an access rate of only 17%. This brings the national rate down significantly. The only province to offer universal access to recycling of this material is Nova Scotia. Figure 16
98% 90%
60% 59%
93%
17%
37%
100%
0%
69% 71%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 PS Non-‐Bo;le Rigid Containers
| 46
Other (#7) Non-‐Bottle Rigid Containers Non-‐bottle rigids made from #7 plastic can be recycled near universally in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec. Access is highest in Nova Scotia at 100%, and national access is 90%. Despite this high level of access, rates for other non-‐bottle rigids are still lower than most other resins in other provinces. The majority (by number, not percentage) of those without access to recycling #7 plastics live in Alberta and Ontario. Figure 17
96% 90%
60%
93% 88% 99%
76%
100%
0%
69%
90%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 Other (#7) Non-‐Bo;le Rigid Containers
| 47
Non-‐container or Specific-‐use Plastics
HDPE, LDPE Film and Bags The recycling access rate for film and bags saw a boost in 2014 with the introduction of the Recycle BC program in British Columbia. Since then, other provinces, most notably Ontario and Quebec, have also seen their programs expand to accept all film and bags. As a result, the national rate has grown from 55% in 2014 to 66% today. Figure 18
95%
68%
33%
0%
53%
94%
19%
83%
0% 0%
66%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 HDPE and LDPE Film and Bags
| 48
Retail Shopping Bags In most provinces, access to recycling retail shopping bags is slightly higher than for film and bags. One notable example is Prince Edward Island, where 100% of the population can recycle retail bags, but not other plastic films. Nationwide, 70% of Canadians can recycle shopping bags, compared to 66% for all film and bags. All provinces have access rates at or above the national average with the exception of Saskatchewan (36%) and Ontario (55%). Figure 19
99%
71%
36%
0%
55%
94%
70%
100% 100%
0%
70%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 Retail Shopping Bags
| 49
HDPE, LDPE Film and Bags and Plastic Shopping Bags by Region As in previous years, this report includes regional maps that show which regions have access to recycling retail shopping bags and all film and bags, and whether they are collected curbside, at depot, or not at all. For the first time in 2017, this report also includes maps that show the combined municipal and R2R access for each region. Each region (Except BC) has three or more maps. The first map shows municipal access only; the second shows both municipal and R2R coverage, highlighting cities or towns that do not have access (either through their municipal program or retail store); and the last map(s) shows a detailed close up of the cities or towns of the regions highlighting RPAs with over 4,000 people that do not have retail or municipal access to recycling plastic shopping bags. The purpose of such detailed maps is twofold. One is to point out where the retail network is successfully providing access to people who do not get it from the municipality. The second is to show the CPIA where there are gaps in coverage and where they should target their efforts for increasing retailer participation in the R2R shopping bag collection program.
| 50
British Columbia British Columbia has very high access rates for retail shopping bags (99%) and all film and bags (95%). That access is primarily through depots. Over 90% of those with access have depot drop-‐off via the Recycle BC program as opposed to curbside pick-‐up. The inset map shows the small parts of the Vancouver area that accept film and bags at curbside (Delta and Maple Ridge), and also the one RPA in the province (Hope) that does not have any depot or curbside collection of plastic shopping bags.
| 51
The retail network in British Columbia can be seen here as circles that cover each store and its 10km radius. Because there are very few parts of the province that are unserved by municipal programs, only the populations of Hope (inset) and Fort Nelson are added to the provincial access rate by the inclusion of the retail network.
| 52
Alberta Most Albertans (68%) have access to recycling all film products while 71% have access to municipal recycling for at least retail shopping bags. Most of those covered live in Edmonton and Calgary and can recycle film in their curbside recycling. The RPAs that take film at depots represent 5% of the population. The two largest RPAs that do not accept plastic shopping bags are Red Deer and Lethbridge.
The following two maps show the R2R stores layered over the RPAs of Alberta; as shown in the maps, the retail network covers 82% of the population and nearly 680,000 people that have no municipal access to recycling plastic shopping bags, including most of those in Lethbridge. The maps also reveal populations that are not served by either municipal programs or retail stores. On the larger scale map we can see that St. Paul and Redcliff, both of which have populations over 5,000, are two areas that are unserved by either program.
| 53
The next map is a close-‐up of the inset area in the red box, where Alberta’s most densely populated centres are. In the population centre map, we can see that the retail network covers most of the cities and towns that are in RPAs that do not collect plastic shopping bags, like Red Deer or Airdrie. The analysis also shows that there are seven more (beyond St. Paul and Redcliff) populations over 5,000 people that are in RPAs that do not collect shopping bags and are not within 10km of a retail store that collects them either. The largest is Morinville with nearly 10,000 people. Others are Devon, Blackfalds (a portion of which is actually between 9 and 10 km from the nearest participating retail store), Ponoka, Innisfail, Didsbury, and Langdon.
| 54
| 55
Saskatchewan and Manitoba Thirty-‐six percent of Saskatchewan residents have access to municipal recycling programs for plastic shopping bags. Those who have access reside in the urban areas of Saskatoon, Prince Albert, Swift Current, and several small towns. Because these areas are small geographically, they are difficult to view on the map. There is no film recycling in Manitoba under the Multi-‐Material Stewardship Manitoba (MMSM) program.
| 56
The retail stores that participate in the R2R program provide access to recycling plastic shopping bags to nearly twice as many people as the municipal recycling programs do. The largest population centre in Sakatchewan with no municipal or R2R service is White City, near the US border, with 4,234 people. In Manitoba, where there is no municipal plastic shopping bag recycling, the retail network provides access to 73% of the population, including all the major population centres, Winnipeg and Brandon. Thompson is the largest population centre that does not have a participating retailer.
The close-‐up map shows a few populations of just over 4,000 people that are not within 10km of a participating retailer. The largest of these is Morden,which has a population of roughly 8,000. The others are Stonewall, Oakbank, Niverville, and Altona.
| 57
| 58
Ontario In Ontario, just over half (53%) the population has access to recycling all film plastics, while 55% can recycle at least retail shopping bags. Most of these people reside in the southern part of the province but a few urban centres in the north (e.g. Sudbury) are collecting all film at curbside as well.
| 59
The R2R network covers nearly every major population centre in Ontario. Over 11 million people, representing 84% of the province, live within 10km of a participating retailer. In northern Ontario, the only populations over 5,000 that are not serviced by either the municipality or by a retail store are Elliot Lake and Kirkland Lake.
The following maps are close-‐ups of the three most populated regions in Ontario (shown in the red boxes on the larger-‐scale map above).
| 60
In the detailed map of South Central Ontario, we can see that the retail network and the municipal programs combine to provide access to most of the population. That being said, there are several populations that are served by neither program; the largest of these are Fergus, with over 20,000 residents, and Alliston-‐New Techumseh, with nearly 19,000 people. Other notable unserved populations are Angus-‐Borden CFB, Acton, Port Perry, and Shelbourne.
In South Western Ontario, the analysis shows that there are only a few large populations that are unserved by either municipal or retail access. The largest of these are Paris, with over 12,000 people, and Aylmer and Essex (both over 7,000).
| 61
In the National Capital Region, most of the larger population centers are covered by municipal programs, R2R stores, or both. Petawawa, at just under 14,000 people, is the largest population centre that is not served by either. Other unserved populations worth noting are Embrun, Manotick Station, Almonte, Richmond, and Russel.
| 62
Quebec At 94%, the access rates for plastic shopping bags and all film and bags in Quebec are among the highest in the country. Nearly all of those with access live in regions that offer curbside collection, with one region offering only depot recycling of plastic film and shopping bags.
This means that there are few populations that rely on the retail network for access. This could help explain why Quebec’s retail network serves a smaller percentage of the population than nearly any other provinces, at 61%. It is interesting to note, though, that of that 61%, nearly 250,000 people do not receive municipal access to recycling plastic shopping bags.
| 63
We can see in the map below that the retail stores are concentrated in the more densely populated areas, and mostly in regions that provide municipal access.
However, the inset shows that there are some populated areas with no access to either type of collection program. For example, there are two populations in the Saguenay area that house many people but have no access to recycling plastic shopping bags. One of these is Chicoutami-‐Jonquiere, where over 36,000 people live more than 10km away from the nearest store in Saguenay. A further 27,341 are more than 5km from that store. The second Saguenay-‐area population that is unserved is Port Alfred-‐Bagotville, which has a population of just under 14,000. South of Quebec City is Sainte-‐Marie, a town of over 11,000 people with no municipal or R2R access to recycling plastic shopping bags.
| 64
| 65
Atlantic Provinces In New Brunswick, 47% of the province’s population has access to programs that collect all bags and films at curbside. Another two RPAs making up 22% of the population only take retail shopping bags, which means that 69% of the province has access to recycling at least shopping bags through their municipal program. In Nova Scotia, retail shopping bags are universally accepted in municipal programs, but only two RPAs – including the largest, Halifax Regional Municipality – accept all film plastics, which accounts for 52% of the population. The PEI Waste Watch program accepts shopping bags but no other film. There is no film recycling at all in Newfoundland and Labrador.
| 66
The R2R network provides access to recycling plastic shopping bags to over 300,000 people in Newfoundland and nearly 100,000 in New Brunswick that do not have any municipal option for doing so.
There are three populations with over 4,000 people in the Atlantic provinces that have no municipal or retail access to recycling plastic shopping bags. Deer Lake, Newfoundland is shown on the large-‐scale map above, and the map below shows Edmunstun and Grand Falls/Grand Sault in New Brunswick.
| 67
| 68
Key Findings: Access to Recycling of Plastic Shopping Bags in Municipal Recycling Systems and Return-‐to-‐Retail Programs The first key finding is that the R2R network provides access to recycling of plastic shopping bags to millions of people, many (over 7 million) of which do not have the option to recycle this material in their municipal system. This access is therefore very important. With that being said, there are still many people that do not have the option of recycling plastic shopping bags at all. One of the key purposes of this study is to identify ways to improve access to recycling plastic shopping bags. The detailed analysis has identified many cities and towns where the addition of a R2R collection program would provide access to thousands of more people who currently have no such access. For guidance purposes, Table 8 presents a comprehensive list of unserved (i.e. no access to either municipal or R2R recycling) cities and towns across the country, by population (Note: The table only shows populations over 4,000). In each of these cities/towns, there are probably retail stores that could offer a R2R program for plastic shopping bags to increase access to recycling; these are the stores that CPIA should be targeting.
| 69
Table 8 -‐ Unserved Populations -‐ Canada City/Town Province Population Fergus Ontario 20,767 Alliston Ontario 18,809 Port-‐Alfred-‐Bagotville Quebec 13,865 Thompson Manitoba 12,878 Angus -‐ Borden CFB-‐BFC Ontario 12,640 Edmundston New Brunswick 12,086 Sainte-‐Marie Quebec 11,083 Elliot Lake Ontario 10,498 Morinville Alberta 9,848 Port Perry Ontario 9,453 Shelburne Ontario 8,126 Morden Manitoba 7,907 Port Elgin Ontario 7,862 Aylmer Ontario 7,621 Essex Ontario 7,446 Innisfail Alberta 6,927 Embrun Ontario 6,918 Ponoka Alberta 6,899 Devon Alberta 6,578 Happy Valley-‐Goose Bay Newfoundland and Labrador 6,408 Kirkland Lake Ontario 6,305 Manotick Station Ontario 5,738 St. Paul Alberta 5,728 Corunna Ontario 5,686 Petrolia Ontario 5,375 Langdon Alberta 5,060 Almonte Ontario 5,039 Tilbury Ontario 4,768 Stonewall Manitoba 4,644 Mount Forest Ontario 4,643 Rockwood Ontario 4,629 Oakbank Manitoba 4,604 Deer Lake Newfoundland and Labrador 4,602 Walkerton Ontario 4,517 Russell Ontario 4,464 Blenheim Ontario 4,344 Grand Falls / Grand-‐Sault New Brunswick 4,221 Altona Manitoba 4,167 Niverville Manitoba 4,083
| 70
The following table shows populations that are either 5 to 10 km away from a participating retailer (underserved) or on the edge of a retail store radius therefore part of the population is more than 10 km and some are within 10 km (partially unserved). In all of these cities/towns, adding more retail partners to the R2R program would increase and/or provide better access to recycling plastic shopping bags. Table 9 -‐ Underserved or Partially Unserved Populations -‐ Canada
City/Town Province Population Petawawa Ontario 13,701 Paris Ontario 12,310 Acton Ontario 9,462 Blackfalds Alberta 8,749 King Ontario 6,970 Redcliff Alberta 5,474 Didsbury Alberta 5,222 Tottenham Ontario 5,143 Nobleton Ontario 4,614 White City Saskatchewan 4,234 Richmond Ontario 4,055 Stayner Ontario 4,029
| 71
PS Foam Food Packaging British Columbia is the nation’s runaway leader in access to recycling foamed PS; at 93%, it is significantly above the national average. The Recycle BC program accepts this material at depots across the province. There is zero access to recycling this material in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, PEI, and Newfoundland. Figure 20
The national and provincial maps on the following pages show, in green, the RPAs that have curbside or depot access to recycling PS foam food packaging. RPAs in pink and bordered in red are highly populated RPAs that do not take foam food packaging for recycling. These areas have populations over 500,000 and would have a significant impact on the national and provincial access rates if they were to accept these materials. In the map below, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Region of Durham, Region of Waterloo, Region of Halton and Ottawa are identified as large districts that do not accept PS foam food packaging for recycling. It is important to note that while Region of Durham and Region of Waterloo do not accept foam food packaging, they do accept foam protective packaging.
93%
5% 0% 0%
47% 36% 32%
24%
0% 0%
41%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 PS Foam Food Packaging
| 72
| 73
If these six RPAs were to add PS foam food packaging to their recyclable materials, the access rate would rise from 41% to nearly 60% Table 10 Populated RPAs in Canada that do not accept PS Foam Food Packaging
*Regions of Durham and Waterloo accept PS foam protective packaging.
The next section includes maps showing regional access to recycling PS foam food packaging.
| 74
PS Foam Food Packaging by Region British Columbia The Recycle BC program offers depot collection of PS foam packaging. With Abbotsford now part of the program, there is just one district (Thompson-‐Nicola, population ~128,000) with a population over 100,000 that does not offer any collection of PS foam food packaging.
Table 11 Populated RPAs in BC that do not accept PS Foam Food Packaging
| 75
Alberta There is very little PS foam recycling in Alberta. Only 5% of the population has access to facilities that accept PS foam food packaging for recycling; the majority of those are in Strathcona County and Grand Prairie (depot only). If Calgary, Edmonton, and Red Deer—which have a combined population of around 2 million—were to accept these materials, the provincial rates would increase to roughly 60%. This would also increase the national access rate significantly.
Table 12 Populated RPAs in AB that do not accept PS Foam Food Packaging
| 76
Saskatchewan and Manitoba Municipal PS foam recycling service does not exist in Saskatchewan or Manitoba.
Table 13 Populated RPAs in SK/MB that do not accept PS Foam Food Packaging
| 77
Ontario Ontario currently has a 47% access rate for PS foam food packaging (down from 55% last year). The rate for PS foam protective packaging is significantly higher at 62%. The most populated RPAs that do not accept PS foam food packaging are the Region of Waterloo, Region of Durham, Region of Halton, York Region, and the City of Ottawa. Of these, York, Waterloo and Durham accept PS foam protective packaging at depots.
Table 14 Populated RPAs in Ontario that do not accept PS Foam Food Packaging
| 78
Quebec Access to PS foam recycling in Quebec remains low, and is only available in the biggest cities. The City of Quebec takes PS foam food packaging (but not protective PS foam), and a depot in Montreal accepts both types of PS foam packaging. The provincial access rates for PS foam food packaging and PS foam protective packaging are 36% and 27%, respectively. If programs in the populated areas of Laval, Longueil, Gatineau, and the Régie de gestion des matières résiduelles GMR de la Mauricie were to expand programs to accept PS foam food packaging, the provincial rate for this material would increase to over 50%.
Table 15 Populated RPAs in QC that do not accept PS Foam Food Packaging
| 79
Atlantic Provinces All four Atlantic provinces show access rates below the national average for PS foam food packaging. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have access rates of 32% and 24%, respectively, for both types of PS packaging. There is no PS foam recycling of either type in PEI or Newfoundland.
Table 16 Populated RPAs in the Altantic provinces that do not accept PS Foam Food Packaging
| 80
PS Foam Protective Packaging As is the case with PS foam food packaging, access to recycling of PS foam protective packaging is highest in British Columbia. Ontario has several RPAs that accept foam protective packaging but not foam food packaging. Because of this, the national access rate for protective packaging is three points higher than for food packaging at 44%. Figure 21
91%
7% 0% 0%
62%
27% 32% 24%
0% 0%
44%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 PS Foam ProtecMve Packaging
| 81
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs, and Lids >1L, <4L Estimating the access rate for this category was challenging; these materials were only considered accepted for recycling if the RPA accepted tubs and lids of each of the four resin types. Using this approach, the rate is only 17% in Quebec, where PS recycling is rare. Access was highest in Nova Scotia, followed by British Columbia and Ontario, both of which show access over 90%. Figure 22
93% 87%
60% 58%
93%
17%
45%
100%
0%
69% 71%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs, and Lids >1L, <4L
| 82
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs, and Lids >4L Many jurisdictions, particularly in Alberta and Ontario, specify size limits for buckets, tubs, and lids collected by their curbside programs. Because of this, access rates for this category are lower than those for the small-‐format buckets, tubs, and lids. Access is highest in Nova Scotia at 100%, followed by British Columbia at 89%. PEI is the only province with zero access. Figure 23
89%
62% 60% 58%
77%
17%
45%
100%
0%
69% 61%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs, and Lids
>4L
| 83
Plastic Bottle Caps Plastic bottle caps show a wide range of access rates from province to province. Cap recycling is not available in Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, or Newfoundland, but it is very common in British Columbia (86%), Prince Edward Island (100%), and Quebec (92%). Caps are also accepted for recycling in parts of Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and New Brunswick. The national rate is 60%. Figure 24
86%
60%
0%
56% 43%
92%
44%
0%
100%
0%
60%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 BoUle Caps
| 84
PS Hot Beverage Cup Lids The lids from take-‐out coffee cups are difficult to recycle, partly because they are made from PS, but also because they are difficult to sort off the line due to small size and low weight. Only 23% of Canadians have access to a recycling program that accepts these, most of which live in British Columbia. Figure 25
87%
4%
31%
1%
21%
1%
32%
52%
0% 0%
23%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 Coffee Cup Lids
| 85
Single Serve Coffee Discs This is the third year that single serve coffee discs are included in this study. The national access rate in 2014 was 1%, with all those having access living in British Columbia (primarily Vancouver) and New Brunswick. Since then, the level of access has increased in both provinces, bringing the national rate up to 6%. This is a significant increase, but it is important to state that access has still not spread to the rest of Canada. Figure 26
37%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
34%
0% 0% 0% 6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 Single Serve Coffee Disc
| 86
Straws and Stir Sticks With the exception of two programs in Alberta, access to recycling straws and stir sticks in Canada is non-‐existent. Figure 27
0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 Straws and SMr SMcks
| 87
Plastic Laminate Bag (Multi Material) There is currently no program in Canada that accepts multi-‐material plastic laminate bags for recycling. Figure 28
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 MulM Material PlasMc Laminate Bag/Pouch
| 88
Bulky Plastic This material was considered accepted for recycling if the RPA accepted plastic toys or lawn furniture. Very few programs do, and the national rate is only 1%. The majority of those with access to recycling this material live in New Brunswick, in the RPA served by the Westmorland-‐Albert facility. Figure 29
0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
32%
0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 Bulky PlasMc (Toys, Furniture)
| 89
Horticultural Rigid Plastic The access rate for horticultural rigid plastic ranges from a low of 50% in Alberta to a high of 100% in Prince Edward Island. Quebec and British Columbia also have high access at 99% and 98%, respectively. In the country’s most populated province, Ontario, the survey shows a 79% access rate. Figure 30
98%
50% 60% 65%
79%
99%
67%
98% 100%
69% 82%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial Access Rates -‐ 2017 HorMcultural Rigid PlasMc
| 90
Provincial Summaries In the provincial summaries that follow, only municipal access to recycling plastic shopping bags is included. In other words, R2R access is not reflected in the provincial access rate numbers for plastic shopping bags.
British Columbia With the introduction of the Recycle BC (formerly MMBC) program in May 2014, British Columbia became the national leader in access to recycling for many materials, most notably coffee cups and lids, retail shopping bags, and PS foam. Access to recycling most plastic container types is nearly universal in British Columbia. Figure 31
100% 99% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 98% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 96%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
BriMsh Columbia Acccess Rates -‐ 2017 Container PlasMcs
| 91
For non-‐container and specific-‐use plastics, such as retail shopping bags, PS foam (both types), and large format tubs and lids, British Columbia shows access rates very close to or above the highest rates in the country. British Columbia’s access to recycling all film and plastic bags, small format tubs and lids, caps (from plastic bottles), and horticultural plastic is also well above the national average. The low rates for single-‐serve coffee discs, straws, plastic laminates, and bulky plastics mirror those in the rest of the country; there is little to no access to recycling these materials.
Figure 32
93% 97% 93% 91% 93% 89% 87%
37%
0% 0% 0%
86%
0%
98% 94%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
BriMsh Columbia Access Rates -‐ 2017 Non-‐Container or Specific-‐Use PlasMcs
| 92
Alberta In Alberta, beverage containers are accepted for recycling at depots as part of the province’s deposit return program. Most communities with recycling programs in Alberta are consistent with each other in accepting all plastic food containers.
Figure 33
All non-‐deposit bottles, jugs, jars, and non-‐bottle rigid containers made from any resin, show access rates between 88% and 92%.
100% 91%
100% 92% 90% 90% 90% 89% 90% 89% 89% 88% 88% 89% 88% 88%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Alberta Access Rates -‐ 2017 Container PlasMcs
| 93
Figure 34
With rates of 67% (all film and bags) and 69% (retail shopping bags), Alberta’s level of access to film plastic recycling is equal to the national averages of 66% and 70%. PS foam recycling is practically non-‐existent in Alberta, and is available only in a few RPAs, none of which have a population over 100,000. Because of the province’s move towards accepting all plastic food containers, the 1-‐4 litre plastic buckets and tubs have a high access rate of 87%. However, only 50% of the province’s population has access to recycling horticultural plastic, which is well below the national average of 82%. Caps are accepted at a rate of 60%, very close to the national average. Access rates for the less commonly recycled plastics are generally lower than or equal to other provinces. Because many programs have moved to a simple “all food containers” message, these other materials are not generally accepted.
67% 69%
5% 7%
87%
62%
4% 0% 3% 0% 0%
60%
0%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Alberta Access Rates -‐ 2017 Non-‐Container or Specific-‐Use PlasMcs
| 94
Saskatchewan As a result of its low population density and the fact that most of its population resides in non-‐urban centres, Saskatchewan faces significant challenges when it comes to recycling access. Aside from beverage containers, access rates for most packaging materials in Saskatchewan are the lowest in the country. Non-‐deposit plastic containers (bottles, jugs, jars, and non-‐bottle rigid) of all resin types can be recycled by 60% of the population. This is a 3% increase from the last study, reflecting a movement of populations towards urban areas. Figure 35
100%
60%
100%
60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Saskatchewan Access Rates -‐ 2017 Container PlasMcs
| 95
The same programs that offer container recycling also offer recycling of larger format tub and buckets, so access rates for those categories are at 60%. Saskatchewan is well below the national rates for all non-‐container or specific-‐use plastic categories. Of particular note is that there are no RPAs that accept PS foam protective packaging or food containers. The low population density of the province makes PS foam recycling very problematic and expensive.
Figure 36
33% 36%
0% 0%
60% 60%
31%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
60%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Saskatchewan Access Rates -‐ 2017 Non-‐Container or Specific-‐Use PlasMcs
| 96
Manitoba In attempt to better reflect the reality of recycling in Manitoba, significant changes were made to the methodology. For the 2014 edition of the report, CM Consulting divided the entirety of Manitoba’s population into eight RPAs used by Multi-‐Material Stewardship Manitoba (MMSM). This resulted in 100% of the population being “surveyed” and each population within each RPA shown as having the same program. There were two problems with this approach. First, according to MMSM, participating municipalities do not cover the entire population of the province. Rather, participating municipalities account for only 1,206,492,1 out of Manitoba’s total population (1,278,365). This means that only 94.4% of the province is covered by these programs. The second problem with the 2014 methodology was that two populations within any given RPA were considered as having the same program, which was not necessarily true. While most programs shared some common materials, some programs (usually ones serving smaller populations) would not accept #3 PVC or #6 PS. In order to ensure that the data is as accurate as possible, CM Consulting created a new RPA (Recycling Program Area) for each of the 17 specific populations above 5,000 people, as well as two others: one representing those in smaller communities that are served by municipalities participating in the MMSM program, and one representing those who live in areas where they are not represented by MMSM. As a result of this change, most access rates are now down by six percentage points. That is, rates that were 100% in the last report (most plastic containers) are now 94%, which is a more accurate representation of access in Manitoba.
1 Stewardship Manitoba annual report 2016, page 6. http://stewardshipmanitoba.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/June12-84019-MMSM-Annual-Report_-LR.pdf
| 97
Figure 37
All RPAs that participate in the MMSM program accept all containers made from #1, #2, #4, #5, and #7 resins. While most of those programs also accept #3 and #6 plastic, there are a few, such as the one serving the City of Brandon (the largest), that do not.
94% 94% 94% 94%
62%
94% 94%
59%
93% 94% 94%
62%
94% 94%
59%
93%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Manitoba Access Rates -‐ 2017 Container PlasMcs
| 98
Figure 38
The same RPAs that accept plastic containers of all resins also accept buckets and tubs and horticultural rigid plastics. Caps from beverage containers are accepted in programs serving 56% of the population. The film and PS foam categories and most of the other non-‐container or specific-‐use plastics are not accepted in any program in Manitoba.
0% 0% 0% 0%
58% 58%
1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
56% 65%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Manitoba Access Rates -‐ 2017 Non-‐Container or Specific-‐Use PlasMcs
| 99
Ontario For almost every category, access rates in Ontario are equal to or above the national average. There are several factors that help to explain Ontario’s high access rates. First, Ontario’s municipal recycling programs are relatively mature. Since 1994, all municipalities with over 5,000 residents have been required to operate Blue Box programs under Ontario Regulation 101/94. Secondly, Ontario has a high population density compared to most other provinces. Because the economics of recycling are influenced by economies of scale and factors such as transportation distances, the per-‐unit costs of collecting recyclable materials in many RPAs of Ontario are likely to be lower than in provinces whose population is spread out over large areas.
| 100
Figure 39
Access rates for plastic containers are between 87% and 98%. It is worth noting that Ontario is one of only two provinces that does not have universal access to recycling of PET and HDPE beverage bottles. This is because in Ontario non-‐alcohol containers are excluded from the deposit program.
98% 98% 98% 98% 92% 95% 96% 93% 88%
95% 95% 92% 95% 96% 93% 87%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Ontario Access Rates -‐ 2017 Container PlasMcs
| 101
Figure 40
In the film and bags categories, access rates in Ontario are below those of the other large provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec). It is noteworthy that since the last report (2014), the City of Toronto has expanded its program to accept all film plastic, so that category has seen an increase in Ontario from 33% to 53%. Norfolk County and the City of Stratford accept retail shopping bags but not other plastic films. Ontario is above the national average when it comes to access to recycling of PS foam (47% for food packaging and 62% for protective packaging) and both categories of buckets, tubs and lids (93% and 77%). The rates for hot beverage cup lids (21%) and horticultural rigid plastics (79%) are similar to national access rates. Despite high rates for other non-‐container plastics, there is no recycling program in the province that accepts single serve coffee discs, straws/stir sticks, or laminate bags.
53% 55% 47%
62%
93%
77%
21%
0% 0% 0% 5%
43%
79%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Ontario Access Rates -‐ 2017 Non-‐Container or Specific-‐Use PlasMcs
| 102
Quebec To help ensure that the same recyclables are accepted for curbside collection throughout Quebec, RECYC-‐QUEBEC developed the first curbside recycling chart, which informs citizens on what materials they can put in their recycling bin (available at http://www.recyc-‐quebec.gouv.qc.ca/Client/fr/gerer/municipalites/charte.asp). The Curbside Recycling Chart establishes a standard minimum list of items allowed in recycling bins across the province. Although adoption of the chart is not mandatory, many – but not all – municipalities have adopted it and promote it to their citizens and MRFs that receive their recyclables. This explains why most materials are either accepted nearly universally, or only accepted in one or two programs representing only a small portion of the population. Figure 41
With the exception of a few materials, almost all plastic containers show near universal access to recycling. The exceptions are PVC bottles, jugs, and jars and non-‐bottle rigid containers (both of which have access rates of 91%), and PS bottles, jugs, and jars, and
99% 99% 99% 99% 91%
96% 99%
17%
99% 99% 99% 91%
96% 99%
17%
99%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Quebec Access Rates -‐ 2017 Container PlasMcs
| 103
non-‐bottle rigid plastic (both of which have access rates of 17%). The only province with a lower access rate for PS containers is Prince Edward Island. Figure 42
In the non-‐container plastic categories, Quebec is well above the national average for film and retail shopping bags with access rates of 94%. Quebec also has significantly higher than average access to recycling for bottle caps (92%) and horticultural rigid plastic (99%). Access to recycling of PS foam for food and protective packaging, at 36% and 27%, respectively, is just below the national averages of 41% and 44%, respectively. It is worth noting that access for foamed PS in Quebec is primarily depot-‐based. There are currently no programs in Quebec that accept single serve coffee discs, straws and stir sticks, plastic laminate pouches or bulky plastic for recycling.
94% 94%
36% 27%
17% 17%
1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
92% 99%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Quebec Access Rates -‐ 2017 Non-‐Container or Specific-‐Use PlasMcs
| 104
New Brunswick As a result of New Brunswick’s Solid Waste Management Plan adopted in 1987, the responsibility for solid waste management in the province is divided among twelve regional solid waste commissions. Three of these commissions – Regional Service Commission #7, Regional Service Commission #8, and the Kent Regional Service Commission – who collectively provide waste and recycling collection for just over 240,000 New Brunswick residents, or 32% of the province’s population – use the Westmorland-‐Albert solid waste facility. The Westmorland-‐Albert facility is a materials recovery facility (MRF) that accepts many materials that are not frequently recycled. The 32% of New Brunswick that can recycle foamed PS, hot beverage cup lids, and bulky plastic are all served by the Westmorland-‐Albert facility. Figure 43
As in most other provinces, access to recycling of PET beverage and aluminum cans in New Brunswick is 100%. These materials are collected via the province’s deposit return program for beverage containers. All non-‐deposit PET and HDPE containers are also recyclable by 100% of the province’s population. PP containers show near universal
100% 100% 100% 100%
62%
80%
96%
37%
76%
100% 100%
62%
80%
96%
37%
76%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
New Brunswick Access Rates -‐ 2017 Container PlasMcs
| 105
access rates of 96%. Containers made of #4 LDPE and #7 other are also widely accepted, at 80% and 76%, respectively. Containers made from other resins have lower access rates: 62% for PVC, 37% for PS bottles, and 37% for PS non-‐bottle rigid containers. Figure 44
For non-‐container plastics, New Brunswick has an access rate identical to the national average for retail shopping bags (70%), but a very low rate of 19% for the all film category. Regional Service Commissions #1 and #7, making up 34% of the province, are the only RPAs outside of British Columbia to accept single serve coffee discs. The populations of the three RPAs that use the Westmorland-‐Albert facility can recycle all PS foam, hot beverage cup lids, and bulky plastic.
19%
70%
32% 32%
45% 45%
32% 34%
0% 0%
32%
44%
67%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
New Brunswick Access Rates -‐ 2017 Non-‐Container or Specific-‐Use PlasMcs
| 106
Nova Scotia Nova Scotia has implemented a province-‐wide ban on the disposal of recyclables and organics (including food waste) in landfills. It makes sense, therefore, that each RPA would accept/reject the same list of packaging materials for recycling. Across Nova Scotia, access to recycling of plastic containers, regardless of resin or container type, is 100%. Figure 45
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Nova ScoMa Access Rates -‐ 2017 Container PlasMcs
| 107
Figure 46
Retail shopping bags and tubs/lids (both sizes) also show universal access rates. Access to recycling horticultural rigid plastic is also high at 98%. Program expansions in four RPAs mean that there is now a 24% access rate for PS foam materials, a significant jump from 9% in 2015. No program in Nova Scotia accepts single serve coffee discs, straws and stir sticks, plastic laminate bags, bulky plastic, or caps.
83%
100%
24% 24%
100% 100%
52%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
98%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Nova ScoMa Access Rates -‐ 2017 Non-‐Container or Specific-‐Use PlasMcs
| 108
Prince Edward Island All RPAs in Prince Edward Island (PEI) are part of the Waste Watch program, which is managed by Island Waste Management Corporation (IWMC). Waste Watch, which was implemented in 2002, is an Island-‐wide mandatory source separation program that requires residents to separate materials into three streams: recyclables, compost, and waste. The program in PEI offers 100% access to recycling of all plastic containers except those made from PS (#6) and other plastic resin (#7). Figure 47
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
0% 0%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
0% 0% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Prince Edward Island Access Rates -‐ 2017 Container PlasMcs
| 109
PEI also has 100% access to recycling of retail shopping bags but does not accept other film plastics. The province also recycles bottle caps and horticultural rigid plastic. The program does not accept PS foam, non-‐foamed PS (lids and yogurt cups), tubs and lids, bulky plastic, plastic laminate bags, single serve coffee discs, or straws/stir sticks.
Figure 48
0%
100%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
100% 100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Prince Edward Island Access Rates -‐ 2017 Non-‐Container or Specific-‐Use PlasMcs
| 110
Newfoundland and Labrador Compared to the rest of Canada, recycling access rates in Newfoundland and Labrador are quite low. Part of the reason is that it has the lowest population density of any Canadian province; this makes it extremely challenging for municipalities to operate successful, efficient, and economically viable diversion programs. At the time of writing the 2014 report, there was only one comprehensive recycling program in the province. This program was provided by Eastern Waste Management, which serves the City of St. John’s and area. Since then, the Central Newfoundland Waste Management Commission, covering the second most populated RPA, has also implemented a wide-‐ranging program. Because of this expansion, access rates for most materials are now at 69%, though it is all concentrated in two RPAs. Deposit beverages can be redeemed at bottle depots by 100% of the province’s population. Figure 49
100%
69%
100%
69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Newfoundland and Labrador Access Rates -‐ 2017
Container PlasMcs
| 111
Those same two RPAs also accept larger-‐format buckets, tubs and lids and horticultural rigid plastic. There is no recycling of plastic film or PS foam in the province.
Figure 50
0% 0% 0% 0%
69% 69%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
69%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Newfoundland and Labrador Access Rates -‐ 2017
Non-‐Container or Specific-‐Use PlasMcs
| 112
National Access Rates 2004-‐2017 It is now 13 years that CM Consulting has been producing this report. During this time, access rates for most materials have increased, some significantly. For many materials, the largest increases can be seen between the 2013 and 2014 reports. Much of this increase in access can be attributed to the launch of the Recycle BC program in British Columbia, the third most populated province in the country. When interpreting the data, it is important to note that some material definitions have changed from one study year to the next, creating artificial increases or decreases in access. An example of this is horticultural rigid plastic, which had a 67% access rate in 2009. In that year, this material was considered accepted if #5 non-‐bottle rigid plastic was accepted, and if the program did not specify that garden plastic was excluded. Due to improvements in promotional materials and a desire to obtain more accurate data, in 2011 CM Consulting (with agreement from the client) changed the definition so that it was more restrictive. Under this new definition, horticultural rigid plastic was only considered accepted if the promotional materials specifically listed plant pots or garden plastic as accepted. Based on this definition, access to recycling this material decreased to 55% in 2011. More than likely, this decrease is a reflection of the change in definition rather than an actual decrease in access levels. Today, access to recycling horticultural rigid plastic is up to 82%. This is because many programs have shifted to an “all plastic container” style program, under which horticultural rigid plastic containers would be considered accepted even if the program does not specify horticultural or plant pot plastic. The charts below show access rates over an 8-‐year period from 2009 to 2017. The accompanying text highlights some changes over time but does not explain them. These changes are analyzed in the provincial history section (Page 115). New materials have been added to the study each year (many in 2014), including four this year. Blank cells indicate that a material was not studied in that year. For most categories, recycling access has increased from 2009 to 2017. Going forward, it will be interesting to see if access for some of these materials goes down due to the changes in China’s recycling policies that are taking effect in 2017 and beyond.
| 113
Plastic Containers In 2017, access to recycling of plastic containers is very common. Only one resin shows an access rate below 89%. Access to recycling PET and HDPE plastic beverage containers in Canada has remained constant at 98-‐100%. Rates for PET and HDPE bottles, jugs, and jars have also been consistent at 94%-‐96% since 2011. Bottles, jugs, and jars and non-‐bottle rigid containers made from all resins have shown year-‐over-‐year increases as programs have moved towards accepting “all plastic containers.” In the last four years, acceptance of PVC bottles, jugs, and jars has increased by almost 20 points from 70% to 89%. PS non-‐bottle rigids have been studied since 2009. Since then, the access rate has increased from 42% to 71%. Much of Quebec still does not recycle this material. Table 17 -‐ Bottles, Jugs, and Jars, and Non-‐bottle Rigid Containers (2009-‐2017) MATERIAL 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
PET Beverage 98% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99%
PET Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 98% 95% 94% 94% 95% 95% HDPE Beverage 98% 99% 99% 98% 98% 99%
HDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 92% 94% 95% 95% 95% 96% PVC Bottles, Jugs, and jars 70% 84% 88% 89%
LDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 88% 91% 93% 93%
PP Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 93% 93% 94% 95% Other Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 80% 86% 91% 91%
PET non-‐Bottle Rigid 73% 83% 86% 93% 94% 94% HDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid 80% 92% 93% 94% 94%
PVC non-‐Bottle Rigid 62% 82% 87% 89% LDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid 86% 90% 92% 93%
PP non-‐Bottle Rigid 88% 91% 93% 93% 94% 95%
PS non-‐Bottle Rigid 42% 44% 51% 63% 70% 71% Other non-‐Bottle Rigid 72% 85% 89% 90%
| 114
Non-‐container or Specific-‐use Plastics Access to recycling HDPE and LDPE film and bags has increased from 44% in 2004 to 65% today. PS foam food packaging has also seen a mostly steady increase from 25% in 2009 to 44% in 2015, and then a drop to 41% in 2017. PS foam protective packaging was added as a category in 2009. At that time, access for this material was low, but now most (but not all) programs that accept foam PS accept both forms, so that rate is now at 44%. The 91% access rate for tubs and lids in 2011 was due to the definition at that time. In 2013, CM Consulting changed the definition to specify the four resins, and the product was not considered accepted if the program did not accept PS non-‐bottle rigid. If we only look at the last four reports (when the definition was consistent) we see that both large and small format tubs and lids have shown increases. Access to recycling plastic bottle caps has remained relatively constant from 2013-‐2017 with a slight increase to 60%. Horticultural rigid plastic saw a decrease from 2009 to 2011 (again, the result of a change in definition), but saw a significant increase of 23% between 2013 and 2014, mostly due to inclusion in the Recycle BC program. The rate has increased again this year (now at 82%) as more programs move to accept all plastic containers. We see an increase in the acceptance of single-‐serve coffee discs, but it is only in British Columbia and New Brunswick. The other non-‐container or specific-‐use plastics show little to no access for recycling. We will continue to measure them going forward. Table 18 -‐ Non-‐container or Specific-‐use Plastics (2009-‐2017)
MATERIAL 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017 HDPE, LDPE Film and Bags 55% 56% 61% 55% 65% 65%
Retail Shopping Bags 67% 69% 70% PS Foam Food Packaging 25% 32% 26% 34% 44% 41%
PS Foam Protective Packaging 12% 31% 25% 33% 44% 44% HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Tubs and Lids <4L 91% 58% 66% 71% 70%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Tubs and Lids >4L 39% 51% 63% 61%
Hot Beverage Cup Lids 39% 29% 23% Single Serve Coffee Discs 1% 6%
Straws and Stir Sticks 1% 1% 0% Plastic Laminate Bag 0% 0%
Bulky Plastic 6% 2% 4% 3%
Caps 57% 55% 60% 60% Horticultural Rigid Plastic 67% 55% 51% 74% 77% 82%
| 115
Provincial Access Rates 2004-‐2017 The following series of charts show access rates for each material by province for the years 2004-‐2017. For many materials, there have been significant changes in access over time. Again, it is important to note that there have been changes to some material definitions, definitions of what counts as access, and RPA boundaries that affect the year-‐over-‐year results.
| 116
British Columbia We see in British Columbia that all plastic containers are now recycled near universally. PET, HDPE, LDPE and PP have had access rates over 90% since 2013, while rates for PVC, PS, and other (#7) have increased dramatically to almost 100%. This is because the Recycle BC program now serves the vast majority of the province, and their program accepts all plastic containers. Table 19 -‐ British Columbia -‐ Bottles, Jugs, and Jars, and Non-‐bottle Rigid Containers
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
PET Beverage 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% PET Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 83% 94% 94% 97% 95% 99% 99%
HDPE Beverage 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% HDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 90% 95% 94% 97% 96% 99% 99%
PVC Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 44% 84% 94% 99%
LDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 94% 95% 99% 99% PP Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 96% 95% 99% 99%
Other Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 47% 82% 93% 98% PET non-‐Bottle Rigid 71% 93% 94% 96% 95% 99% 99%
HDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid 96% 95% 99% 99% PVC non-‐Bottle Rigid 44% 84% 94% 99%
LDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid 94% 95% 99% 99%
PP non-‐Bottle Rigid 96% 95% 99% 99% PS non-‐Bottle Rigid 43% 41% 45% 83% 94% 98%
Other non-‐Bottle Rigid 43% 82% 89% 96% Under the Recycle BC program, there have been significant increases in almost all of these categories. In 2013, less than half the province could recycle film; now it can be recycled in nearly every RPA. In most of those RPAs it is not collected at curbside, but at depots. PS foam recycling was almost non-‐existent in the province before the Recycle BC program; access is now over 90% for both foam food and foam protective packaging. Like plastic bags, foamed PS is generally collected at depots, not curbside. Caps and horticultural rigid plastic have seen significant increases too. British Columbia is one of only two provinces to recycle single-‐serve coffee discs. This category has seen an increase, and is now at 37% access, accounting for nearly 100% of all Canadians that can put this in their municipal collection bins.
| 117
Table 20 -‐ British Columbia -‐ Non-‐container or Specific-‐use Plastics
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
HDPE, LDPE Film and Bags 29% 37% 42% 47% 87% 93% 95%
Retail Shopping Bags
94% 99% 99%
PS Foam Food Packaging 3% 14% 20% 8% 78% 92% 93%
PS Foam Protective Packaging 14% 17% 8% 79% 92% 91%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >1L, <4L
38% 83% 94% 93%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >4L
36% 83% 94% 89%
Hot Beverage Cup Lids
84% 70% 87% 87%
Single Serve Coffee Discs
14% 32% 37%
Straws and Stir Sticks
1% 1% 0% 0%
Multi Material Plastic Laminate Bag/Pouch
0% 0% 0%
Bulky Plastic
2% 0% 8% 0%
Caps
21% 75% 84% 86%
Horticultural Rigid Plastic
66% 51% 91% 97% 98%
| 118
Alberta Beverage containers are collected universally under the deposit return program in Alberta. Non-‐deposit plastic containers, regardless of the resin, all show rates of 88-‐92%. The more commonly recycled resins like PET, HDPE, LDPE, and PP had rates of around 80% in 2013 and have steadily increased through to 2017. The less commonly recycled resins like PVC, PS, and #7 (other) had access rates in the 50s in 2013; these have since seen large increases. There are still some segments of the population in Alberta that either are not served by any recycling program or are too small to be identified by this study. Table 21 -‐ Alberta -‐ Bottles, Jugs, and Jars, and Non-‐bottle Rigid Containers
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
PET Beverage 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100%
PET Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 28% 72% 79% 81% 86% 86% 91%
HDPE Beverage 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
HDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 39% 79% 83% 85% 89% 90% 92%
PVC Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
55% 62% 86% 90%
LDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
78% 85% 85% 90%
PP Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
80% 85% 86% 90%
Other Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
55% 61% 84% 90%
PET non-‐Bottle Rigid 4% 49% 55% 79% 86% 86% 89%
HDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
84% 89% 88% 89%
PVC non-‐Bottle Rigid
52% 61% 85% 88%
LDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
77% 84% 85% 88%
PP non-‐Bottle Rigid
80% 86% 86% 89%
PS non-‐Bottle Rigid 46% 48% 54% 61% 84% 88%
Other non-‐Bottle Rigid
54% 60% 84% 88% This table shows that while Alberta has made progress in increasing access to recycling container plastics, few programs have expanded to accept many of the non-‐container or
| 119
specific-‐use plastics. Access to recycling film plastics has dropped slightly in the last four years and is roughly the same as the national average. Foamed PS recycling is very rare in Alberta. Today’s access rates, at 5% (for food packaging) and 7% (for protective packaging) are slightly lower than the rates of 2009. As programs in Alberta have evolved to accept “all plastic containers,” some that previously indicated acceptance of hot beverage cup lids now do not. The large reduction in access in this category is chiefly due to a recent change in the City of Calgary’s promotional materials, which now indicate quite clearly that these are not accepted. Many programs have expanded to include plastic bottle caps. The increase from 9% in 2013 to 60% today is one of the reasons for the national increase in this category.
| 120
Table 22 -‐ Alberta -‐ Non-‐container or Specific-‐use Plastics
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
HDPE, LDPE Film and Bags 55% 69% 73% 72% 70% 69% 67%
Retail Shopping Bags
72% 71% 69%
PS Foam Food Packaging 0% 8% 3% 7% 7% 8% 5%
PS Foam Protective Packaging 8% 4% 7% 7% 8% 7%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >1L, <4L
61% 82% 87%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >4L
76% 61% 82% 62%
Hot Beverage Cup Lids
41% 42% 36% 4%
Single Serve Coffee Discs
2% 2% 0%
Straws and Stir Sticks
4% 5% 5% 3%
Multi Material Plastic Laminate Bag/Pouch
0% 0% 0%
Bulky Plastic
2% 2% 2% 0%
Caps
9% 12% 39% 60%
Horticultural Rigid Plastic
24% 48% 46% 50%
| 121
Saskatchewan In Saskatchewan, beverage containers are collected universally under the deposit return program. All programs that accept plastic containers accept all types of plastic containers. The increase in access in this category has not been because of more programs, but due to population movement toward urban centres and away from rural areas. Table 23 -‐ Saskatchewan -‐ Bottles, Jugs, and Jars, and Non-‐bottle Rigid Containers
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
PET Beverage 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
PET Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 22% 49% 56% 55% 57% 57% 60%
HDPE Beverage 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
HDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 22% 50% 56% 55% 57% 57% 60%
PVC Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
55% 57% 57% 60%
LDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
55% 57% 57% 60%
PP Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
55% 57% 57% 60%
Other Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
55% 57% 57% 60%
PET non-‐Bottle Rigid 22% 48% 56% 55% 57% 57% 60%
HDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
55% 57% 57% 60%
PVC non-‐Bottle Rigid
55% 54% 57% 60%
LDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
55% 56% 57% 60%
PP non-‐Bottle Rigid
55% 57% 57% 60%
PS non-‐Bottle Rigid 19% 52% 55% 56% 57% 60%
Other non-‐Bottle Rigid
55% 56% 57% 60%
| 122
The table below shows that the programs that accept plastic containers also accept buckets, tubs, and lids and horticultural rigid plastic. Many do not take film and bags (Saskatoon, Prince Albert and Moose Jaw do, Regina does not) and none accept foamed PS or most of the less commonly recyclable plastic materials. Table 24 -‐ Saskatchewan -‐ Non-‐container or Specific-‐use Plastics
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
HDPE, LDPE Film and Bags 29% 51% 53% 35% 32% 31% 33%
Retail Shopping Bags
33% 31% 36%
PS Foam Food Packaging 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
PS Foam Protective Packaging 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >1L, <4L 48% 55% 55% 57% 57% 60%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >4L
55% 57% 57% 60%
Hot Beverage Cup Lids
2% 7% 7% 31%
Single Serve Coffee Discs
2% 0% 0%
Straws and Stir Sticks
0% 5% 0% 0%
Multi Material Plastic Laminate Bag/Pouch
0% 0% 0%
Bulky Plastic
0% 2% 0% 0%
Caps
3% 12% 0% 0%
Horticultural Rigid Plastic 47% 55% 30% 48% 57% 60%
| 123
Manitoba NOTE: Where access rates in Manitoba have dropped from 100% to 94%, this is due to the fine-‐tuning of the methodology for Manitoba. See pg. 6 for details. This table demonstrates that in 2017, all programs that participate in the MMSM program provide access to recycling all containers of resins #1, #2, #4, #5, and #7. Containers made from PET, HDPE, and PP have been recyclable province-‐wide since 2013, while LDPE was added to a few programs after 2015. Table 25 -‐ Manitoba -‐ Bottles, Jugs, and Jars, and Non-‐bottle Rigid Containers
PVC and PS are still not accepted in Brandon, Springfield, Selkirk and a few other smaller RPAs.
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
PET Beverage 91% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94%
PET Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 91% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94%
HDPE Beverage 91% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94%
HDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 91% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94%
PVC Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
55% 64% 71% 62%
LDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
100% 85% 84% 94%
PP Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
100% 100% 100% 94%
Other Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
100% 100% 100% 93%
PET non-‐Bottle Rigid 91% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94%
HDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
100% 100% 100% 94%
PVC non-‐Bottle Rigid
55% 64% 71% 62%
LDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
100% 85% 84% 94%
PP non-‐ Bottle Rigid
100% 100% 100% 94%
PS non-‐ Bottle Rigid 60% 55% 55% 64% 64% 59%
Other non-‐Bottle Rigid
55% 100% 100% 93%
| 124
In this table we can see that there is little to no recycling of non-‐container plastics in Manitoba, with the exception of HDPE/LDPE/PP/PS buckets, tubs, lids, caps, and plant pots. Only 1% of the province has access to recycling film, foamed PS food packaging, or hot beverage cup lids. Table 26 -‐ Manitoba -‐ Non-‐container or Specific-‐use Plastics
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
HDPE, LDPE Film and Bags 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Retail Shopping Bags
0% 0% 1%
PS Foam Food Packaging 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
PS Foam Protective Packaging 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >1L, <4L 48% 100% 55% 64% 64% 58%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >4L
55% 64% 64% 58%
Hot Beverage Cup Lids
0% 9% 17% 1%
Single Serve Coffee Discs
0% 0% 0%
Straws and Stir Sticks
0% 0% 0% 0%
Multi Material Plastic Laminate Bag/Pouch
0% 0% 0%
Bulky Plastic
0% 0% 0% 0%
Caps
0% 0% 0% 56%
Horticultural Rigid Plastic 7% 5% 55% 55% 64% 65%
| 125
Ontario Access to recycling plastic containers has been very consistent in Ontario. From 2013 to 2017, bottles, jugs, and jars of most resins have shown small increases. Non-‐bottle rigid containers (except for HDPE and PP) have seen large gains and are recycled nearly province-‐wide in 2017. Table 27 -‐ Ontario -‐ Bottles, Jugs, and Jars, and Non-‐bottle Rigid Containers
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
PET Beverage 95% 100% 100% 97% 97% 97% 98%
PET Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 95% 100% 100% 97% 97% 97% 98%
HDPE Beverage 95% 100% 98% 97% 97% 97% 98%
HDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 95% 100% 97% 97% 97% 97% 98%
PVC Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
91% 92% 92% 92%
LDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
94% 94% 95% 95%
PP Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
95% 95% 96% 96%
Other Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
91% 91% 92% 88%
PET non-‐Bottle Rigid
58% 76% 94% 95% 95%
HDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
91% 93% 94% 95%
PVC non-‐Bottle Rigid
73% 90% 90% 92%
LDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
88% 92% 92% 95%
PP non-‐ Bottle Rigid
95% 95% 96% 96%
PS non-‐ Bottle Rigid 54% 48% 74% 92% 93% 93%
Other non-‐Bottle Rigid
72% 88% 89% 87%
| 126
Access to film plastic recycling has changed very little in Ontario since CM Consulting started doing this study. For a brief time in 2014, Toronto limited film recycling in their program, but has started collecting it again. Access to recycling PS foam food packaging saw a drop from 55% to 47% from 2015 to 2017. This is a result of York Region allowing only packaging foam at their depots. Foam protective packaging did not see as dramatic a drop as the York depot still accepts it. The buckets, tubs, and lids 1L-‐4L category shows nearly universal access; the only programs that do not accept them are those that do not include PS rigid plastic. The larger buckets and tubs category (>4L) has seen year-‐over-‐year increases. Access to recycling hot beverage cup lids has seen decreases in Ontario as programs have modified the language in their promotional materials to “all containers.” Some Ontario programs used to accept all #6 plastic, so the lid was considered accepted. Now the program P&E says “all plastic containers, which excludes the lids. Access to recycling caps saw a decrease for the 2017 survey. York Region and Ottawa no longer accept these materials.
| 127
Table 28 -‐ Ontario -‐ Non-‐container or Specific-‐use Plastics
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
HDPE, LDPE Film and Bags 50% 55% 55% 53% 33% 53% 53%
Retail Shopping Bags
54% 55% 55%
PS Foam Food Packaging 37% 50% 57% 55% 56% 55% 47%
PS Foam Protective Packaging 17% 56% 52% 57% 63% 62%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >1L, <4L 96% 95% 88% 93% 93% 93%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >4L
41% 55% 74% 77%
Hot Beverage Cup Lids
52% 35% 21%
Single Serve Coffee Discs
0% 0%
Straws and Stir Sticks
0% 0% 0%
Multi Material Plastic Laminate Bag/Pouch
0% 0%
Bulky Plastic
4% 0% 4% 5%
Caps
72% 56% 57% 43%
Horticultural Rigid Plastic 27% 30% 66% 68% 79%
| 128
Quebec Plastic containers show very consistent access rates in Quebec. All containers made from PET, HDPE, LDPE, PP and #7 (other) have shown 99% access for three consecutive reports. PVC had a rate of 59% in 2013, but that rate has increased to 91% for 2017. PS is still a very difficult to recycle material in Quebec. Access rates for this material saw a significant decrease from 2011 to 2013, but rose to 18% in 2015. The rate is now 17%, which is not a large change since 2009. Table 29 -‐ Quebec -‐ Bottles, Jugs, and Jars, and Non-‐bottle Rigid Containers
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
PET Beverage 100% 92% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99%
PET Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 75% 92% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99%
HDPE Beverage 75% 92% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99%
HDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 75% 92% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99%
PVC Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
59% 90% 90% 91%
LDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
85% 99% 99% 96%
PP Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
99% 99% 99% 99%
Other Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
95% 99% 99% 99%
PET non-‐Bottle Rigid 75% 92% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99%
HDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
99% 99% 99% 99%
PVC non-‐Bottle Rigid
59% 87% 88% 91%
LDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
85% 98% 99% 96%
PP non-‐ Bottle Rigid
99% 99% 99% 99%
PS non-‐ Bottle Rigid 19% 27% 9% 8% 18% 17%
Other non-‐Bottle Rigid
95% 99% 99% 99%
| 129
Film plastic is one material where Quebec shines in terms of access. In 2017, nearly every program takes all plastic film for recycling. The PS foam categories showed strong increases from 2014 to 2015, but this has leveled off and there is no increase for 2017. Because PS, which is not accepted in many RPAs in Quebec, is one of the materials under consideration in the buckets and tubs categories, those rates remain very low. Most of the province can recycle caps and horticultural rigid plastic. Numbers for these materials have remained fairly consistent for the last four years. None of the other, less common materials are recycled in Quebec. Table 30 -‐ Quebec -‐ Non-‐Container or Specific-‐use Plastics
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
HDPE, LDPE Film and Bags 41% 60% 60% 84% 82% 90% 94%
Retail Shopping Bags
84% 92% 94%
PS Foam Food Packaging 36% 11% 27% 8% 4% 36% 36%
PS Foam Protective Packaging 11% 27% 8% 3% 27% 27%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >1L, <4L 92% 96% 9% 17% 19% 17%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >4L
9% 17% 19% 17%
Hot Beverage Cup Lids
9% 3% 3% 1%
Single Serve Coffee Discs
0% 0% 0%
Straws and Stir Sticks
0% 0% 0% 0%
Multi Material Plastic Laminate Bag/Pouch
0% 0% 0%
Bulky Plastic
0% 0% 0% 0%
Caps
95% 92% 90% 92%
Horticultural Rigid Plastic 92% 96% 99% 99% 99% 99%
| 130
New Brunswick Over the years, access to recycling plastic containers in New Brunswick has consistently increased as the province moves towards all-‐container recycling. PET and HDPE products have had universal access since 2014-‐2015. Access to recycling PP has increased from 75% in 2013 to 96% today. LDPE has increased to 80%, and #7 (other) to 76%. PS non-‐bottle rigids have seen a drop in access. This could be because a program has tied its materials list to a MRF in Quebec. Table 31 -‐ New Brunswick -‐ Bottles, Jugs, and Jars, and Non-‐bottle Rigid Containers
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
PET Beverage 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 100% 100%
PET Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 64% 94% 94% 94% 100% 100% 100%
HDPE Beverage 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 100% 100%
HDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 64% 94% 94% 94% 100% 100% 100%
PVC Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
49% 61% 61% 62%
LDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
60% 66% 77% 80%
PP Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
75% 82% 92% 96%
Other Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
49% 62% 72% 76%
PET non-‐Bottle Rigid 64% 94% 94% 94% 89% 100% 100%
HDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
94% 89% 100% 100%
PVC non-‐Bottle Rigid
49% 55% 61% 62%
LDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
60% 60% 77% 80%
PP non-‐Bottle Rigid
75% 76% 92% 96%
PS non-‐Bottle Rigid 30% 49% 49% 49% 49% 37%
Other non-‐Bottle Rigid
49% 55% 72% 76%
| 131
Until 2013, recycling of film and bags was considered accessible if RPAs took any film. In other words, if an RPA accepted retail shopping bags in its program, all film would be listed as accepted. In 2013, CM Consulting separated this into two categories to help differentiate between RPAs that took only retail bags and those that took all film. We can see in the table below that most RPAs in New Brunswick are moving away from accepting film in general, but are taking retail bags. PS foam recycling has remained consistent since 2009. The same three RPAs that accepted it then still do, and no other RPA has expanded the program to include it. The slight increase is due to populations in those RPAs growing. The same goes for bulky plastic and hot beverage cup lids. New Brunswick is one of only two provinces that have recycling for single serve coffee discs. The access rate has increased every year since this material has been studied. Caps and horticultural rigid plastic have both seen increases since 2015. Table 32 -‐ New Brunswick -‐ Non-‐container or Specific-‐use Plastics
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
HDPE, LDPE Film and Bags 38% 95% 88% 82% 53% 47% 19%
Retail Shopping Bags
75% 69% 70%
PS Foam Food Packaging 0% 30% 31% 31% 31% 31% 32%
PS Foam Protective Packaging 30% 31% 31% 31% 31% 32%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >1L, <4L 75% 75% 49% 49% 49% 45% HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >4L
49% 49% 49% 45%
Hot Beverage Cup Lids
31% 31% 31% 32%
Single Serve Coffee Discs
23% 27% 34%
Straws and Stir Sticks
4% 0% 0% 0%
Multi Material Plastic Laminate Bag/Pouch
0% 0% 0%
Bulky Plastic
31% 31% 31% 32%
Caps
27% 31% 31% 44%
Horticultural Rigid Plastic 75% 75% 49% 49% 49% 67%
| 132
Nova Scotia All plastic containers are universally recyclable in Nova Scotia and have been since at least 2013. The 97% access rates in 2014 are reflective of a methodology change that resulted in 3% of the province being excluded. The problem with that methodology was rectified in 2015. Table 33 -‐ Nova Scotia -‐ Bottles, Jugs, and Jars, and Non-‐bottle Rigid Containers
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
PET Beverage 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
PET Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100%
HDPE Beverage 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
HDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100%
PVC Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
100% 97% 100% 100%
LDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
100% 97% 100% 100%
PP Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
100% 97% 100% 100%
Other Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
100% 97% 100% 100%
PET non-‐Bottle Rigid 60% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100%
HDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
100% 97% 100% 100%
PVC non-‐Bottle Rigid
100% 97% 100% 100%
LDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
100% 97% 100% 100%
PP non-‐Bottle Rigid
100% 97% 100% 100%
PS non-‐Bottle Rigid 85% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100%
Other non-‐Bottle Rigid
100% 97% 100% 100%
| 133
Every RPA in the province accepts retail shopping bags. The number of RPAs that accept all bags and film has increased, and now 83% of the population has access to recycling of all film. PS foam packaging (both types) and hot beverage cup lid recycling increased significantly in Nova Scotia between 2015 and 2017. Table 34 -‐ Nova Scotia -‐ Non-‐container or Specific-‐use Plastics
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
HDPE, LDPE Film and Bags 100% 100% 100% 100% 85% 52% 83%
Retail Shopping Bags
97% 100% 100%
PS Foam Food Packaging 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 24%
PS Foam Protective Packaging 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 24%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >1L, <4L 85% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >4L
100% 97% 100% 100%
Hot Beverage Cup Lids
0% 0% 0% 52%
Single Serve Coffee Discs
0% 0% 0%
Straws and Stir Sticks
0% 0% 0% 0%
Multi Material Plastic Laminate Bag/Pouch
0% 0% 0%
Bulky Plastic
0% 0% 0% 0%
Caps
32% 0% 0% 0%
Horticultural Rigid Plastic 85% 100% 32% 95% 100% 98%
| 134
Prince Edward Island The list of materials accepted in programs in Prince Edward Island has not changed since their inception. There is only one RPA, so access is either 100% or 0%. Table 35 -‐ Prince Edward Island -‐ Bottles, Jugs, and Jars, and Non-‐bottle Rigid Containers
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
PET Beverage 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
PET Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
HDPE Beverage 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
HDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
PVC Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
100% 100% 100% 100%
LDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
100% 100% 100% 100%
PP Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
100% 100% 100% 100%
Other Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
0% 0% 0% 0%
PET non-‐Bottle Rigid 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
HDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
100% 100% 100% 100%
PVC non-‐Bottle Rigid
100% 100% 100% 100%
LDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
100% 100% 100% 100%
PP non-‐Bottle Rigid
100% 100% 100% 100%
PS non-‐Bottle Rigid 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other non-‐Bottle Rigid
0% 0% 0% 0%
| 135
Table 36 -‐ Prince Edward Island -‐ Non-‐Container or Specific-‐use Plastics
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
HDPE, LDPE Film and Bags 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
Retail Shopping Bags
100% 100% 100%
PS Foam Food Packaging 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
PS Foam Protective Packaging 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >1L, <4L 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >4L
0% 0% 0% 0%
Hot Beverage Cup Lids
0% 0% 0% 0%
Single Serve Coffee Discs
0% 0% 0%
Straws and Stir Sticks
0% 0% 0% 0%
Multi Material Plastic Laminate Bag/Pouch
0% 0% 0%
Bulky Plastic
0% 0% 0% 0%
Caps
100% 100% 100% 100%
Horticultural Rigid Plastic 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
| 136
Newfoundland and Labrador Access rates for all plastic container materials in Newfoundland have risen steadily since 2004. The large increase from 2014 to 2015 was due to the introduction of a new which accepted the full range of materials. The change from 2015 to 2017 is because of population movement; the same materials are being accepted in the same RPAs as before, but now more people live in those areas. Table 37 -‐ Newfoundland and Labrador -‐ Bottles, Jugs, and Jars, and Non-‐bottle Rigid Containers
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
PET Beverage 100% 100% 100% 96% 100% 100% 100%
PET Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 0% 0% 51% 51% 53% 67% 69%
HDPE Beverage 100% 100% 100% 96% 100% 100% 100%
HDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars 0% 0% 51% 51% 53% 67% 69%
PVC Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
51% 53% 67% 69%
LDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
51% 53% 67% 69%
PP Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
51% 53% 67% 69%
Other Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
51% 53% 67% 69%
PET non-‐Bottle Rigid 0% 0% 51% 51% 53% 67% 69%
HDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
51% 53% 67% 69%
PVC non-‐Bottle Rigid
51% 53% 67% 69%
LDPE non-‐Bottle Rigid
51% 53% 67% 69%
PP non-‐Bottle Rigid
51% 53% 67% 69%
PS non-‐Bottle Rigid 0% 51% 51% 53% 67% 69%
Other non-‐Bottle Rigid
51% 53% 67% 69%
| 137
Buckets, tubs, and horticultural rigid plastic are recycled in the same RPAs as the other plastic containers. There continues to be no access to recycling of film or PS foam in Newfoundland. Table 38 -‐ Newfoundland and Labrador -‐ Non-‐container or Specific-‐use Plastics
MATERIAL 2004 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017
HDPE, LDPE Film and Bags 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Retail Shopping Bags
0% 0% 0%
PS Foam Food Packaging 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
PS Foam Protective Packaging 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >1L, <4L 0% 51% 51% 53% 67% 69% HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Buckets, Tubs and Lids >4L
51% 53% 67% 69%
Hot Beverage Cup Lids
0% 0% 0%
Single Serve Coffee Discs
0% 0%
Straws and Stir Sticks
0% 0% 0%
Multi Material Plastic Laminate Bag/Pouch
0% 0%
Bulky Plastic
0% 0% 0% 0%
Caps
51% 0% 0% 0%
Horticultural Rigid Plastic 0% 51% 51% 53% 67% 69%
| 138
Appendix A: Keywords/Terms Used to Determine Acceptability of a Material/Container Type in a Recycling Program 1. PET Beverage Plastic beverage bottles, pop bottles, water bottles, soda bottles, screw-‐top bottles, plastic narrow-‐necked bottles, beverage bottles, all plastic bottles, #1 plastics, PET plastics, all rigid plastic, household food/beverage containers, all beverage bottles, all plastic containers. 2. PET Bottles, Jugs, and Jars All plastic, #1 plastic, PET plastic, all rigid plastic, household food/beverage/cleaner containers, all plastic containers. 3. HDPE Beverage Plastic beverage bottles, all beverage bottles, all plastic bottles, #2 plastics, HDPE plastics, screw-‐top bottles, plastic narrow-‐necked bottles, all rigid plastic, household food/beverage containers, all plastic containers. 4. HDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars All plastic, #2 plastic, HDPE plastic, all rigid plastic, household food/beverage/cleaner containers, all plastic containers. 5. PVC Bottles, Jugs, and Jars All plastic, #3 plastic, PVC plastic, all rigid plastic, all plastic containers. 6. LDPE Bottles, Jugs, and Jars All plastic, #4 plastic, LDPE plastic, all rigid plastic, all plastic containers. 7. PP Bottles, Jugs and Jars All plastic, #5 plastic, PP plastic, all rigid plastic, all plastic containers, household food/beverage/cleaner containers. 8. Other Bottles, Jugs, and Jars All plastic, #7 plastic, all other plastic, all rigid plastic, all plastic containers. 9. PET Non-‐Bottle Rigid All plastic, #1 plastic, PET plastic, all rigid plastic, bakery/clamshell containers, cookie tray. 10. HDPE Non-‐Bottle Rigid All plastic, #2 plastic, HDPE plastic, all rigid plastic, cake/salad containers. 11. PVC Non-‐Bottle Rigid All plastic, #3 plastic, PVC plastic, all rigid plastic.
| 139
12. LDPE Non-‐Bottle Rigid All plastic, #4 plastic, LDPE plastic, all rigid plastic. 13. PP Non-‐Bottle Rigid All plastic, #5 plastic, PP plastic, yogurt/margarine containers, all rigid plastic. 14. PS Non-‐Bottle Rigid All plastic, #6 plastic, PS plastic, all rigid plastic, Bakery/clamshell containers (UNLESS PS/#6 IS LISTED AS ‘NOT ACCEPTED’). 15. Other Non-‐Bottle Rigid All plastic, #1 plastic, PET plastic, all rigid plastic. 16. HDPE, LDPE Film and Bags Plastic film, all plastic film, all plastic bags. 17. Plastic Retail Shopping Bags Plastic film, all plastic film, all plastic bags, shopping bags, retail shopping bags. 18. PS Foam Food Packaging Polystyrene foam, all polystyrene foam, polystyrene foam take-‐out container, polystyrene foam food containers. 19. PS Foam Protective Packaging Polystyrene foam, all polystyrene foam, polystyrene foam peanuts, polystyrene foam blocks, polystyrene foam protective packaging, polystyrene foam packaging material. 20. HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Tubs and Lids >1L -‐ <4L Plastic buckets, plastic pails, plastic tubs, ice cream tubs. 21. HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS Tubs and Lids >4L Large plastic buckets, large plastic pails, large plastic tubs, bulky plastic. 26. Bulky Plastic Toys, lawn furniture, large buckets/pails. 27. Caps Bottle caps, beverage bottle tops. 28. Horticultural Rigid Plastic Garden plastic, plant pots, all #5 plastic.