Solid Waste & Recycling August/September 2009

on si l fil an nd xp La r E 18 o ct ge ea pa or Bi

Solid Waste & Recycling Canada’s magazine on collection, hauling, processing and disposal August/September 2009 $10.00

CPMP No. 40069240

An EcoLog Group Publication

CLEAR BAGS Durham’s Residual Waste Diversion Pilot Program — page 8

Composting Council of Canada conference program — pages 23-26 swr a-s 09 Cover pg 1 no label.indd 1

16/11/10 9:30 AM

Project2

5/4/09

2:38 PM

Page 1

Samuel Strapping Systems The Samuel Series Balers & Compactors

Providing Worry Free Recycling Solutions Samuel Strapping Systems offers a complete range of products and consumables designed to provide you efficient and cost effective solutions to your waste recycling requirements. We provide a complete line of vertical balers and compactors engineered to operate under any conditions and for a variety of applications.

Our equipment is fully customizable with a comprehensive options selection to ensure your requirements are met with complete satisfaction.

Our machines are found in all industry segments including manufacturing, retail, distribution centers, property management facilities and construction sites.

Don’t forget that our recycling equipment is complimented by our complete range of baling wire products and services!

• Single loop, Double loop • Black Annealed Boxed and Stem Wire • Assorted Galvanized Stem Wire • Cut & Straight Wire, Merchant Wire • Custom Packaged, Specialty Wire and much more

Call us today or visit us online at:

Call us today or visit us online at www.samuelstrapping.comto learn more about our recycling equipment to learn more about our recycling equipment and and how our equipment can help how our equipment can help manage your waste manage your waste into profitable discards. into profitable discards.

www.samuelstrapping.com

www.samuelstrapping.com

information@samuelstrapping.com

1-800-607-8727

Solid Waste & Recycling

CONTENTS August/September 2009 Volume 14, Number 4

Canada’s magazine on collection, hauling, processing & disposal

COVER STORY

On a Clear Day

8 Cover art by Charles Jaffé

Some municipalities in search of higher diversion rates are asking residents to separate recyclables and organics, then put the remaining waste residue in clear bags. A recent pilot project in Durham Region, Ontario, points to possible results.

by Guy Crittenden

FEATURES

DEPARTMENTS

COLLECTION: EVERY OTHER WEEK

Editorial Up Front Event Report Waste Business Composting Matters Regulation Roundup Products Product Stewardship News Ad Index Blog

Increased organics capture from EOW collection.

by Rod Muir

14

LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY: BIOREACTORS Recent expansions at Lafleche Environmental’s facility.

by Guy Crittenden

18

PROMOTION & EDUCATION: CALENDARS Municipal media to keep residents informed.

by Julie Dossett

21

INFRASTRUCTURE: PROJECT APPROVALS Online applications speed the approval process.

by Pam Russell & Amy Burke

THE COMPOST COUNCIL OF CANADA — ANNUAL CONFERENCE

27

MULTI-REZ DIVERISON: CHUTES Chute door technology solves problems.

by Doug King

4 6 32 33 36 38 40 41 42 45 46

Program details, pages 23-26

30

NEXT EDITION Official Show Issue: Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo Single stream recycling • Waste-to-energy • Landfill technology • Heavy equipment for MRFs and landfills • Collection bags & liners.

Space closing: September 22; Artwork required: September 26. Advertisers, contact Publisher Brad O’Brien at 1-888-702-1111 ext. 2.

Landfill technology, pg. 18

Promotion & Education, pg. 21

Event Report, pg. 32

August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 3

by Guy Crittenden

EDITORIAL

“The OWMA suggests a $10 per tonne disposal levy be put in place to send a ‘price signal’ in support of recycling and waste elimination.”

Zero Waste Innovation Trust

T

oronto’s recent garbage strike has focused the minds of residents there about how much waste they generate. (See item, page 42.)

Less visible is the industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) waste that’s estimated as being equal to (or as much as fifty per cent larger) than the residential waste stream. Though it wasn’t subjected to Toronto’s strike, IC&I waste is being targeted by provincial governments across Canada — especially Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment — as an opportunity to reduce waste and related pollution and greenhouse gas outputs.

Recent developments should be of interest to any person whose company (large or small) generates waste byproducts in its manufacturing process or whose products and packaging end up in the municipal system, or in any kind of landfill. The Ontario government sounds serious about bringing extended producer responsibility (EPR) to the province.

EPR systems require producers to pay the full cost managing products and packaging at end-of-life. Specifically, the government is proposing that industry pay 100 per cent of the net cost (not just half) of the blue box. And it’s asking various stakeholders how to boost IC&I waste diversion rates to match targets set for the residential sector.

A policy paper from the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) hints at what may be in the offing. The paper, published July 20, 2009, is entitled Driving to zero waste: A comprehensive program for changing behaviour and driving innovation towards zero waste in Ontario’s Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) sector. The association that chiefly represents waste haulers, multi-material waste diversion service providers and disposal companies has consulted with a number of environmental groups to refine a vision that is progressive while still practical. The OWMA recognizes that while waste disposal will be an ongoing business activity, waste diversion in the context of progressive waste diversion policies, offers the largest opportunity for continued growth. Aware that Toronto will stop shipping garbage to Michigan next year and that many Ontario landfills are starting to fill up, The OWMA recognizes that Zero Waste-type initiatives offer opportunities both economic and environmental.

Driving to zero waste starts by defining IC&I waste, and notes that enforcement of existing IC&I regulations is limited to larger businesses.

(For instance, the regs don’t apply to the commercial sector for facilities less than 10,000 m2.)The report acknowledges that the industrial sector has done a pretty good job reducing wastes because there’s a direct payback in many instances. Seventeen per cent of IC&I waste is construction and demolition (C&D) waste. Excluding that, only about 12 per cent of IC&I waste is recycled; 88 per cent is sent for disposal. This is a lost opportunity, since most of the material could be recycled, at least in theory: a quarter of the material is paper, 15 per cent corrugated cardboard, 11 per cent food, and the rest is single-digit percentage points of things like plastic, wood, metal and glass, etc.

The paper states that an investment in significantly boosting the diversion rate for these materials would result in “significant green investment, innovation and economic development. The study authors note

4 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

there are 80,000 businesses in the province, and that 42 per cent of all IC&I waste is generated by businesses with less than 50 employees.

High diversion rates will require participation from these smaller businesses and the OWMA proposal proposes a portfolio of economic instruments, prospective disposal bans and waste generator tools and programs to increase diversion from small businesses. The objective is to reduce and divert more IC&I waste from small business while attempting to minimize costs to those businesses.

Specifically, Driving to zero waste puts forward a number of policy suggestions to eliminate waste in the IC&I sector. Among them is support for preparation of waste reduction plans, audits and verification of the results. This would be accompanied by a phased-in ban on recyclables from landfill and transfer stations. The authors call for accreditation and approval of all waste service providers, with increased waste tracking, reporting and oversight. (Waste counted as “recycled” really must be recycled.)

Most controversial is the paper’s suggestion that the price gap be closed between disposal and recycling, with the funds generated used to finance waste diversion tools. Currently, IC&I waste generators pay just $58 per tonne to dispose of waste, versus about $93 for recycling. The OWMA suggests a $10 per tonne disposal levy be put in place to send a “price signal” in support of recycling and waste elimination.

Most interesting is the proposed establishment of a Zero Waste Innovation Trust (ZWIT) governed by a multi-stakeholder board. Money collected from the $10 levy would be used to fund research and waste diversion activities (and not go into general revenues as happened with the former tire tax and the levy on non-refillable beverage alcohol containers). Funds from the trust would also be used to provide financial assurance for the long-term closure, cleanup and perpetual care of any problematic waste diversion and disposal sites.

The paper provides calculations that suggest avoided disposal costs and waste reduction could see the typical IC&I waste generator paying just $250 in incremental costs under the program.

Across the IC&I sector reducing (16 per cent) and diverting (36 per cent more) waste would reduce CO2-equivalent emissions by 4.47 million tonnes with a carbon trading value of $224 million (at $50/tonne).

Diversions of three tonnes of IC&I material would inject $225 million in revenues into the waste services sector, and create a couple of thousand jobs (since diversion is more labour intensive than disposal).

We think that Driving to zero waste provides an excellent framework to create a sustainable economy and a thriving local waste diversion industry. We suggest that the government embrace it, and that other provinces follow suit.

NOTE: Driving to zero waste can be downloaded under Posted Documents at www.solidwastemag.com Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine. Contact Guy at gcrittenden@solidwstemag.com

October 28 - 29, 2009 Vancouver Convention & Exhibition Centre Vancouver, BC

INSIGHT. IDEAS. INNOVATIONS. Just What Most Of Us Need In These Economic Times!

INSIGHT. New legislation, policy changes, environmental updates and more...

Our Industry Partner Associations will be hosting timely topical educational seminar and special networking events.

IDEAS. Whether it is in the seminar program or on the trade floor, the show will be buzzing with new ideas on how to increase efficiency for your business.

INNOVATIONS. Faster, smarter, easier - from software updates and GPS systems to the latest technological advances in waste treatments, balers, refuse trucks and landfill operations, this is the show to find the products and services you seek.

Insight.

Ideas.

Innovations.

Register Today! www.cwre.ca/AD1 For more details Arnie Gess, Show Manager Call:

403.638.4410

Toll-free:

877.534.7285

arnie.gess@cwre.ca www.cwre.ca

Our 2009 Industry Partners

CWRE09 SWR Reg Ad.indd 1

8/12/2009 3:41:36 PM

DAVE MERRIMAN MOVES TO WDO

Solid Waste & Recycling

A

fter 30 years in the consulting industry Dave Merriman is moving to Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) as Director of Waste Diversion Programs.

In this new position he will assist WDO Executive Director Glenda Gies in advancing Ontario’s waste reduction and diversion goals.

Merriman began his consulting career with James F. MacLaren Limited. In 1989 he joined a number of associates in founding MacViro Consultants Inc. which recently was acquired by GENIVAR Ontario Inc. Over the years Merriman has assisted many municipalities in developing waste management plans, programs and facilities. Highlights of his career include assisting in developing: the Toronto Dufferin

Canada’s magazine on collection, hauling, processing & disposal

Guy Crittenden Editor gcrittenden@solidwastemag.com Brad O’Brien Publisher bobrien@solidwastemag.com Jamie Ross Account Manager jross@solidwastemag.com Sheila Wilson Art Director Kim Collins Market Production Selina Rahaman Circulation Manager Carol Bell-Lenoury Mgr EcoLog Group Bruce Creighton President Business Information Group Contributing Editors Michael Cant, Rosalind Cooper, Maria Kelleher, Clarissa Morawski, Usman Valiante, Paul van der Werf Award-winning magazine Solid Waste & Recycling magazine is published six times a year by EcoLog Information Resources Group, a division of BIG Magazines L.P., a leading Canadian business-to-business information services company that also publishes HazMat Management magazine and other information products. The magazine is printed in Canada.

Solid Waste & Recycling provides strategic information and perspectives on all aspects of Canadian solid waste collection, hauling, processing and disposal to waste managers, haulers, recycling coordinators, landfill and compost facility operators and other waste industry professionals.

New program on environment industry opportunities

“G

oing Green for Green” — a new program about money-making opportunities for companies in the environmental protection and waste management industries — has made its debut.

The new show takes viewers inside the business of the environment and should be of interest to people in the environmental services and waste management industries, as well as other people such as professionals in the investment community interested in opportunities for profit in these fast-growing sectors.

The show is the brainchild of host Michael Lavelle and is a joint venture between Lavelle’s company Going Green for Green TV and HazMat Management magazine and Solid Waste & Recycling magazine. Brad O’Brien — publisher of the two magazines — is Executive Producer; each episode is shot by Director Brad Ling, with research and writing support from editor and award-winning business journalist Guy Crittenden and various contributing editors and writers from the magazines.

Each episode focuses on a theme from within the environmental services and waste management industries. Themes thus far have included organic waste collection and processing, construction and demolition waste, and brownfield remediation. View the episode on opportunities in brownfield remediation by visiting www.hazmatmag.com) or by following the link: www.hazmatmag.com/video/green4green.asp

Canadian Publications Mail Product Sales Agreement No. 40069240 Information contained in this publication has been compiled from sources believed to be reliable, thus Solid Waste & Recycling cannot be responsible for the absolute correctness or sufficiency of articles or editorial contained herein. Articles in this magazine are intended to convey information rather than give legal or other professional advice. Reprint and list rental services are arranged through the Publisher at (416) 510-6798.

Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to: Circulation Department, Solid Waste & Recycling 12 Concorde Pl, Ste 800, Toronto, ON M3C 4J2 Call: (416) 442-5600 Fax: (416) 510-5148 E-mail: srahaman@bizinfogroup.ca From time to time we make our subscription list available to select companies and organizations whose product or service may interest you. If you do not wish your contact information to be made available, please contact us via one of the following methods: Phone: 1-800-268-7742 Fax: 416-510-5148 E-Mail: jhunter@businessinformationgroup.ca Mail to: Privacy Officer Business Information Group 12 Concorde Pl, Ste 800 Toronto, ON Canada M3C 4J2 Solid Waste & Recycling, USPS 018-886 is published bimonthly by Business Information Group. US office of publication: 2424 Niagara Falls Blvd, Niagara Falls, NY 14304-0357. Periodicals Postage Paid at Niagara Falls, NY. US postmaster: Send address changes to Solid Waste & Recycling, PO Box 1118, Niagara Falls, NY 14304.

We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Publications Assistance Program towards our mailing costs. © 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent.

ISSN-1483-7714 PAP Registration No. 10991

Organics Processing Facility; several large single stream MRFs; the Peel Energyfrom-Waste Facility, presently owned by Algonquin Power; and, Toronto’s contracts to export waste to Michigan.

Contact David Merriman, WDO at 416-226-5113 x295

M

Waste Management acquires collection business

olok North America Ltd., the North American distributor for the Finnish based MOLOK Deep Collection systems, would like to clarify that Waste Management has acquired the business of emptying the MOLOK Deep Collection containers from Deep Clean Waste Services Inc. Furthermore, Waste Management has also entered into an agreement with Molok North America Ltd. that gives Waste Management the right to sell MOLOK containers in Can-

6 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

ada and United States in conjunction with the emptying services. Molok North America Ltd. continues to be the sole manufacturer and the main distributor of the MOLOK containers in North America, with Marja Hillis as the General Manager, while Mark Hillis has joined the Waste Management team as a Manager of Business Development.

For more information contact Molok North America Ltd. at 519-323-9909.

OUR TOP LETTERS Dear Editor:

RE: “Meet the Spartans” (Editorial, June/July 2009 edition) We are legal counsel for Atlantic Paper Products. Atlantic has regretfully come to the conclusion that your June/July editorial concerning paper fibre biosolids was misleading and contained significant inaccuracies, including the following: 1. Atlantic had nothing to do with the Pelham site referred to in your editorial. The paper fibre biosolids used in that site were significantly different from those generated by Atlantic.

2. The statement “In several locations, contaminated leachate from the berms has forced the ministry to order the excavation and removal of material, at great expense” is untrue. While there are two locations where berms containing Atlantic PFBs were redesigned, within the same site, this was due to Conservation Authority rules against all kinds of fill in a floodplain and not to evidence of “contaminated leachate.” The SoundSorb was originally placed as directed by the respective property owners; in one case, it replaced an existing 40-year-old berm that predated conservation Authority rules.

3. Atlantic was not using landfill as a method to deal with PFBs when the SoundSorb berm program was developed, and does not intend to use it now. The berm program is a beneficial use program that is not a low-cost option.

4. Atlantic and the ministry signed a binding Agreement, not merely a Memorandum of Understanding. This Agreement is a legally enforceable control instrument which provides equal or better protection for human health and the environment, as recommended by the Experts Panel. In particular, it provides for careful selection of all berm sites, and regular monitoring of potential impacts.

5. The province has substantially implemented the Expert Panel’s other recommendations. In particular, surface and groundwater near existing berms at gun clubs are monitored regularly. In no case have contaminants in excess of the Ontario drinking water quality standards been found in groundwater leaving a site, nor have significant risks to human or environmental health been caused by any berm containing Atlantic PFBs. 6. Your editorial suggests that the ministry is negligent in failing to require Atlantic to compost its PFBs. The Agreement does not require composting of Atlantic’s PFBs, because scientific evidence suggests that this may do more harm than good.

Composting could potentially destroy harmful bacteria, if the specific types of e.coli and other bacteria found in Atlantic’s PFBs were harmful to human health or the natural environment. To date, this has not occurred. On the other hand, composting increases the bioavailability of metals, such as copper, as confirmed in a recent English study. Whether composting is desirable depends upon the particular characteristics of the PFBs from each mill.

7. The “recent” call from ALPHA was issued in 2005, before the signing of the Agreement which implemented the Expert Panel recommendations.

8. PFBs contain extremely low levels of lead until they are placed at a gun club. To the best of Atlantics knowledge, all ministry “evidence” that SoundSorb contains elevated levels of lead is based on samples taken after the SoundSorb was contaminated with lead from bullets and other gun club sources.

The beneficial use of paper fibre biosolids is an indispensable element of paper recycling in this province. SoundSorb berms, in particular, provide substantial public benefits. They protect gun club members and neighboring residents against gun club noise as well as against stray bullets. SoundSorb berms are softer, quieter, more uniform and safer than equivalent earth berms, which may contain stones that deflect bullet fragments in unpredictable ways. Public safety officers, such as police, are major users of gun club sites equipped with SoundSorb berms, and access to such facilities allows them to improve their firearms skills, maintain their qualifications, and thus serve and protect all of us.

Atlantic recognizes that the use of SoundSorb remains a legitimate subject of public debate. However, such debate is badly served by inaccurate media, such as your June/July editorial. Thank you for agreeing to publish an appropriate correction in your next issue.

Yours very truly,

Dianne Saxe

Barrister and Solicitor, Ph.D. in Law Toronto, Ontario

Dear Editor:

RE: “Waste Pellets for Energy” (April/May 2009) I read with interest your article on Dongara. I noted that the article was silent, however, on end usage issues of the Dongara pellets.

In contrast to the article preceding yours (in which Mr. Zafar identifies cement kilns as one of the more important applications of RDF pellets -- from the India perspective) Ontario-based cement manufacturers face considerable challenges in utilizing the Dongara pellets within their own operations. The issues are not technical, but relate more to Ontario waste and air policies, standards and approvals issues.

I wonder if this is an aspect you might consider exploring in a future article on the Dongara pellets. If so, you may wish to gain information from an interview with Martin Vroegh of St Marys Cement.

Regards,

Bob Masterson, Director of Policy Cement Association of Canada Ottawa, Ontario bmasterson@cement.ca

August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 7

by Guy Crittenden

COVER STORY

“The micro household audits indicated that with a reduction in overall waste generation, the relative diversion rates could increase by up to 7.7 per cent.”

Durham Region’s clear bag pilot program

O

n June 18, 2008, Council for the Region of Durham (just east of Toronto, Ontario) passed a resolution authorizing staff, in conjunction with area municipalities, to proceed with a three-month pilot program in which residents were asked to set out residual garbage (i.e., non-recyclable or non-compostable materials) for collection in clear plastic bags. One collection route was designated in each of the City of Pickering and the Municipality of Clarington. Durham is an upper tier municipal government in a region of 621,000 residents who live within eight local municipalities.

In 1999, Regional Council approved the Long Term Waste Management Strategy Plan: 2002 to 2020, with a goal of diverting at least 50 per cent of the residential waste from disposal by 2007, or earlier. This goal was reached in 2007. The region intends to increase waste diversion from landfill to 70 per cent by the end of 2010.

Across North America, over 75 clear bag collection programs have

with no additional direct interaction or correspondence beyond an initial launch package provided to individual residents.

Phase Two — Voluntary with encouragement: Participation remained voluntary; however, non-participating residences were approached by regional staff and provided with supplementary promotional material such as door hangers to encourage participation.

Phase Three — Mandatory with enforcement: Non-compliant bags were left behind and tagged with information that all garbage must be placed in clear bags.

Three levels of data were collected during the pilot: macro route tonnages, micro household audits and control household audits. The macro data was the most statistically significant and the most appropriate for extrapolation region-wide.

e l C a n O

been launched in cities including Guelph, Ontario, the entire Province of Prince Edward Island, numerous (33) municipalities across Nova Scotia, Saint John, New Brunswick and Omaha, Nebraska (among others). A 2008 study funded by Stewardship Ontario, entitled The Use of Clear Bags for Garbage as a Waste Diversion Strategy: Background Research on Clear Bag Programs across North America (E&E Project #177) provides an excellent overview of such programs.

The Durham pilot project had two specific objectives: to assess whether the use of clear bags increases (a) diversion and (b) participation in recycling and composting programs.

The pilot project was divided into three specific phases or time periods to enable staff to collect and segregate data under differing enforcement level scenarios, as follows: Phase One — Voluntary: Residential participation was voluntary 8 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

The micro household audits provided insight into the specific effects on each waste stream. The control audits assisted in explaining potential unforeseen variability.

Within Clarington, a single collection route comprised of 774 single family dwellings was selected; monitoring and waste collection was undertaken over an 11 week period (January 14 to March 25, 2009).

Similarly, within Pickering, a single collection route comprised of 607 single family dwellings was selected and comparative monitoring was undertaken over a 13 week period (January 15 to April 9, 2009). Due to the difference in service-levels between the Pickering and Clarington pilot areas, the Pickering data was used to extrapolate region-wide results.

Results

Based on a comparison to the 2008 waste tonnage data, a clear bag program for garbage could increase waste diversion within the region by three per cent (or about 4,668 tonnes) of recyclable materials and organics. It has the potential to cost an additional $61,000 per year in processing and

y a D r a e l C collection fees. The micro household audits indicated that with a reduction in overall waste generation, the relative diversion rates could increase by up to 7.7 per cent.

The use of clear bags did not influence the level of participation in the recycling program but did increase participation in the organics program by an average 14 per cent when compared to seasonal variations.

Clear bags could therefore be a useful tool to further enhance participation in the region’s organics program.

Surveys

A total of 1,381 surveys were circulated to all households within both pilot areas. Approximately 540 surveys were completed (a 39 per cent response rate). The majority (53 per cent) expressed support for clear bags as well as a decrease in the garbage bag limit, if it helped to increase waste diversion. The majority believed they’d recycle more as a result of their participation in the clear bag project.

Although privacy concerns were raised, the majority of respondents were satisfied with the option of being able to place a smaller opaque bag within a larger clear bag. Some worried about clear bags possibly costing more, but this fear was neutralized by the comparable price of clear and opaque bags sold in local retail outlets.

Other survey results included: • 72 per cent support the use of a smaller clear bag for in-house use (i.e., as a kitchen catcher); • 78 per cent did not notice an increase in illegal dumping; • 88 per cent did not support the use of a full “bag tag” program to stimulate waste diversion; • 70 per cent responded that the information package delivered to their home was the best way to receive their information; and • 69 per cent of residents agreed that a two month phase-in period was sufficient to enable them to get used to the program, prior to the mandatory phase.

An extensive public education and promotional strategy was implemented by regional staff to ensure that all pilot area households were well informed of the intent of the project and the specific parameters of participation. The separation of increased diversion or participation that resulted from the intensive promotion and education was not possible. Therefore, comparable results of a region-wide clear bag program would only be possible if a significant promotion and education program was undertaken at a cost of $35 per household.

The effects of the voluntary or mandatory phases produced mixed results. If the clear bags program is approved for region-wide implementation, it’s recommended that it be launched as a voluntary program, with a mandatory dimension investigated for potential future use.

Other considerations

Due to the economic downturn, overall waste generation rates have

COVER STORY

Pickering Pilot Area

Set-Out Rates — Clear Bag Usage (%) Percentage of hhlds using clear bags.

100

A

98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 One

Three

Five

Seven

Nine

Eleven

Public Education and Communication

n extensive public education and promotional strategy was developed by regional staff to ensure that all pilot-area households were well informed of the intent of the pilot study and how to participate. The extensive campaign cost $35 per household, for a total of $36,822 during the pilot project (excluding the supply of the complimentary GLAD clear bags valued at $12,000).

Advertising: A pre-pilot study was conducted from November to January.

An article appeared in the Durham Works newsletter. Durham Region and local municipalities’ websites had links to a main Clear Bag Pilot Study page.

Public service announcements ran in local newspapers and radio. (PSAs also ran prior to the enforcement phase and after the pilot was complete.) Television appearances were made by regional staff in March and June.

Introduction Letter: The introduction letter was hand delivered by regional staff technicians in three phases, to attempt a face-to-face discussion with all residents and answer their questions. The first attempt was done during daytime business hours, the second in the evenings, and the third was done on the weekends. The introduction letter contained a map of the pilot study area, FAQ (frequently asked questions), and the phases of enforcement.

Public Presentations: Presentations on “best practices” were given to the students in the schools located in the pilot areas. Handouts were given to students to take home to their parents. Two information sessions were held in each pilot area from 6:30 to 9:00 pm at local schools. Two technicians and one manager attended each session. The sessions were held at the schools located inside of the pilot areas. A total of 18 residents came to the Pickering sessions and 24 in Clarington.

Promo Materials: Door hangers with reminders for three weeks prior to pilot start, and one week prior to start were hand delivered by a delivery company.

A two week reminder was planned but since it was during the holiday season, the delivery companies were closed. A study kit was hand delivered by regional staff technicians to resident’s doors that included instructions, FAQ and a fridge magnet. A supply of complementary clear bags was supplied

10 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

for the duration of the pilot by Clorox (GLAD). Road signs were placed at the entrances to the pilot areas as an additional reminder for residents.

“Thanks for Sorting” door hangers were left for residents who did a good job in setting out the proper materials in the correct manner. A handful of homes were randomly chosen each week.

Focus Families: A focus family was chosen in each pilot area; the families were interviewed prior to the start of the pilot and after it finished. Their participation was also tracked throughout the pilot. After the pilot project, both families expressed that as a result of the pilot study they’d use both the recycling and composting waste diversion programs offered by the Region (whereas, this was not the case prior to the study for one of the families). There was an overall community acceptance of the program based on conversations with neighbours and walks through their neighbourhoods.

Most of their residual garbage was plastic: they stated that more consideration should be given to making producers more responsible for their packaging. They said they were likely to carry on setting out their residual garbage in clear bags — one family as an educational tool for their children; the other based on the fact that they had to purchase garbage bags anyway, whether clear, opaque or coloured. Overall, both families found the study useful to educate, inform, structure and create community awareness of waste.

Standard Operating Procedures: A list of operating procedures was given to the contractors prior to enforcement phase. Stickers were given to the waste collectors to leave on any non-compliant garbage bags. Once the enforcement period began, staff allowed the residents and the waste collectors to make their own judgment. Staff monitored the pilot areas prior to and after collection to see what decisions were made.

Satisfaction Survey: Residents in the pilot areas were mailed a survey package that included a survey and a postage paid envelope to return the survey, or they had the option to fill out the survey online on a dedicated webpage. A draw prize was given as an incentive for participation. Notice of the end of pilot study was included with the survey.

COVER STORY ®

BALERS

“A total of 1,381 surveys were circulated to all households within both pilot areas.” tended to decrease. Revenues received from recyclable materials are much lower than 2007 and 2008 figures. Because of this, tonnage and diversion rate results from this pilot could have been affected.

A number of additional considerations must be addressed prior to the launch of a regionwide clear bag program, including: • Lead time of one to two years to notify all stakeholders prior to the program launch; • Retail supply and availability of clear plastic bags of different sizes; • Residents having adequate time to use stockpile of opaque plastic bags;

Harris’ superior two-ram baler designs provide an innovative, lower maintenance, high-efficiency baling system. Harris prides itself on a tradition of designing equipment with performance and power in mind.

®

800.373.9131 770.631.7290

www.harrisequip.com August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 11

SWR_twoRam_Metal_Aug2009.indd 1

7/7/09 9:44:45 AM

Pickering Pilot Area Set-Out Rates — Green Bin Usage (%) Percentage of hhlds Partcipating

90

Vermeer/AB/SWR

80

n Baseline n One

70

n Two

60

n Three

50

n Five

n Four

40

n Six

30

n Eight

n Seven

20

n Nine

10

n Eleven

0 8/6/09

n Ten n Twelve 9:59ineAM OnePage o 1 e Tw Thre el s

Ba

r

Fou

e

Fiv

Six

en

Sev

ht

Eig

e

Nin

Ten

ven

Ele

lve

e Tw

en

rte

Thi

n Thirteen

Collection Period (week)

Saskatoon Grande Prairie Atlantic Provinces Winnipeg Montreal Edmonton Calgary Brampton (800) 668-9065 (866) 809-5066 (866) 809-6653 (800) 809-5066 (866) 548-1866 (800) 990-7919 (877) 357-3299 (902) 222-9679

12 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

COVER STORY

A list of operating procedures was given to the contractors prior to enforcement phase. Stickers were given to the waste collectors to leave on any non-compliant garbage bags.

• Medical waste and diaper exemptions; • Waste Call Centre requirements; and • Provision of additional blue boxes and green bins.

“Clear bags for regular garbage collection provide municipalities with an extremely easy, user friendly and cost effective ‘soft approach’ to increase the diversion of recyclable and organic material within existing waste diversion strategies,” says Dave Douglas, President of VisionQuest Environmental Strategies Corp.,

“Approximately 540 surveys were completed (a 39 per cent response rate).” speaking in general terms and not specifically about the Durham Region project. “Depending on the maturity and extent of existing diversion strategies, it’s conceivable for a municipality to increase diversion by an incremental 20 points above existing rates, simply by switching to a clear bag for refuse (garbage) collection.”

Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine. Contact Guy at gcrittenden@solidwstemag.com August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 13

COLLECTION

by Rod Muir “Increases in foodscrap capture ranging from 40 per cent to 60 per cent (or even 130 per cent) are possible with EOW residual waste collection.”

Every Other Week Collection Increased foodscrap diversion at a reasonable cost

I

ncreases in capture of (foodscrap) recyclable materials — (especially organic waste) of between 40 and 60 per cent — appear to be possible by introducing Every Other Week (EOW) residual waste collection.

EOW collection is a strategy that holds interest as a means to both increase participation in foodscrap collection programs, as well as to lower overall collection costs.

An increase in participation is believed to occur as a result of residents realizing that this portion of the waste stream, which is most likely to produce odours, can either go out weekly on the foodscrap collection program or every other week with residual collection. They tend to choose the former.

Cost savings from EOW residual collection come about as a result of being able to co-collect materials from different streams (foodscraps, recycling and residuals) onto the same truck. This is especially true when recyclables are co-mingled in a single-stream recycling system.

For example, at my home in Toronto I normally get only one collection pass a week. One week foodscraps and co-mingled recyclables are collected. The next week it’s foodscraps and residual waste.

What’s the potential to increase participation?

The seven municipalities in what I’ll call the Greater Greater Toronto area (GGTA), provide an excellent case study on the effect of EOW residual collection on foodscrap capture. See the list of municipalities in Table 1 and their location on Map 1.

These municipalities are in close proximity to each other, all being within a radius of 50 miles. As a result, all have similar demographic profiles.

All collect foodscraps weekly and six of the seven municipalities use the same bin (the small Norseman). Only Hamilton has chosen a larger 120 litre cart. There are some differences, particularly in regard to the use of liner bags and bag limits.

The performance of the seven programs is detailed in Table 2.

At the lower end is the City of Barrie, which captured just 210 lbs per household in 2006 and 160 lbs in 2007, despite having just a one-bag limit on residual waste (with a $2 tag fee for additional residual set-out).

Next is Hamilton where it’s believed the average capture of foodscraps was 480 lbs per household per year in 2008. It’s important to account for what I believe to be the effect of the use of a larger curbside cart in Hamilton. By giving residents a 120-litre cart, it may be that

Table 1 Study Municipalities # Households Weekly Residual Collection City of Barrie

38 K

City of Hamilton

155 K

Region of Peel

285 K

Every Other Week (EOW) Residual Collection City of Toronto

525 K

Halton Region

135 K

York Region

235K

Switched from Weekly to EOW Durham Region

14 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

180 K

COLLECTION

Table 2 Foodscrap capture rate – lbs/household/year With weekly residual collection

06

07

08

Barrie 210 160 Hamilton 350 410 Adjusted 2.)

Peel Region 290 Estimated average With EOW residual collection Halton Toronto 475 450 York Region Estimated average

n/a 480 260 280 260

1 bag limit, $2 bag tag, paper bag liner only 2 bag limit, one must be clear, paper bag liner only 4.)

To adjust for use of larger 32 Gal. cart BPI certified or paper bag lilner, 2 bg limit

400 395 800 390

BPI certified or paper bag liner, 6 bag limit bi-weekly Any type of liner alowed, residual is cart/volume based Any type of liner allowed, bag limits vary 2-4 bag EOW

1.)

06

07

Average for all 18 programs in Ontario 343 Switched from weekly to EOW

327

3.)

05

08

Durham Region

123

315

BPI certified or paper bag liner, 4 bag limit EOW

1. Barrie started May 06 pro-rated

2. Peel Region started April 07 pro-rated

3. Halton started April 08 pro-rated

4. Hamilton switched to also allowing BPI certified bags, April 08

S & CA EE C RE NA U OM BO C DI S A E OT YCL AN T T H ING WA HE #2 E ST 12 XP E 0 O

(say) roughly half of the 480 lbs is leaf-andyard material. The other municipalities use the small Norseman container, so this leaf-andyard waste is not being captured and counted in their foodscrap program to the same extent.

Table 3 details the tonnage per month deposited into the cart in 2008. You can see during the heavy leaf-and-yard months (April to November) the capture rate is 600 lbs year.

But during the December thru March period, capture is only 260 lbs/year, falling to a low of 195 lbs per year in January and February. It may be that something like 260 lbs per year is closer to the actual amount of foodscrap material collected.

Finally, among those municipalities collecting residual weekly, is Peel Region. Here, after an April 2007 start, foodscrap capture

Note

4010 East 26th Street Los Angeles, California 90023 Ph: 323.262.5145 | 1.800.421.6244 www.rehrigpacific.com email: info@rehrigpacific.com

Customer Service 877-456-8094

August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 15

COLLECTION

Table 3 Hamilton 2008 Monthly Tonnages Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

3195 3424 3572 3649 3742 3666 3495 3062

Dec Jan Feb Mar

1762 1724 Avg Dec-Mar (4 months) 1130 21 lbs week = 260 lbs year 1374

was 290 lbs/household/yr. in 2007 (pro-rated) and 280 lbs year in 2008.

For the three municipalities that collect residual material weekly, I’ve estimated an average foodscrap capture rate of 250 lbs per year. Among those municipalities collecting residual waste EOW, first (in Table 2) is Halton Region, which (after an April 2008 start), collected, on a pro-rated basis, 400 lbs per household in 2008.

The City of Toronto and York Region collected 450 lbs and 800 lbs respectively in 2008.

Liners may or may not play a role. Both York and Toronto, the two areas with the highest foodscrap capture rate, allow the in-home container to be lined with any type of plastic

Avg Apr-Nov (8 months) 50 lbs = 600 lbs year

Avg Feb-March (2 months) 16 lbs week = 195 lbs year

TOTAL 33,795

OUR CUTTING EDGE IS LEAN AND

GREEN Billing & Receivables Routing & Dispatching Scales & Landfills Material Tracking Complete Collections

PROTECT THE PLANET AND YOUR BOTTOM LINE The Schuyler Rubber cutting edge sweeps thoroughly and efficiently, decreasing

is made from 100% recycled truck tires. Green makes good business sense.

Preferred choice of top 100

Flexible Reporting

Affordable for any size hauler

On Board computers

One system for your hauling and scale operations

Accepts credit cards

Call 1-800-426-3917 to find out how you can better protect your tipping floor.

Fleet maintenance

888-763-8725

WWW.SCHUYLERRUBBER.COM 16 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009 AD SIZE : 4" X 5"

A proven company & solution

Mapping

tipping-floor protection costs by up to 50%. Its streamlined construction and adjustable bolt pattern make it easy to install, and its reinforced rubber edge

The NUMBER 1 Software Solution for WASTE HAULERS!

AD VERSION 3

www.soft-pak.com

sales@soft-pak.com

COLLECTION

bag. In most cases this is a PE grocery bag usually acquired at no cost. This no doubt drives participation and capture.

Regardless, those three municipalities that collect residual waste EOW have an estimated average capture rate of at least 400 lbs per year.

That’s 150 lbs more (or 60 per cent) than the municipalities that collect residual weekly.

Let’s look closer at Peel and Halton Regions. As you can see from Map 1, these two municipalities are next door to one another; they introduced foodscrap collection within a year of each other. As a reminder, both use the small Norseman bin but (most importantly) both have the same policy regarding liners: you can use them, but BPI-certified only. There are

two differences between Peel and Halton. Peel collects residual every week; Halton EOW. With capture rates of 290 lbs per year for Peel and 400 lbs per year for Halton, the difference is 110 lbs or nearly 40 per cent. (Another difference is that Halton has the higher bag limit(!) of six bags every two weeks vs. Peel’s two bags every week.)

Another useful sub-study is Durham Region. In 2003 the four smaller municipalities in the Region, totaling roughly 45,000 households, introduced foodscrap with weekly residual collection. The capture rate in 2005 was 135 lbs year. In 2006 the remaining four larger member municipalities (totaling 135,000 households) introduced foodscrap and shortly

thereafter the entire Region switched to EOW residual collection. The effect? With 180,000 households, all on EOW residual collection, 315 lbs per year was collected — an increase of 180 lbs per year or 130 per cent!

In conclusion, it appears that increases in foodscrap capture ranging from 40 per cent to 60 per cent or (even 130 per cent) are possible with EOW residual waste collection.

Rod Muir is Waste Diversion Campaigner for Sierra Club Canada and founder of Waste Diversion Toronto in Toronto, Ontario.

Contact Rod at rodmuir@sympatico.ca

Environment Environment

Global reach. Local knowledge.

Living in harmony with the environment demands an awareness of the influence we have on the world around us.

Our waste management expertise ranges from strategy and planning, diversion, processing and transfer systems, to disposal and waste-to-energy systems.

With more than 4,000 talented professionals in Canada, we offer our clients a full spectrum of integrated services, nationwide expertise, and access to the technical resources of more than 43,000 employees around the world.

www.aecom.com

August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 17

by Guy Crittenden

LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY

“The BioReactor will produce enough methane to power at least 1,000 homes for more than 50 years.”

BioReactor Laflèche Environmental’s expanding facility in Eastern Ontario

L

aflèche Environmental Inc. is a waste management company that serves Eastern Ontario. The company is investing in innovative technology to augment its landfill site — that it calls the Laflèche Environmental BioReactor — most recently a new compost facility.

In 2007 Laflèche constructed an onsite wastewater treatment facility for leachate. The next year, the company began to extract methane gas from the landfill, with a view toward supplying green power into the Ontario grid via a 3 MW electric power generator. (Phase Two of the generator could see the plant generate 10 MW of power annually.)

In May of this year, the company opened a 40,000 tonnes per year (tpy) onsite compost facility, for which construction started in the summer of 2008. The compost facility consists of six channels in an enclosed building. (See opposite page.)

The BioReactor and related facilities is the vision of André Laflèche who undertook a number of environmental impact studies with then-partner BFI in selecting the current Moose Creek site and fulfilling the requirements of Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act. This included an extensive public consultation and identification of the adjascent community as a “willing host.” The company was incorporated in 1997 and has been open to the public since 2001.

The site has the advantage of natural containment properties from clay. When waste arrives at Laflèche Environmental, it’s laid inside of an impermeable, natural clay bowl that’s lined with high-tech fabric and drainage stone. Leachate is separated into two streams; one that’s recirculated into the waste bed (to enhance bioreaction) and another that’s pumped for treatment.

Rotating Biological Contactors (RBC) form the anaerobic system used in the wastewater treatment facility. RBC treatment consists of circular plastic discs mounted on a horizontal shaft. The rotating discs, which are partially submerged in wastewater, are covered with naturally cultivated microorganisms that metabolize the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) into carbon dioxide. Approximately 70 per cent of the organic carbon converts to carbon dioxide, with the remainder becoming sludge.

Re-circulating the leachate encourages anaerobic reaction within the waste, accelerating waste decomposition by as much as 15 to 20 years.

Waste can break down nearly three times as quickly in the BioReactor as in a traditional landfill (where decomposition takes an average of 50 years).

Benefits

Once a cell, or section, of the BioReactor is filled with waste, it’s covered with a soil cap and methane gas is captured and used to generate electricity. Over its lifetime, the company believes the BioReactor will produce enough methane to power at least 1,000 homes for more 18 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

than 50 years. Heat and carbon dioxide, the two byproducts of methane production, will be used to warm onsite greenhouses and to provide an enriched carbon dioxide atmosphere (to enhance plant growth). Plans for the greenhouses include a polyculture project that would produce fish and vegetables. The company is also considering the viability of an algae farm to produce bio-diesel.

Once the anaerobic cycle is complete, it may also be possible to recover soil and recyclables. This will empty out the cells, leaving them available to take in fresh waste. Managed in this way, the landfill could continue the cycle of putting waste to work for many decades — perhaps 100 years.

Additionally, Laflèche has conducted research with two universities and received approval to used tire shreds to replace stones in the drainage layer. The Certificate of Approval allows the company to process 3.5 million tires per year (more than a quarter of all scrap tires generated annually in the province, making Laflèche the largest tire processing facility in Ontario). This project allows the facility to avoid using approximately 15,000 tpy of stone.

In addition to the BioReactor landfill, wastewater treatment and tire processing operations, Laflèche recycles hydrocarbon-impacted soil, recycles electronic waste and (most recently) composts organic materials.

Laflèche Leblanc Soil Recycling Inc. (LLSR) specializes in the biological treatment of petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils. Through a biological treatment process, hydrocarbon contaminants are eliminated and 150,000 tonnes of clean, nutrient-rich soil is generated for reuse on agricultural, residential and industrial properties.

Laflèche Environmental is currently financing studies and working with four separate Canadian universities. The most important partnership to date is the one with the University of Ottawa. With this partnership, the students have an opportunity to experiment in real life conditions to implement their research. The major projects include algae analysis and strategy for bio-fuel, feedstock analysis and bulking agents for compost, and bioremediation of contaminated soils. Research on the BioReactor includes leachate characteristics modeling and analysis, optimized leachate recirculation, and methane oxidation in landfill cover.

The company contributes $1 per tonne of waste accepted at its site to the Township of North Stormont, to be spent at the town’s discretion. The Laflèche Environmental Trust Fund, with a planned $1.5 million, will be a key contributor to the acquisition for conservation of wetlands, such as the Alfred Bog, a high-quality bog ecosystem in southern Ontario.

Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine. Contact Guy at gcrittenden@solidwastemag.com

LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY

The Compost Facility Ribbon-cutting ceremony for the new facility (left to right): Jean Marc Lalonde, MPP Glengarry, Prescott Russell; Daniel Chevier, Director of Finance Services Matrec, Inc. and Lafleche Board member; Marc Fox, President of Matrec inc. and Lafleche Board member; Hon. John Gerretsen, Ontario Minister of the Environment; Jean Marie LaFleche, CFO and Lafleche Board member; Brian King, President of Lafleche Environmental Inc.; Jim Brownell, MPP Stormont, Dundas, South Gengarry; Andre LaFleche, Past President, Chairman of Lafleche Board.

L

afleche Environmental held the opening ceremony for its new compost facility on May 22, 2009. The facility is able to receive a range of different non-hazardous organic materials such as food scraps, food processing waste, biosolids, paper/ cardboard, leaf-and-yard waste, and other organic materials.

The compost process uses an aerated and agitated channel arrangement contained within a primary enclosure for environmental control of moisture, air and odor. All handling areas, including channels with primary containment, are further

WELL COVERED. WELL DONE! W. L. Gore & Associates 105 Vieve‘s Way, Elkton, MD 21921 USA • Mobile: 610-733-4078 • Office: 410-506-5041 • Fax: 410-392-4452 bfuchs@wlgore.com

wellcovered-welldone.com August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 19

LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY

Inside the new compost facility.

Artists’ rendering of the new facility.

contained within a secondary structure for protection against the elements (wind, rain, snow), containment of materials and supplementary control of air and odors.

The compost facility is constructed on a 52,000 square ft reinforced poured concrete slab and enclosed completely by a Mega Dome fabric shelter building. This structure is segregated into three sections: receiving and channel loading area; com-

20 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

posting channels; and output area. Air is maintained throughout the facility under negative pressure and directed to an exterior biofilter system.

The process uses an agitated tunnel with forced aeration. After materials arrive at the facility and are unloaded on the tipping floor, a visual inspection is conducted. The different organic materials are then mixed in an industrial grade mixer in order to achieve a homogeneous blend with a proper Carbon to Nitrogen ratio and moisture content. The mixed materials are conveyed to the active composting area. After spending between 21 and 28 days in the composting process, the material is cured prior to use as finished compost.

by Julie Dossett

P R O M O T I O N & E D U C AT I O N

“Seasonal information is presented in a timely way, and there is even space for waste reduction tips.”

What Goes Where, 2.0 Cost-effective recycling and waste communications

R

esearch shows that residents want clear, pertinent information about municipal waste and recycling programs. And while most municipal waste managers know that providing information can increase household participation in local programs, the costs and complexity of designing effective communications can be overwhelming — especially when budgets are tight.

In recent years, several surveys have confirmed what most municipal waste managers know intuitively: that a significant barrier to participation in local waste and recycling programs is the absence of clear information for residents. In a 2007 Harris poll of nearly 2,400 adults, respondents cited such reasons as “not sure what is recyclable,” “confusion or lack of information” and “not sure it makes a difference” as obstacles. A Gallup

survey conducted the same year confirmed that residents want to conserve more, recycle more and waste less, but that they don’t always know what they are supposed to do with their waste and recyclables.

Municipalities have struggled to balance the need to communicate program details to residents against static budgets, and the suspicion that newspaper ads, flyers or similar information pieces end up unread and discarded in the recycling bin — or worse, garbage can.

A growing number of jurisdictions are discovering that by combining separate promotional efforts for each aspect of their waste programs into one attractive comprehensive calendar format, they can leverage their investment to create a detailed program guide that residents actually want to use all year long.

August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 21

P R O M O T I O N & E D U C AT I O N

Calendar format popular

The calendar format offers multiple benefits to both municipal officials and residents. It displays collection and depot information in an easy-to-follow format; provides details on special items such as household hazardous waste, organics or metal; and allows municipalities to address common issues like missed collections or recycling do’s and don’ts. Seasonal information — such as yard waste, water restrictions or Christmas tree collection — is presented in a timely way, and there is even space for waste reduction tips.

“It answers all my questions of how to dispose of waste — when, where & how.” “One easy-to-read resource for recycling questions.”

“Keeps our household on track.” These are just some of the responses in surveys that evaluated residents’ responses to their local calendars.

The research, conducted in 2006, revealed that residents overwhelmingly endorse the format, with 95 per cent of respondents indicating that they use the calendar throughout the year to check dates and program details, and 90 per cent rating the calendar as “excellent” or “good.”

Meanwhile, waste managers point to positive impact on collection programs.

“Our customer responses to these calendars have been overwhelmingly positive,” says Robert Costanzo, manager of Contracts and Waste Management for the City of Surrey.

“Best of all, we’re already noticing a marked reduction in the number of specific inquiry calls to our garbage and recycling call centre.”

The primary innovator behind the trend to adopt waste and recycling calendars is Municipal Media Inc. In 2001, founder Creighton Hooper identified an emerging gap between the amount of detailed information municipalities needed to communicate about their waste management programs, and the existing tools for doing so.

“It was apparent from the start that municipal waste departments are strapped for both time and money, yet they need to get this important information to residents,” says Hooper, whose team created calendars for more than 125 Canadian municipalities in 2009. “We have the expertise that turns a complex project into a simple, affordable process for managers.”

Web tool cuts costs

This year, Municipal Media launched a breakthrough web-based solution that enables officials to reduce the cost of their calendars even more by simplifying the design process.

The www.CustomBuiltCalendars.com website walks users through a series of step-by-step do-it-yourself online tools, saving thousands in design costs for municipalities.

“We wanted to give our clients total control over every aspect of their calendars, while keeping costs low — and of course, ensuring professional results,” explains Hooper.

“Whether they use our ready-to-use features

22 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

on popular topics, or create their own content, our clients can produce an attractive, ultracost-effective calendar with no special software or computer knowledge. Completed calendars from different municipalities are then printed together, resulting in even more savings.” He adds that while the system is simple and secure, his company will be on hand to answer any questions along the way.

Julie Dossett works as Project Manager on various Municipal Media projects in Toronto, Ontario. Contact Julie at jdossett@sympatico.ca

19th Annual National Composting Conference

September 30-October 2, 2009 Hyatt Regency, Vancouver, British Columbia It’s about time to focus on the power of compost and organic residuals recovery to exponentially change our world for the better … and the sessions, tours, exhibits and networking opportunities at the Compost Council of Canada’s 19th Annual National Conference will show you how! Learn from the best-of-the-best compost knowledge base while enhancing your networks and industry contacts across Canada.

Fax Back to The Compost Council of Canada (866-902-7272) Yes! I plan to attend. Please register me as follows: Name:

Affiliation:

Address: City:

Province/State:

Phone:

Postal/Zip Code:

Fax:

Email: Visa or MasterCard: Cardholder Name: Cardholder Signature:

Exp.:

Cheque or Money Order enclosed (Payable to The Compost Council of Canada)

Please invoice me.

For additional information, please visit www.compost.org or call 877-571-4769 Registration Fees (Please mark appropriate section.)

CCC Member Potential CCC Member Conference Packages: Wed-Fri Early-Bird (Prior to Aug. 21) $490 + GST $560 + GST Wed-Fri Registration (After Aug. 21) $560 + GST $620 + GST $275 + GST $275 + GST Speaker Rate* (Wed-Fri) Conference and Bonus Tour Packages: $675 + GST $800 + GST Mon-Fri Early-Bird (Prior to Aug. 21) Mon-Fri Registration (After Aug. 21) $725 + GST $850 + GST Individual Days (for those not attending the full conference): Monday Tour Day (Vancouver Island) $120 + GST $150 + GST Tuesday Tour Day (Whistler) $75 + GST $100 + GST $100 + GST Wednesday Tour Day (Vancouver + area) $75 + GST Thursday Conference including dinner $325 + GST $385 + GST Friday Conference $250 + GST $300 + GST Yes, I plan to attend the conference dinner event, on Thursday October 1st! (for indication of expected numbers only, no extra charge) Yes, I am interested in attending the marine wildlife fundraiser. Please send more information on this event. *Speakers who plan to attend the conference only on the day of their presentation do not need to pay registration fees. The Speaker Rate above applies to speakers who will be attending the full main conference.

GST Registration #R136167533

Accommodations: Our conference venue, the Hyatt Regency Vancouver, is offering special delegate rates starting at $160/night (plus applicable taxes and gratuities). Please be sure to state you are with The Compost Council of Canada’s conference when booking your room.

For reservations, call 1-800-233-1234 or (604) 683-1234.

INFRASTRUCTURE

by Pamela Russell P.Eng & Amy Burke “The ministry is in the process of converting all of its application forms into electronic smart saveenabled PDF format.”

Cutting the Red Tape Online resources promote faster environmental approvals in Ontario

F

or several years, environmental approval applications have been piling up at Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment office faster than they could be processed. From the project proponents’ point of view, this meant a lengthy permitting process, with permits taking from six months to a year or more to be issued. This is particularly challenging for the waste sector, given the limited capacity remaining in most landfill sites and the urgent need for the development of more waste management facilities.

The ministry recognized that the approval timelines were frustrating for proponents seeking approvals, but point out that there were reasons for the delays. Many proponents provided the ministry only the bare minimum of information, and this was often not enough to answer regulators’ concerns. Differing formats of documentation submitted to support an application meant that staff needed to spend additional time hunting through each application for information. In too many cases, the

ministry was obliged to return the application to the proponent for corrections, clarifications or additions of further technical detail, which had the effect of delaying the eventual decision.

The time to process an application is extremely dependant on the quality of the application that is being submitted. A poorly prepared application can easily add three to six months or more to the amount of time it takes to obtain an approval. Even for well-prepared, complete proposals, the process was slow in part due to those that needed extra time from ministry staff to deal with incomplete and poorly prepared application packages.

The ministry’s response has been to implement a number of initiatives to improve the application process. The key focus of the work that has been completed is to establish an expectation of documentation requirements for various application types, improve the overall quality of the

Cleantech Funding Available If you have an innovative clean soil technology, we want to hear from you.

The SD Tech Fund is open for Statements of Interest from September 2 to October 21, 2009

Supporting the development and demonstration of clean technologies by Canadian companies.

www.sdtc.ca August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 27

INFRASTRUCTURE

applications being received and to reduce the length of time that it takes to obtain an approval.

documentation and detailed guidance documents that outline the technical requirements of the application.

Online resources provide guidance Another development has to do with The ministry is in the process of converting the ministry’s need to have information in a all of its application forms for air, waste and consistent format. With support from Golder wastewater Certificates of Approval into elecAssociates, the ministry has developed a sertronic smart save-enabled PDF format. The ies of sample applications for a hypothetical application forms will identify the information project proponent. These “ACME” examples required, based on the specific details of the are available for several typical waste manageapplication that is being submitted. The form ment operations, including an expansion of a will indicate the application status as being inmunicipal landfill, a new waste-transfer site complete if an applicant does not fill out all and a new composting operation. required fields or identify that all supporting Members of the ministry have indicated documentation is included. The expectation is that applications now being received are folthat the new forms will compel applicants to lowing the updated guidance materials and ensure that that the submissions are complete are using the electronic application form. prior to submission.

The waste industry has been very supportive The ministry has also updated the “guide” of the various initiatives of the ministry to to applying for Certificates of Approval to clarify the environmental approval process, groundworks/MC7564/SWR 12/5/08 10:23 AM Page 1 more clearly reflect what is required in an and to provide more flexibility to make chanapplication, including checklists of required ges to waste operations with a Comprehensive

28 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

Certificate of Approval (the subject of a further article in the next edition of this magazine).

The Environmental Assessment and Approval Branch was recently recognized by MWIN with the first ever Innovative Regulatory Reform Award for these initiatives.

Providing government the information it needs

Discussions with the ministry indicate several success factors in preparing applications that move through the process smoothly: • Before preparing an application, study the guidelines and the ACME examples together; this will make it easier to put together a mental picture of what the ministry wants to see.

• Be realistic about how the planned facility will operate. Even if you think that odour will not be an issue, for example, indicate the steps you will take to deal with any such problems, such as utilizing odour suppressant systems.

Consider other potential problem areas as

well, such as blowing litter and noise.

• Demonstrate that you have planned for contingencies, such as a recycling operation having a “Plan B” if it comes a time that there is no viable market for the output, or the facility is not able to produce output to meet market requirements.

• Show that you have planned your operations ahead of time. For example, will the loading/ unloading areas of the facility be large enough for the turning radius of the vehicles that will be using it?

It’s not just going through the motions Some proponents seem to approach the environmental approvals process largely as a hurdle to jump.

The ministry wants to see not only that the required studies have been done and that the information has been presented correctly. It wants to be assured, through the approval application process, that unwanted effects of the proposed or altered facility will be managed effectively.

The ministry has had experience with complaints from environmental groups, neighbourhood groups, municipal politicians and others about waste management facilities that caused problems such as odour, litter, noise, surface and groundwater contamination. Some of these sites have had to be closed down.

Accordingly, the ministry wants to be assured through the environmental permitting process that project proponents have planned wisely so that the interests of stakeholders including neighbours have been met, and that environmental issues are being managed appropriately. A complete, technically sound application will not only assist the ministry in making the appropriate decision, it will help make the process more efficient for all applicants for waste management facilities.

The application packages are available at the ministry website at www.ene.gov.on.ca/ en/business/cofa/sample.php Pam Russell, P.Eng. (pamela_russell@golder. com), is a Senior Waste Engineer; Amy Burke, B.Sc. (Environmental Science), (amy_burke@golder.com) is a Waste Management Specialist in the Whitby, Ontario office of Golder Associates Ltd. The authors wish to acknowledge assistance in the preparation of this article from Tim Edwards, Special Projects Engineer, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

12/12/08

ADVERTISE IN THE PRODUCT PROFILE LISTINGS

For more information and pricing contact:

10:48 AM

Page 1

Jamie Ross

416-510-5221 jross@bizinfogroup.ca www.solidwastemag.com

SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING

EMF a

SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING

SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING

INFRASTRUCTURE

SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING

Compared to Steel, EMF Containers will ...

Last Twice as long and Cut Total Cost of Ownership in Half!

Durable

Lightweight

Long-Lasting

Fibreglass

Environmentally Friendly

Call EMF Containers and Start Saving Today!

Call Timothy England : 416-804-9636

e-mail : time@emfcontainers.com www.emfcontainers.com August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 29

M U LT I - R E Z D I V E R S I O N

Chute!

Single vs. multi-stream chutes for multi-level buildings

B

uilding development specifications traditionally required a “garbage chute” to meet fire code; it usually included a trash compactor. Today a recycling sorter system and bins are the norm. To improve waste diversion, establishing a thoughtfully designed infrastructure (beginning in each suite and supported by effective promotion and education) will produce results.

Garbage chute design

Garbage chutes include a baffle (flap) behind each chute door. This creates a “trap zone” for materials placed there by residents. A resident’s source-separation efforts will be compromised by “trapping” (diagram two) as subsequent users discharge these materials into the wrong bin below — cross contaminating.

When a multiple-material chute/sorter system is installed, a “flapless fire-rated chute door” solves this trapping design flaw.

Toronto’s Green Development Standard proposes the use of separate chutes to address the issue. Developers tend to prefer sorters as they save space and revenue on all floors.

isit our oluminous

.com

Experts in environmentally friendly equipment distribution Mobile Crushers

Shredders and Grinders

Screens

Committed to your success

Landfill Compactors

Metal Crushers

Stationary Plants

30 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

After-sale Service

416 444-1358

M U LT I - R E Z D I V E R S I O N 269-793-7183 Phone 269-793-8793 Fax

Left image: Material is “trapped” in a conventional chute opening, which leads to cross-contamination.

Right image: A lockable “flapless” door does not trap material.

Safe functional system design

Garbage chutes converted for multiple material use instruct users to “push the flap” as a remedy; however a safety issue exists as descending materials from floors above may cause injury. A chute designed with a “sloped throat” alleviates the trapping phenomenon.

Historically, compactor bins positioned the operator away from materials coming down the chute during container exchanges. However, with a tri-sorter, operator proximity to the chute is closer, increasing risk. The solution is “lockable chute intake doors” with programmed and manual override controls. During container exchange the operator renders the system inaccessible to users.

Recycle full containers, PET, Aluminum, Aseptik and more Recycle your foam and turn waste into profits!

Lockable door program system benefits

A lockable door system and flexible “Intelli-Gen PLC Program” incorporates many benefits: • Hours of use are integrated — eliminating nighttime noise.

• System blockage and damage are reduced by a brief “lockout access delay,” during the “deflector plate transition” period.

• The control panel modem “auto lockdown system” indentifies and remotely notifies staff of all maintenance issues, limiting downtime.

• Multiple floor simultaneous access is available for the “engaged stream” (lit button) selection, with “programmed lockout” for other streams — controlling contamination.

At 16 to 20 lbs. per cubic foot, a truckload of densified foam can weigh 40,000 lbs.

Basic “Staff Managed” Deflector Systems

Alternatively, a simple staff-managed operational protocol can offer buildings an inexpensive successful diversion program. This concept integrates separate stream storage containers on each floor and a timetable when staff uses the chute.

Staff engages a deflector plate above the compactor, depositing diverted materials down the chute into the correct bin, on a timetable. An interface between building management, staff and residents is thus created (similar to curbside single-family collections).

This cost-effective option has widespread retrofit potential.

Information supplied by Doug King, Director of Business Development with Metro Compactor Group in Toronto, Ontario. Contact Doug at dougking@metrogroupcan.com

Reduce harmful emissions processing

300 to 1,200 lbs. of EPS or EPP per hour

See our websites for more info: www.brightbeltpress.com www.xtractorvideo.com www.densifiervideo.com August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 31

EVENT REPORT

MWIN/OWMA merge

A

t the annual conference of the Municipal Waste Integration Network (MWIN) — held at the Ajax Convention Centre in Durham Region, Ontario, June 22-23 — an announcement was made that MWIN is merging with the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA). The merger will allow the OWMA to expand its coverage of waste-related issues into the municipal side, part of a strategic vision recently established by the board of directors to create the OWMA as a complete waste industry association.

According to Angelos Bacopoulos, a founder and past-president of MWIN, the idea of amalgamation started many years ago. MWIN was founded by members of the Ontario Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) who felt a locally-based association could provide added value to members. Bacopoulos met about 12 years ago with John Hanson — the former Executive Director of the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) — but the new association quickly fell apart. MWIN was formed a few years later with Bacopoulos as president.

Recently, MWIN conducted research and held strategic meetings about its direction and services. The recent economic downturn underscored the difficulty of trying to maintain many waste management associations; municipal staff cannot afford to donate their time and pay dues to numerous associations. OWMA also thought strategically about creating an amalgamated waste association. MWIN went back to its members and conducted a poll. The majority supported an OWMA relationship.

Jim Graham, OWMA Chair, said that the new association will pro-

32 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

MWIN Executive Director Maryanne Hill (centre) was thanked for her years of service and given flowers by MWIN board members Peter Veiga (left) and Angelos Bacopoulos (right). Hill has been offered a position with the newly amalgamated OWMA organization.

vide one unified voice via which the industry can talk to regulators.

OWMA Executive Director Rob Cook reminded the audience that there are opportunities for committee membership and committee chairs.

“We seek board membership from organizations both big and small,” said Cook.

Blair McArthur, Past Chair, described the new organizational structure that will include private, public and associate members. There will be three councils beneath a Caucus Council that reports to the board.

Each council is chaired by two council chairs (who are board members).

Caucus council is ad hoc, with six members, to resolve policy differences between the councils.

For more information, visit www.owma.org

Insight. Ideas. Innovations.

www.cwre.ca

October 28 - 29, 2009 Vancouver Convention & Exhibition Centre Vancouver, BC

INSIGHT. IDEAS. INNOVATIONS. Dynamic Seminars. Educational Tours. Networking Events.

Waste Disposal & recycling facility Tour

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27: 8:30 A.M. — 5:00 P.M.

Wednesday October 28th, 2009 MOrNING SESSIONS: 9:30 A.M. - 10:15 A.M. S1: Compost: From Start to a Winning Finish S2: Hazardous Waste Compliance Improvement Project S3: GHG from A to Zee – An Update S4: Chemical Management Plan and PCB Regulations – the New Federal Guidelines MOrNING SESSIONS: 10:45 A.M. - 11:30 A.M. Plenary Session: FREE to CWRE Attendees Getting to 50% Diversion: Success Stories from Canadian Municipalities AfTErNOON SESSIONS: 2:15 p.M. - 3:00 p.M. S5: Contracts - How are Yours in These Times of Crises?

Thursday October 29th, 2009 MOrNING SESSIONS: 9:30 A.M. - 10:15 A.M. S13: Markets - Driven by demand or driven by regulation? -The Electronic Stewardship Model S14: Hazardous Wastes & You: New Training Materials for Employees, Employers & Decision Makers S15: Organics - Is the Time Ripe to Incorporate Them in Your Programme?

S16: Disposal Trends from Coast to Coast

Association Sponsored Events Wednesday October 28: 12:00 p.m. — 1:30 p.m.

Canadian Waste & recycling Luncheon Sponsored by British Columbia Environment Industry Association Guest Speakers: Natalie Seaba, Specialist, Snow Removal, Cleaning, & Waste | VANOC Neil Turner, Director, Environmental Approvals & Management | VANOC

S6: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) – The New Tool in Waste Management Planning S7: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) – Shifting Waste Diversion from Local Government to Industry S8: Automated Waste Collection in the Central Okanagan: Lessons Learned AfTErNOON SESSIONS: 3:30 p.M. - 4:15 p.M. S9: Trash Smart –Recycling Energy from Our Waste S10: Winning Nature’s Gold: Compost Markets & Their Development S11: Vancouver’s Decision to Export to the US – The Rationale

S12: International Case Study: United Kingdom

MOrNING SESSIONS: 10:45 A.M. - 11:30 A.M. S17: Transfer Stations - Remodeling for the Teen Years S18: Commodities in the Recycling Market and the Impact on the Waste Industry S19: Cement Based Solidification/Stabilization for Hazardous Wastes and Contaminated Soils – Extended Application and Efficient Regulation as a Presumptive Remedy in BC S20: WTE or EFW: Waste to Energy or Energy from Waste? Which is it?

Where Is the Horse and Where is the Cart?

4:00 p.m.— 5:30 p.m.

SWANA - BC pacific Chapter Meeting/Wine & Cheese reception Sponsored by Solid Waste Association Guest Speakers: Ralph Bischoff, Executive Director SWANA BC Chapter John Lackie, Canadian Representative SWANA International Thursday October 29th: 12:00 p.m.— 1:30 p.m.

Canadian Waste Sector Luncheon Sponsored by: Ontario Waste Management Association Guest Speaker: Honourable Jim Prentice, Federal Minister of the Environment – Invited

Register Today! www.cwre.ca/AD1

CWRE09 SWR Ad Page 2.indd 1

8/14/2009 10:48:05 AM

by John Nicholson, M.Sc.,P.Eng.

WA S T E B U S I N E S S

“By maintaining the status quo, government is stifling the commercialization of innovative technologies that require ‘waste’ as feedstock.”

Rubber Revitalization

Technological innovation outstrips waste regulation

R

ecently I heard of a patent awarded to Chevron U.S.A. Inc. for an oil processing system, a patent application filed by BP Corp. for a chemical process for creating aromatic carboxylic acid, and a Taiwanese inventor receiving a patent for a method of producing a new type of foaming material. The common denominator among the three technologies is that “waste” is the primary ingredient each process.

The Chevron oil processing system uses plastic as the feedstock; BP Corp. needs post-consumer PET; and inventor Kun-Huang Chang from Taiwan requires polyurethane foam in order to manufacture his new material.

The patent work by these three companies represents the growing global focus on the utilization of “waste” into new products. One aspect of the green jobs revolution is the utilization of these types of technologies.

Revitalizing rubber

The rubber products industry generates more than 10 million tonnes of scrap rubber each year. Although 60 per cent of the scrap rubber comes from tires, there’s a vast amount of in-house trim and excess vulcanized rubber wasted during the punching of rubber parts and products.

Speed Up!

Watson Brown HSM Ltd., an England-based firm formed in 1997, has a patented rubber regeneration technology based on the principles of mechanochemistry. Through the use of a high shear mixing (HSM) machine, scrap rubber can be regenerated back to its un-vulcanized form.

An HSM machine applies just the right about of mechanical stress on scrap rubber to reverse the crosslinking (once considered irreversible).

For a rubber product manufacturer, signing an agreement with Watson Brown will mean that scrap rubber is sent off-site for mechanical processing. There is no addition of chemicals, so the rubber compound is returned as if it were virgin material. This relationship with Watson Brown means a rubber product manufacturer reduces costs through the reduction of raw materials and elimination of waste disposal.

The commercially-proven process operates at low temperature to maintain the original polymer properties of the rubber. There are no air or wastewater emissions from the process. Regenerated rubber is returned to the generator for re-use and replaces the need for virgin feedstock.

Watson Brown is proposing to build its first North American facility in Mississauga. Depending on regulatory requirements, the plant will begin operation in the Fall of 2009. When in full production, the

METRO redefines the word ‘waste’ • B y focusing on the recovery of recyclable materials before reaching the waste stream • Maximizing the value of the recyclable materials • Identifying efficiencies • Developing new markets for new materials

Weigh loads accurately in motion with our Forklift Scales.

Call: 800.561.9461 or 514.695.0380

• Digital en route weighing • Optimal convenience • Immediately record data • Dependable results • Increase efficiency • Maximize profits Learn more. Call toll-free 800.561.9461 or go to www.averyweigh-tronix.ca

Together, we can redefine the word ‘waste’ and become Green…by Nature.

METRO Waste Paper Recovery Inc. is Canada’s largest collector, processor and marketer of recyclable materials.

Serving Industrial, Commercial, Municipal and Graphics markets across Canada and the US for over 30 years.

canadasales@awtxglobal.com

Toronto Office: (416) 231.2525 • Toll Free: 1.877.226.6608 www.metrowaste.com ©2009 Avery Weigh-Tronix LLC

34 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

WTC-125 79-040902 Forklift Scale Ad Solid Waste & Recycling

Mississauga facility will be capable of processing 7,200 tonnes of rubber per year and employ 46 “green collar” staff. Watson Brown estimates that up to 20,000 tonnes of excess rubber is generated in Ontario alone. There is potential for up to five more HSM facilities in Ontario which would provide 200 direct jobs.

Regulation

A major challenge facing companies that utilize waste in their feedstock is environmental regulation. Designed to prevent the misplacement of waste, the regulations in many Canadian jurisdictions require new technology companies to obtain permits for waste management, handling, and disposal.

For a cautious regulator, burned in the past by fraudsters who filled up leased warehouses

with tires and promptly fled, the easy way is to continue with the status quo definition of “waste” and requirements for special approvals to handle and process it.

By maintaining the status quo, government is stifling the commercialization of innovative technologies that require “waste” as feedstock.

With global competition for high-end manufacturing jobs, the ability of companies like Watson Brown that can close the recycling loop and save manufacturers money should be welcomed. Imposing regulatory requirements on these high-technology companies that were meant for transfer stations and landfills is not

the way for a jurisdiction to attract “green jobs.”

The added cost and time associated with obtaining an environmental permit, in some cases, may result in a company not securing financing for a project.

In the case of Watson Brown, the company is currently in discussions with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment about its technology and the planned facility. Due to the fact that the there are no air and water emissions from the process, the company already has clients lined up eager to save money and eliminate waste in rubber product production.

John Nicholson, M.Sc., P.Eng., is a consultant based in Toronto, Ontario.

Contact John at john.nicholson@ebccanada.com

“By far the best mixed-container line in the province” Jake Westerhof, Director of Business Development, Canada Fibers Ltd. standing beside the newly installed 8 tph Bollegraaf Mixed Container system at City of Hamilton MRF operated by Canada Fibers Ltd.

Improving

Innovative

1st Film Grabber in North America 1st Film Air system in Canada 1st TiTech Optical NIR sorter installed in a MRF in Ontario 1st Eddy Current installed immediately after the pre-sort

Over 8 tonnes per hour throughput Over twice the production of the previous system Only 60% the staff of the previous system Almost twice the capture of aluminum over the previous system Over 93% PET mechanically removed with only 1 QC sorter Incoming 5% film successfully removed

Bollegraaf Systems

▪ Lubo Screens ▪ TiTech Optical Sorting ▪ ▪ ▪

The Exclusive North American Distributor of Bollegraaf Equipment 78 Halloween Blvd., Stamford, CT 06902 P: 203-967-1100 F: 203-967-1199 A sister company of Lubo USA, LLC

▪ ▪

E-mail: info@vandykbaler.com

Web: www.vandykbaler.com

August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 35

“B

by Paul van der Werf

C O M P O S T I N G M AT T E R S

“If salt content is the best they can come up with, in a reliable fashion or otherwise, they haven’t found very much.”

The Green Bin Controversy Not a wasted effort

R

ecently after spending a long week in Kananaksis, Country Alberta helping with the development of a new region-wide recycling system I found myself back in London at our annual Sunfest musical festival. At the behest of my wife I volunteered on behalf of TD Friends of the Environment at an Ecostation and spent the evening basically doing what I do all week — making sure people put the right thing in the right garbage can.

It was pretty impressive to see how far festivals have come. From the gory days of the polystyrene container black hole to compost-friendly

Norseman’s Green Bin Plus

36 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

paper plates and food containers and cutlery made out of compostable plastics. Festival goers were for the most part pretty impressed. It’s heartening to see firsthand that the diversion of organic waste has made such inroads. It feeds into what many people want to do — which is the “right thing.”

Despite people’s goodwill, we’re running the risk of turning people against composting. A recent series of Toronto Star articles (“Green Bins: A Wasted Effort,” July 4, 2009) on Toronto’s green bin program have certainly brought the issue to a head in that city. The timing, to coincide in the middle of a strike that has seen garbage collection halted, is no coincidence.

The Star articles present a muddled and distorted assessment of the city’s green bin program, suggesting that green bin wastes are either landfilled, incinerated or killing plants. That’s certainly how the average person would read it, so cloistered are these articles in their negativity. It creates the story that green bin wastes are not composted. It’s the kind of urban myth that can take on a life of its own and spread very quickly and far beyond Toronto. It creates an unnecessary cynicism in a population that doesn’t want to be cynical about these things.

Canada’s largest city, admired but mostly disparaged in the rest of the country, launched its green bin program in 2002. It’s easily Canada’s largest such program with over 500,000 households serviced with another 500,000 multi-residential households on deck. The service caters to a fairly broad definition of organic wastes, including such items as diapers and pet wastes. For ease, it allows its residents to use non-degradable plastic bags in kitchen containers and green bins.

In terms of allowing plastic bags, Toronto’s approach is similar to that of Edmonton. Edmonton has a dedicated waste stream that it sends to its composting facility and whose system includes significant up front processing to remove non-compostable waste. It’s also not dissimilar to Moncton’s composting program, where residents sort organic wastes into a “wet” stream they put in a plastic bag before placement at the curb. Toronto has a narrower set of allowable feedstocks that are, save for the plastic bags, entirely (or at the very least partially) compostable.

The key challenge Toronto has faced has nothing to do with plastic bags, diapers, kitty litter, salt or unpromulgated composting guidelines.

No, Toronto’s biggest challenge has been to match the success of its collection program with its processing capacity. Aspects of this have been discussed in a previous column (“The Capacity to Succeed,” February/ March 2007 edition) and more recently in an article entitled “The State of Composting in Ontario” (visit www.2cg.ca/articles.html).

Toronto has been searching for processing capacity and trying to develop enough. Every composting facility has what I like to call a “carrying capacity” — this is the tonnage of organic waste it can receive and compost in a “nuisance free” manner. What has happened in some cases is that compost facilities were ill equipped to handle and process the amount of this type of waste they received. Although this is cold

C O M P O S T I N G M AT T E R S

comfort for residents impacted by composting facilities, Toronto has plans underway to construct two large facilities of its own, patterned after an updated version of their successful Dufferin Organics Processing Facility. It will be designed to handle two-thirds of Toronto’s green bin waste. The first of these two facilities is set to open in the spring of 2011.

The Star articles imply that compost derived from green bin is toxic to plants. A ECC Half Ad/AB 8/14/09 10:59 AM Page 1 high and incorrectly reported sodium content was the biggest criticism of Toronto’s green bin compost. Quite frankly, if salt content is the best they can come up with, in a reliable fashion or otherwise, they haven’t found very

much. Sodium is not a regulated parameter and it’s established industry practice to inform users to dilute their composts liberally.

Parameters such as metals, maturity and pathogens are far more important indicators of compost quality. The “garbage” that goes into the composting process ends up coming out as compost.

The mainstream media, including the newspapers many of us read avidly, will from time to time build a story by shining the darkest light they can find on disparate events and occurrences and knitting them together to form some gloomy critical mass that’s then used to try and define an issue. There’s a real

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE

Thursday, November 5, 2009 Lambton Golf and Country Club, Toronto, ON (10 minutes from Pearson Airport)

To Register or for more Information, Phone: 416-510-6867 Email: ecologevents@ecolog.com Web: www.ecologevents.com/ecc Sponsors:

danger in this, particularly when our own industry’s words are taken and twisted into the story so we essentially end up condemning ourselves.

As I finish this column I find myself in Kananaskis Country once again, on my way to Highwood/Cataract, passing by Lemon Mine in a Travels with Charley kind of reverie. It occurs to me that we need to write the proper and true story ourselves — before someone again writes it for us.

Paul van der Werf is president of 2cg Inc. in London, Ontario.

Contact Paul at www.2cg.ca

The conference will focus on two environmental issues in Ontario: the proposed amendments to Ontario Brownfield Regulation 153/04; and Extended Producer Responsibility and Zero Waste initiatives under Ontario’s Waste Diversion Act. There will also be a round table on the Green Energy Act and its application to waste facilities and brownfield sites.

One full-day, two simultaneous tracks followed by a round table.

Early Bird Registration is $459.00 before October 1, 2009. SAVE $100!

Registration includes meals.

August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 37

by Rosalind Cooper, LL.B

R E G U L AT I O N R O U N D U P

“On May 20, 2009, Éco Enterprises Québec created an online reporting and payment system for container and packaging fees.”

Waste Initiatives across Canada Alberta’s Paint and Paint Container program

The Paint Stewardship Program was introduced in Alberta in April of 2008. At the time, there were approximately 100 collection sites for paint and paint containers. Since that time, the program has expanded considerably and there are currently 209 collection sites in 94 municipalities.

Due to this expansion, a decision was made to increase the environmental fees associated with the sale of containers as of August 1, 2009.

The fees were initially established on the basis that 1.5 million litres of paint would be collected in the first year of the program; however, almost two million litres of paint were collected.

The environmental fees collected at the point of sale will increase for two of five paint categories. An increase of 25 cents for all containers over one litre and up to five litres will be implemented so as to raise the fee to 75 cents for containers in this category, and an increase of $1 for all containers over five litres and up to 23 litres will be implemented so as to raise the environmental fee to $2.

Manitoba’s Packaging and Printed Paper Program Plan

Multi-Material Stewardship Manitoba has released a revised Packaging and Printed PaperVC2336 Program Plan for public comment. plan was Walinga 6/11/07 2:36 PM ThePage 1 developed in response to the Packaging and Printed Paper Regulation 195/2008, enacted

N O W

in December, 2008 under the Waste Reduction and Prevention (WRAP) Act, and establishes requirements for a stewardship program for packaging and printed paper materials sold for use in Manitoba.

For the plan to be approved, five program components must be in place. First, the plan must include a formula for service providers that reflects the range of program conditions across the province and promotes recycling program effectiveness and efficiency. Second, where community-based collection and recycling services form part of a proposed stewardship program plan for packaging and printed paper, the program operator must fund 80 per cent of the cost of managing designated materials through municipal residential diversion programs.

Third, there must be program support for schools, post-secondary education institutions, public space, and public event recycling designed to minimize waste from packaging and printed paper. Fourth, there must be program support for a comprehensive litter abatement program. Lastly, there must be accurate monitoring and reporting on beverage container sale, recovery and recycling rates.

The plan is expected to commence next year and the focus is on beverage containers, plastic bags and litter. The plan includes $250,000 for a school education program and $50,000 to encourage waste audits.

O N L I N E !

Recycler

www.walinga.com R e c y c l i n g a n d re n d e r i n g a ro u n d t h e w o r l d !

Head office: R.R. #5 Guelph ON Canada N1H 6J2 Tel (519) 824-8520 Fax (519) 824-5651

38 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

70 3rd Ave. N.E. Box 1790 Carman, Manitoba Canada R0G 0J0 Tel (204) 745-2951 Fax (204) 745-6309

6960 Hammond Ave. S.E. Caledonia, MI. USA 49316 Tel (800) 466-1197 Fax (616) 656-9550

R E G U L AT I O N R O U N D U P

Federal EPR for ODS

Environment Canada has published notice of its intent to implement Extended Producer Responsibility Regulations to manage the end-of-life of ozone depleting substances and their halocarbons alternatives. The proposed regulations will cover chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, as well as their halocarbon alternatives (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) used in stationary and mobile industrial and commercial air conditioning and refrigeration applications.

Quebec packaging payments online

On May 20, 2009, Éco Enterprises Québec created an online reporting and payment system for container and packaging fees. The Environment Quality Act in Quebec provides that companies may be required to pay a portion of the costs of recycling containers, packaging and printed matter that are used to mark their products.

Industry associations such as Éco Enterprises Quebec are responsible for establishing fee schedules that are subject to government

approval, and then collecting fees from member companies pursuant to Quebec’s extended producer responsibility program. There are interest charges that apply for late reporting, and a schedule of contributions sets the dates after which penalties will be imposed. Penalties are 10 per cent of the contribution owed, and can increase to 20 per cent if Éco Enterprises Québec has to pursue legal action to collect the dues. Éco Enterprises Québec submits the collected fees to Recyc-Quebec, which provides the funds to municipalities to assist in paying for up to 50 per cent of the costs of curbside recycling programs. With respect to written media (which is distinguished from printed matter in delivering news, opinion or comments at fixed intervals), a different industry association, ReycleMédias, collects dues.

The owner of a brand, name or distinguishing guise is required to pay dues in relation to containers and packaging used for marketing a product under its brand in Quebec; containers and packaging identified by its brand; and printed materials identified by its brand. If the

owner of the brand has no place of business in Quebec, the first supplier may be required to pay the dues. Containers and packaging that are added to a product in a retail outlet are exempt from dues unless that outlet is operated under franchise from the brand owner or pursuant to a similar arrangement. Containers and packaging generally include materials used to contain, protect, wrap or present a product at any point in the supply chain.

There are three important exceptions to the requirement to pay dues. First, where consignment systems or recycling programs are already in place, participating companies are exempt.

Second, companies that have only one retail outlet or have revenues under $1 million are exempt. Third, companies producing less than one tonne of covered materials are exempt.

Rosalind Cooper, LL.B., is a partner with Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, with offices across Canada. Ms. Cooper is based in Toronto, Ontario. Contact Rosalind at rcooper@tor.fasken.com

© 2008, GAC

How do you transform garbage into a resource?

Ask Golder.

We see solutions where others don’t.

Effective waste management today requires innovation and good planning. With more than 40 years in the waste business, Golder’s comprehensive consultancy can help. We work with you to develop solutions affording the right balance between social, economic and environmental sustainability. That means state-of-the-art landfill services, including landfill gas systems; but it also means innovations like waste planning, alternative treatment technologies, renewable energies, carbon management, sustainability consultation, management consulting, program management and data management and analysis tools. A World of Capabilities Delivered Locally.

North America + 1 800 275 3281

solutions@golder.com www.golder.com/waste August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 39

PRODUCTS Industrial mat with recycled content

New Pig Corporation has re-introduced their original PIG® Universal Mat for effective clean up and absorption of leaks, spills and drips — now with 50 per cent recycled polypropylene content to help reduce environmental impact.

The eco-friendly PIG® Universal Mat still retains all of the features that have made it the most popular mat on the market. Ideal for both small cleanup tasks and larger spills, the mat is available in size, weight and packaging options for virtually any application. For more information on other PIG® products with recycled content, or to find out what mat is best for specific applications, a selection guide is available.

In 1985, New Pig invented the first contained absorbent, the Original PIG® Absorbent Sock, changing leak and spill management for-

ever. Built around its award-winning Pigalog® catalogue, innovative product line, and legendary service, the company has thrived. Now a multi-channel, multi-brand supplier of innovative liquid management solutions and industrial maintenance products to industrial, institutional, and government facilities in over 70 countries, PIG® products, services, and technical expertise help workplaces stay safe, clean, and save time and money.

Visit newpig.com

Little loader packs a ton

The PUP side loader from Wayne Engineering packs a ton and fits on a conventional one-ton truck. It specializes in routes where larger loaders can’t go or aren’t practical, such as parks and recs, beaches and resorts, campuses, zoos and mobile home parks. An optional barrel dumper

40 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

speeds and simplifies collections while reducing the risk of injury inherent in lifting heavy loads.

Fulleject unloading removes packed waste from the PUP without body tipping. Standard body size is 6 cu. yds. The PUP is available in truckmounted or trailer mounted models.

Wayne Engineering has been a leading manufacturer of refuse trucks for nearly 50 years. Their product line includes a range of CDL and FET exempt trucks and lightweight units perfect for rural routes, low clearance areas, gated communities, and anywhere bigger, heavier trucks can’t maneuver. Today, Wayne Engineering’s trucks are found in almost every U.S. city and are sold worldwide.

Sister company Wayne Sweepers manufactures a full line of mechanical and PM-10 certified street sweepers.

Visit www.wayneusa.com

P R O D U C T S T E WA R D S H I P

Debra Hebert (Patrick Hebert’s mother) at the first tree planting when 50 trees were put in the ground.

Ring Ring!

New organization recycles cell phones

T

he collapse of scrap metal commodity pricing in late 2008 forced Patrick Hebert to discontinue the operation of Thriftopia.com in Barrie, an organization that provided free computer and electronic recycling services to the public and that employed people with special needs. The added complexity of working within the Ontario Electronic Stewardship (OES) program and challenges in obtaining information from downstream partners contributed to his decision to “pull the plug.”

Following the company’s closure, Hebert was retained by MaSeR Canada to compile that company’s documentation for the OES until MaSeR’s bankruptcy and sale in April, 2009. Having had no success in obtaining gainful employment in the electronic recycling field, Hebert decided to try his luck once again as an entrepreneur by offering cell phone reuse and recycling services to the Barrie and Orillia communities (with the goal of eventually extending collection to other regions).

With a low 12 per cent diversion rate, nearly one million cell phones are estimated to be retired each month in Canada by the country’s nearly from each cell phone collected to fund the planting of a tree seedling 21,000,000 wireless subscribers. The upcoming switchover by Bell and on public land. To date, many trees have been planted with a target of Telus from CDMA to GSM technology and the introduction of handsplanting an additional 1,000 trees by fall. free laws in many Canadian jurisdictions may increase the rate of obWith collection bins located at both Barrie Canadian Tire stores, the solescence.

Barrie and Orillia campuses of Georgian College, and at three of the four Hebert saw this as an opportunity and so he founded CellCycle.ca Zehrs Markets stores in Barrie, CellCycle.ca has now diverted several While many other cell phone recycling options are available in hundred cell phones from landfill while preventing non-OECD country Canada, most are not forthcoming with details about where the phones processing. Discussions with a national electronics retailer, Canada’s ultimately end up. Hebert is concerned that some may in fact be prolargest grocery chain, and a national bank are ongoing to establish a cessed in developing nations to the detriment of their population. Prior comprehensive, accessible and convenient network of locations where to launch Hebert established relationships with companies that are recthe public can dispose of cell phones on routine shopping trips rather ognized by the Basel Action Network as reputable processors. than having to make special trips to recycle.

“I can say for certain,” says Hebert, “that all phones collected CellCycle.ca is seeking additional sites to host collection bins, offers through CellCycle.ca are processed only in OECD countries.” custom-branded solutions and will support any cause of choice with a Phones that are identified as reusable or that contain reusable portion of proceeds generated. Ideal hosts include multi-tenant office components are refurbished for reuse in the USA and sold to users in complexes, multi-tenant residential buildings, fast-food outlets, postCentral and South America, while non-reusable phones are processed secondary institutions, and mass merchants. in Sweden.

Pub−2009−E.jpg For more information, email recycle@cellcycle.ca or To offset the carbon generated by the manufacturing and recycling visit www.cellcycle.ca of each cell phone, CellCycle.ca uses a portion of the money earned

August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 41

NEWS

Glad campaign during Toronto strike

Clorox gave away free garbage bags to help Torontonians through the city-wide garbage strike that occurred this summer. The city had asked residents to double bag their garbage and collect recycling in clear plastic bags, so Glad donated 25,000 Easy-Tie garbage bags and clear recycling bags.

Two Toronto union groups representing more than 26,000 workers, including garbage collectors and office staff, went on strike 26 days ago to protest proposed cuts in benefits and sick pay. As a result, Toronto residents had to store their waste at home or take it to temporary dump sites in parks and hockey arena parking lots.

The Clorox Company of Canada Ltd. also created a “Clean-up Crew” to distribute the bags to Torontonians at various locations, with a list of times and locations at GladToTheRescue.com, which also housed links to news updates, garbage tips and maps of dumpsites. Glad also handed out information pamphlets with tips on how to manage

Glad Clean-up Crew distributes bags and literature

Continuous Clean Energy Power Plant

Rediscover

what you’re made of at Golder

Greey EnWaste

Discover the challenges and opportunities of joining one of the most respected ground engineering and environmental services teams in the world. We’re looking for experienced high-performing professionals to work on projects at home and abroad. We have an immediate opening in Ontario for a:

unit of Greey CTS Inc.

David Greey, P.Eng

Waste Management Consultant (Whitby, Ontario) Golder’s dynamic Waste team is currently looking for a Waste

Baycon-HMM

EMail:greey.enwaste@rogers.com

416-595-0535

BIO REACTOR AD

8/2/06

3:25 PM

Page 1

Reduce - Reuse - Replenish Putting waste to work!

GREEYENWASTE/MC7562/SWR.indd 1

12/2/08 9:32:53 AM

Management Consultant with five years of experience who is 12/1/08 3:12 PM Page 1

committed to serving our business and growing with our team.

For more information about opportunities at Golder, visit our website at: www.golder.com/careers

BAYCON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Baycon Environmental offers personalized, responsive service, budget sensitive project solutions and years of invaluable project management experience.

• Site Remediation • Site Services & Site Clearing • Mold Abatement • Asbestos Abatement

Ph: 613-538-2776

www.laflecheenvironmental.com 42 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

• Phase I, II, III env. assessments • Demolition • Licensed under M.O.E.E • Licensed under T.S.S.A

www.Baycon.ca Telephone: 416.405.8880 • Fax: 416.405.8830

NEWS

garbage during the strike and a coupon to save $1 off any Glad trash product.

Full-page ads in local papers promoted the giveaways and directed people to the website.

The ad featured a parachute attached to a box of Glad garbage bags against the Toronto cityscape. DDB Canada handled the creative, PR and website for the initiative

New CEO named to Veolia solid waste division

Veolia ES Solid Waste, Inc. has appointed Jim Long to the position of president and CEO of that organization. He replaces former CEO Richard Burke, who was recently promoted to president and CEO of Veolia Environmental Services North America Corp. (VESNA).

Long is responsible for the management of one of the largest waste services companies in North America. Long was president and CEO of ATC Transportation, which was sold to Veolia Transportation North America in 2005. He also served in various finance and operational leadership roles during his 13 years with Waste Management in Europe and the US. Most recently he was a partner with Pebble Creek Partners, focused on improving

THE

The AMRC is now the MWA... with a new website to match our new name

www.municipalwaste.ca

CompuWeigh

™

SYSTEM

offers Superior Software and Service for:

Project1

11/13/06

10:28 AM

Page 1

Landfills Transfer Stations Recycling MRF Routing Container Tracking Dispatching

Call us for a FREE internet demo at (410) 329 1300 or download it from our website at:

ParadigmSoftware.com

Setting the standard in Solid Waste Software...

August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 43

NEWS client’s business results across all industries.

Visit www.VeoliaES.com

Grocer issues fewer bags with fee

A month after implementing a five-cent fee for single-use bags, Metro grocery stores have distributed 70 per cent fewer bags compared

to the monthly average. Metro introduced the fee for single-use bags at grocery stores in Quebec and Ontario on June 1, 2009. Since then, demand for reusable bags has increased by five times. Selena Fiacco, a spokesperson with Metro Ontario Inc., said that the results are encouraging because they confirm that

Find your green.

• Private & Public Sectors • Waste diversion planning • Residential, IC&I and • Composting, MBT, C&D waste streams Recycling, , E-Waste • Waste auditing

2cg

Paul van der Werf, M.Sc. | 519-645-7733 | 877-801-7733 | 2cg.ca

HMI

Arrests in Site 41 protest

Inc.

Waste Management Consulting Services

Management Solutions

2460 Concession 6, Greenwood, ON L0H 1H0 Tel: 416-388-1133 email: bobmarshall@rogers.com

⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

customers are willing to change their shopping habits. The company aims to reduce the distribution of single-use grocery bags by 50 per cent by the end of 2010. In Ontario, 4.2 billion bags are distributed every year, according to estimates by the Recycling Council of Ontario.

Visit www.metro.ca (This news item first appeared in our affiliate environmental news service EcoLog. For more information, visit www.EcoLog.com)

Ina and Keith Woods (centre)

CONSULTANT ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

Things have heated up at a protest against a landfill proposed for Tiny Township in Simcoe County, Ontario. An elderly, retired farm couple are among eight people being charged Helping Manage Industry by police in relation to the protest at what the protesters call “Dump Site 41.” Ina Wood, 76, Leaders in Municipal, Planning & Environmental Law and her husband Keith, 82, are charged with mischief.

For more information, contact: Opposition to the landfill includes First James Ayres Nations people, the local agricultural comCertified by the Law Society of Upper munity and certain Georgian Bay cottagers. A Canada as a Specialist in Municipal rally July 25 attracted 2,500 people and was and Environmental Law addressed by former Toronto mayor David 416 869 5967 or Crombie, Timmins-James Bay MP Charlie jayres@casselsbrock.com www.casselsbrock.com Angus and Georgian Baykeeper Mary Muter.

Construction at the site, which was to open this fall, has been halted since July 6, when the Anishinabe Kweag (women) from CASSELS BROCK/MC7575/HMM.indd 1 1/22/09 11:30:21 AM Beausoleil First Nation decided to block the gates. Simcoe County has obtained an interim injunction and is seeking $160,000 in damages from Vicki Monague of Beausoleil and dairy farmer Anne Ritchie Nahuis. Argument on a permanent injunction was to be heard August 13-14.

Operations Strategic Planning Procurement Project Management

44 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

RFP & Bid Evaluations Cost Control Maintenance Programs Design & Layout

Advertisers’ Index Company

Page #

August/September 2009

Company

Page #

AECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Norseman Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

AMRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Paradigm Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Avery Weigh-Tronix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 33 Battery Broker Environmental Services Inc. The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Baycon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Paul Van der Werf (2CG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Protainer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 RBRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Carrier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Recycling Council of Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Cassels Brock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Recycling Equip Council Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Environmental Compliance Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Rehrig Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

EMF Containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Environmental Business Consultants (J. Nicholson) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Fast Pace Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Greey EnWaste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Samuel Strapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Schuyler Rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Sebright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Golder Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 42

Softpak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Gore & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Sustainable Development Technology Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Groundworx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Trout River Trailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Harris Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 HMI Mgmt Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Lafleche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Laurin Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Trux Route Management Systems Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Van Dyk Baler Corp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Vermeer Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Mack Truck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Vogel Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Metro Waste Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Walinga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

TOPIC ALERT timely information that matters

Solid Waste & Recycling Introduces TOPIC ALERT Timely information, with the power to drive your business success.

Now you will have access to the same news information as the business press, hot from the news wires, and Solid Waste & Recycling Topic Alert will be your link, delivering to you only the information that matters to you.

TOPIC SELECTION CUSTOMIZED BY YOU

You select only those topics relevant to your business enterprise and success. We’ll deliver only those news items with the potential to power your achievements. Track competitors, investments, industry events, mergers and acquisitions, and more.

YOU SELECT

From a wide range of topics such as Solid Waste & Recycling, Waste Management, Transportation Logistics and More.

WE DELIVER RIGHT TO YOUR E-MAIL BOX

The Solid Waste & Recycling Topic Alerts you select, are delivered to your e-mailbox at a time and frequency specified by you.

ARCHIVES

Gain Access to thousands of solidwastemag.com articles.

HERE’S HOW

Visit us at solidwastemag.com and select Topic Alert. Start receiving your customized Topic Alerts Today.

Business Information Group, Contact: Melinda Marasigan, Phone: 416 442 5600 ext 3548 Toll Free: 1-866-543-7888, Suite 800 — 12 Concorde Place, Toronto, Ontario M3C 4J2

August/September 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 45

by Laura Zizzo, LL.B.

BLOG

“The government may allow all landfill gas projects to proceed on a “normalized” baseline nationally.”

The Onset of Offset

The new federal draft offset system for greenhouse gases

T

o address climate change, governments are looking at ways to mandate emissions reductions and to put a cost on the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The Government of Canada has announced that a domestic response to climate change will include a cap-and-trade regime with an “offset system.” A cap-and-trade system will limit the emissions of regulated entities. Those entities that emit in excess of their cap can come into compliance by purchasing credits or allowances from other regulated entities that emit less than their caps allow, or from credits created by those outside of the regulated sector (the “trade” in cap-and-trade). The credits created by the non-regulated sector are called offset credits. Potential sources of offset credits include landfill gas projects and projects that create greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the forestry and agricultural sectors.

An offset system should be operational in advance of the full cap-and-trade system to ensure there is enough supply of credits for regulated entities to purchase. As a result, the federal government is moving forward with the development of the Canadian offset system before the regulatory system has been unveiled. Further details about the regulatory regime, it promises, will be released in the coming months.

The offset system opens the door to a more lenient interpretation of when offsets will be allowed. On June 10, 2009, Environment Canada released the long awaited draft rules and guidance documents to develop and implement its proposed offset system for greenhouse gases.

The draft documents released include the Program Rules and Guidance for Project Proponents and the Program Rules for Verification and Guidance for Verification Bodies, which will provide guidance to both offset project developers and those wishing to be accredited as verification bodies. The draft version of Canada’s Offset System for Greenhouse Gases: Guide for Protocol Developers was published on August 9, 2008.

Final versions of all three guides are expected in the fall of 2009, after comments have been received and addressed. The release of the final guides will launch the offset system. Offsets created under this system may be sold for compliance purposes into a future federal cap-and-trade regime and may also eventually be eligible for compliance purposes in other countries, including the United States.

The newest draft documents indicate that projects that began on or after January 1, 2006 will be eligible to create credits for reductions achieved on or after January 1, 2011. These documents suggest 46 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2009

that the crediting system will not be up and running until January 1, 2011. Previous iterations of the government’s plan suggested projects that began on or after January 1, 2000 would be eligible and reductions achieved on or after January 1, 2009 could earn credits. The previous plan also indicated that the regulatory system would be up and running

by January 1, 2010.

Normalized baselines Significantly, the draft documents indicate that the government will consider the use of normalized baselines for certain offset protocols. This means that in order to quantify the amounts of emissions reductions that the project will realize, it may not always require site-specific data, but may apply normalized baselines based on national statistics.

The draft Program Rules and Guidance for Project Proponents state that the use of normalized baselines may be required to ensure that the offset system does not significantly disadvantage proponents in jurisdictions that have been more proactive in regulating greenhouse gas reductions. This could have interesting implications for landfill gas and waste diversion offset projects. In some provinces laws exist or are being developed to require landfill gas capture. In these provinces, projects may not pass the offset system requirement that reductions be surplus to all legal requirements. In order to address inequalities in provincial legal requirements and to prevent perverse disincentives to regulate, the government may allow all landfill gas projects to proceed on a “normalized” baseline nationally. This is good news for project proponents in more proactive jurisdictions, but may raise concerns over the environmental integrity of these offset credits.

The release of the draft documents provides some reassurance that a greenhouse gas regulatory system is developing. However, the federal government has clearly indicated that changes may be necessary to ensure compatibility with a future U.S. system and the bourgeoning global market.

More information, including links to the draft documents, can be found on Environment Canada’s website, www.ec.gc.ca Laura Zizzo, J.D., is a lawyer with her own practice in Toronto, Ontario focused on climate change law and policy. She can be reached at laura@laurazizzo.com

STOP AND GO – ON YOUR OWN TERMS Never having to stop to clean your Diesel Particulate Filter is the competitive advantage you get with the new Mack® TerraPro™ Cabover.

Our solution automatically initiates thermal regeneration while you work, cleaning the soot that collects in the DPF. This saves you time and money, and improves the efficiency of your workforce. And with its powerful, fuel-efficient MP7 engine – it’s clear the TerraPro is engineered to keep you moving forward.

MACKTRUCKS.COM ©2008 Mack Trucks, Inc. All rights reserved.

MCKTRK_4599_TProMRPg_SWR.indd 1

10/13/08 10:50:24 AM

R e c y c le y o u r

rec har gea ble bat ter ies

and cell phones

W hether at home, work or play, rechargeable batteries and cell phones are part of our lives.

O nce they no

longer hold their charge, recycle them.

C all 2R ecycle supplies free collection boxes for your workplace as well as at drop-off locations at retail and within your community.

Go to www.call2recycle.org to register your business for free and to find nearby participating collection sites.

You can also recycle at any participating hardware supply store:

877-2-RECYCLE