Solid Waste & Recycling August September 2010

ng te ni as ai W y Tr 14 e r st ag du p In —

Solid Waste & Recycling Canada’s magazine on collection, hauling, processing and disposal August/September 2010 $10.00

CPMP No. 40069240

An EcoLog Group Publication

SIZING UP PACKAGING A close look at waste data tells a surprising story — page 8

Composting Council of Canada conference program — pages 27-30

+

+

ADDING UP TO

ZERO. Zero waste is more than a buzzword for us. Designed and built by BHS, our patented MSW processing system maximizes the recovery of recyclables and prepares organic waste for further treatment. This organic feedstock is then used to create clean energy using the unique Kompoferm® dry fermentation process. Exclusively distributed in North America by BHS, the Kompoferm® system

®

KOMPOFERM Biogas Systems for the W a s t e I n d u s t r y SYSTEMS

is highly efficient, with low investment costs and high biogas yields. For decades, BHS has designed, engineered and manufactured the most innovative sorting and handling systems for the solid waste and recycling industries. Let us help you prepare for what’s ahead.

See what the global leader can do for you at: www.bulkhandlingsystems.com

What’s next.

Bulk Handling Systems • 3592 West 5th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97402 USA • Tel: 541.485.0999 • 866.688.2066

Solid Waste & Recycling

CONTENTS August/September 2010 Volume 15, Number 4

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

COVER STORY

An Inconvenient Truth

8 Cover art by Charles Jaffé

Experts and policymakers discuss packaging waste as though generation and diversion rates are well documented. A closer look reveals gaps in the data and suggests environmental performance may be much better than is commonly understood.

by John Mullinder

FEATURES

COMPOSTING SUPPLEMENT

TRAINING

COMPOSTING MATTERS

ECO Canada’s industry study in detail.

by Guy Crittenden

14

TRAINING SIDEBAR

SWANA training programs.

by John Lackie

16

20

PACKAGING

Cosmetics container becomes a candle!

by Catherine Leighton

21

35

DIVERSION

Best practices for multi-rez dwellings.

by Anne Boyd

Packaging, pg. 21

27-30

COMPOST TECHNOLOGY BHS’ Kompoferm AD system.

by Guy Crittenden

31

Editorial

4

Products

48

Up Front

6

Equipment

50

Waste Business

46

Ad Index

53

Regulation Roundup

47

Blog

54

NEXT EDITION 38

COLLECTION

Compostable mesh lawn bag.

by Guy Crittenden

The Composting Council of Canada’s annual conference.

DEPARTMENTS

EMISSIONS

Climate change and solid waste.

by Carl Friesen

23

SHOW GUIDE

PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP The case for visible fees.

by Grant Caven

Industry challenges and potential.

by Paul van der Werf

44

Official Show Guide: Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo Wine bottle washing & reuse programs, waste-to-energy, materials handling equipment, collection bags & liners.

Space closing: September 22; Artwork required: September 26.

Advertisers, contact Publisher Brad O’Brien at 1-888-702-1111 ext. 2.

Diversion, pg. 38

Collection, pg. 44

August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 3

EDITORIAL

by Guy Crittenden “The response of Stewardship Ontario (which ducked for cover for weeks) and Environment Minister Gerretsen will likely become a staple item on ‘what not to do’ in public relations courses.”

Lessons from Ontario’s Eco Fee Fiasco

T

he fiasco that was Ontario’s “eco fee” program for household hazardmisunderstandings perpetuated in the media included the silly notion ous wastes, and the ill-informed and mal-intended political debate that the eco fees are charged on materials that are ultimately “consumed” — and subsequent misleading media coverage — that took place in and not recycled (e.g., cleaners, aerosols) when it’s the management of July has damaged the cause of extended producer responsibility (EPR). the used containers (normally bearing chemical residues) for which the Those of us who hope to see true EPR in our lifetime must be naïve, eco fee often pays.

I suppose. Did we expect this vast sea change in the end-of-life manageThe response of Stewardship Ontario (which ducked for cover for ment of products and packaging to transition without a hitch? weeks) and Environment Minister Gerretsen (whose messaging apI’ll try to sort out the mess for readers. peared mixed and weak) will likely become a staple item on “what not In July 2008 Ontario introduced the first phase of the Municipal Hazto do” in public relations courses while Waste Diversion Ontario (the ardous or Special Waste (MHSW) program to divert products like paints, entity that approved the plan) never appeared on the public stage at all. solvents, used oil filters, anti-freeze and batteries from landfills and waterAt about the same time that Canadian Tire (and other retailers) anways. Stewardship Ontario (an industry-based, not-for-profit organization nounced it would stop charging the eco fees (until the mess is sorted created in 2002) established, funded and implemented the program. The out), Minister Gerretsen held a news conference and announced that — wastes are mostly collected at municipal facilities on special drop-off while the program would continue — the confusing eco fees would be days, then sent for safe recycling or disposal, with industry footing the canceled. (And, you guessed it, the Ontario government would pay for bill. This program has diverted more than 20,000 tonnes of haz-waste per the program for three months while it re-thinks the whole situation.)

Meanwhile, the Waste Diversion Act compels year since its inception, and has saved taxpayers industry to pay into the program, so industry an estimated $500 million in costs. quickly pointed out the disconnect in the min On July 1, 2010, Stewardship Ontario exminister’s statement. panded its program to include more wastes, such as aerosols, cleaners, thermometers, fluorescent Two more flaws remain in the program that need rectifying. First (as Miller pointed out) is lights and pharmaceuticals. Before we get into that the stewardship program charges the pro where things went awry, let’s be clear that this producers themselves uniform fees, so there’s no expanded program is highly desirable, assigning financial incentive for a given company to re responsibility for end-of-life management of rethese hazardous materials to producers whose Promo vehicle for Orange Drop — the consumer brand name duce the toxicity of its products; different en enof the hazardous or special waste program. liability concerns will (over time) encourage vironmental performers pay set fees regardless. them to gather more materials and keep them out of the environment.

What’s needed is “individual” producer responsibility in which companThe problem with Phase Two of the program was several-fold. The ies are directly accountable for end-of-life product management. Second first (non-trivial) matter was its roll-out with little or no public education is the fact that opportunities to conveniently and safely dispose of houseprogram on the same day the province introduced the Harmonized Sales hold hazardous wastes are few and far between in many municipalities.

Tax. Within a few weeks this led to a cascade of negative effects. Second, Haz-waste collection days occur only a few times in the calendar year in the program allowed producers to either internalize the costs or pass some places, or require people to visit inconvenient depots with limited them along as a visible “eco fee” at the cash register. As Environment hours of operation during the work week. Those producers need to be Commissioner Gord Miller noted in a special report, the different fees held to recovery targets so they have an incentive to provide more dropon apparently similar items were random and confusing for consumers, off locations and make returning MHSW easier for consumers. who immediately viewed them as a tax, though none of the funds flow All of the above-noted problems can be rectified, and retail “eco to government. The opposition politicians saw their chance to present fees” will not re-appear (the minister says), but the public relations damthe fees as yet another tax grab, and wrongly portrayed them that way in age is immense and now people’s tolerance for such things as a depositsensational news conferences. refund system and return-to-retail (which might be appropriate for cerRetailers were confused as well. Some said the different fees were tain items, such as batteries) will be next to nil. Perhaps most damaging due to different chemical formulations and toxic ingredients in apparis that the political will to introduce sweeping changes (already drafted) ently similar products. Stores inevitably grossly overcharged in some to the Waste Diversion Act may be gone for good. instances, charging vastly more than, say, the one-cent fee that might Let’s just hope that the revised program gets things right. There have been appropriate on a given item. (It didn’t help that the Liberals many not be another chance. started the program on the very same day that the controversial HST (For different perspectives, see articles on pages 20 and 54.) came into effect.) Lost on the opposition was the reality that taxpayers have been shouldering the cost of household hazardous waste disposal Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine. Contact Guy at for decades, and the MHSW program shifts that cost to industry. Other gcrittenden@solidwastemag.com

4 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

cert. # 1038

Helping municipalities achieve their organic waste diversion goals.

Small Kitchen bags for under the counter organics containers*

Tall Kitchen bags for large Green Bins and tall kitchen containers

Accepted for use in municipal jurisdictions across Canada including: Prince Edward Island, Montreal – Quebec Durham Region, Halton Region, Peel Region, York Region, Simcoe County, Niagara Region, Hamilton – Ontario Brandon – Manitoba Strathcona, Spruce Grove, Cold Lake – Alberta Regional District of Nanaimo, Cowichan Valley (ie Ladysmith) – BC

Please contact Glad Canada for additional information (905) 595-8357 *Replacing Small Green "See through" 52ct Plastic Bags that have been discontinued.

Solid Waste & Recycling

UPFRONT

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 divi­ sion of BIG Magazines LP, a div. of Glacier BIG Holdings Company Ltd., a leading Canadian business­to­business information services company that also publishes HazMat Management magazine and other information products.

The magazine is printed in Canada.

Solid Waste & Recycling provides strategic informa­ tion 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.

Canadian Publications Mail Product Sales Agreement No. 40069240 Information contained in this publication has been com­ piled 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 ad­ vice. Reprint and list rental services are arranged through the Publisher at (416) 510­6798.

Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to: Circulation Department, Solid Waste & Recycling 12 Concorde Pl, Ste 800, Toronto, ON M3C 4J2 Call: (416) 442­5600 Fax: (416) 510­5148 E­mail: 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: 1­800­268­7742 Fax: 416­510­5148 E­Mail: jhunter@businessinformationgroup.ca Mail to: Privacy Officer Business Information Group 12 Concorde Pl, Ste 800 Toronto, ON Canada M3C 4J2 Solid Waste & Recycling, USPS 018­886 is published bimonthly by Business Information Group. US office of publication: 2424 Niagara Falls Blvd, Niagara Falls, NY 14304­0357. 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 Canada Periodical Fund (CPF) for our publishing activities. © 2010 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent.

Print edition: ISSN­1483­7714

Online edition: ISSN­1923­3388

PAP Registration No. 10991

OUR TOP LETTERS Dear Editor:

Re: June/July edition As usual, I enjoyed reading the latest issue of SW&R, cover to cover!! Your article on Covanta’s New York EFW facility was of particular interest. Our group toured the facility and was impressed with the volume of Ontario trash being processed. We have been disappointed to note that Covanta has to date failed to invest in processing residual ash for construction products. The smaller Covanta plant in Syracuse is much more visitor friendly and as clean as an Ontario hospital.

I was very interested in you meeting with Gordon McGuinty and your cautious views on the Adams Mine. Our group fought the whole concept of transporting trash hundreds of kilometres north and destroying a valuable renewable resource in a “pitfall”. The concept was fundamentally flawed for a dozen good reasons that you understand very well. Toronto needed and still needs to convert it’s residual trash to clean energy at sites adjacent to the trash source. Distributed clean energy where it is needed and avoiding the cost and environmental impacts of long hauls.

I understand that the zero waste proponents participating in the 24 June AWMA conference in Calgary ran into some very effective arguments from EFW proponents. We all have to learn that there is a great opportunity for both waste management philosophies. (EFW and zero waste to landfill.) By the way, the REM Inc. EFW approach to Wesleyville and Brant County look very good. We have met with their Canadian executive group and their development manager from Spain and we like what we see. We are developing an EFW project for Peterborough with REM (Entech) technology. It combines the best features of gasification and combustion.

Hope to meet you at the official opening of the Durham/York EFW in 2013. Keep up the good work.

Ed. K. McLellan

(You’ll find the Wesleyville/Entech technology covered in this edition in John Nicholson’s Waste Business column on page 46. Speaking of Gordon McGuinty, see page opposite. — ed.)

Nestlé Waters Canada receives award for corrugated use

N

estlé Waters Canada, Canada’s marketshare-leading manufacturer and distributor of healthy beverage choices, and Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd, one of Canada’s largest producers of paper and plastic packaging, have announced that Atlantic Packaging has awarded the Company its 2009 Certificate of Environmental Sustainability Award.

The Certificate of Environmental Sustainability Award recognizes companies that are committed to sustainable packaging practices. In 2009, Nestlé Waters Canada used 100 per cent recycled corrugated trays and pads supplied by Atlantic Packaging for its domestic waters, saving the equivalent of 55,824 mature trees (enough to cover 29 football fields.) This usage also represents the equivalent diversion of approximately 93 truckloads of waste that would have been otherwise destined for landfill.

Visit www.atlantic.ca and www.nestle-waters.ca

The Forest Stewardship Council logo signifies that this magazine is printed on paper from responsibly managed forests. “To earn FSC certification and the right to use the FSC label, an organization must first adapt its management and operations to conform to all applicable FSC requirements.”

Member

For more information, visit www.fsc.org Canadian Business

Press

6 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

OUR NEW BLOGGER: GORDON MCGUINTY!

W

Solid Waste & Recycling magazine’s new blogger:

ell-known waste entrepreneur and businessman Gordon McGuinty will soon appear on our website with his own blog, in which we’ve invited him to expound on various topics including (of course) waste management and environmental issues, and also other matters of interest to himself and readers.

Always a lively and engaging speaker, McGuinty is also the recently published author of the book Trashed: How Political Garbage Made the United States Canada’s Largest Dump about his 14year odyssey attempting to build the Adams Mine landfill project.

An entrepreneur for over 30 years, Gordon McGuinty was responsible for the Rail Cycle North consortium, which included some of North America’s largest rail and waste corporations and was awarded the largest waste management contract in Canada.

For 14 years, McGuinty was the force behind the Adams Mine landfill project as a solution to Ontario’s garbage disposal crisis.

Today, when he’s not speaking to interested audiences, he divides his time between his residence in the mountains of Alberta and his office in Ontario.

Visit www.solidwastemag.com

Gordon McGuinty

T

Edmonton waste centre domes

he Edmonton Waste Management Centre is closing the loop on recycling with the building of a brand new closed-loop facility, housed in two giant eco-friendly domes. The recycling facility will use an eco-friendly process to recycle waste paper, cardboard, white cotton and denim into paper products. Waste glass collected will be recycled into interlocking paving bricks.

Waste paper is collected from 82 City offices and facilities and will be looking for interest from businesses, organizations and municipalities wanting to “join the loop” once the facility opens in early 2011.

Both domes are highly energy-efficient, heavily insulated, and use solar sun pipes for daytime lighting. Waste heat is generated from other facilities at the Edmonton Waste Management Centre.

Visit www.Edmonton.ca/waste

T

The Edmonton Waste management Centre , new closed-loop facility, housed in two giant ecofriendly domes.

Inside the new domed facility.

Eco label monitor

he World Resources Institute (WRI) and Big Room Inc. have released the 2010 Global Ecolabel Monitor — a report and searchable online database to help companies and consumers navigate the “green” claims of different environmental certifications and labels for food and consumer products.

“Demand for products with ecolabels is growing, there is still confusion about which products are truly environmentally responsible,” says Jeff Rodgers, an associate at WRI. “By identifying and comparing the many different standards, the Ecolabel Monitor makes it easier for companies and consumers to reduce their environmental impact.”

In November 2009, WRI and Big Room Inc. invited more than 340 ecolabels in 42 countries to complete a survey of 66 questions ranging from certification criteria to funding sources. More than 113 ecolabel programs participated in the survey while more than half, including some prominent labels, could not be reached or elected not to participate when asked about certification requirements.

The findings and the 340 targeted ecolabels are searchable on www.ecolabelindex.com The website expands on www.ecolabeling.org August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 7

COVER STORY

by John Mullinder “PPEC has demonstrated how enormously significant missing data can be.”

A closer look at packaging waste in Canada

An Inconvenient Truth

W

hat bugs the packaging industry more than any anything else in the continual debate over the role of packaging in society is the virtual lack of recrec ognition of packaging’s overall purpose (to safely and efficiently deliver product) and the fact that most (but not all of it) is perfectly recyclable and/or compostable. What we get instead from the critics is how many tonnes of it (pick a number) are in the waste stream.

Weight is certainly a useful measuring stick for disposal and recycling, but it does not actually measure environmental performance. It measures weight. It was the re-use of wooden pallets and the recycling of corrugated boxes (both heavier materials) that largely determined that Canada’s national packaging diversion target of 50 per cent was met.

In the absence of more credible and recent data, that 1996 Statistics Canada national packaging survey remains the best packaging snapshot we have. It provided a reasonable picture of packaging consumption, re-use, recycling and disposal over a wide range of industry sectors, and Canadian households. Unfortunately, we don’t have any more national packaging statistics because the funds set aside for a subsequent survey 8 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

were swiped by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) for other purposes. Instead, we have biennial waste surveys commonly called WMIS (Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government Sectors) conducted by Statistics Canada.

What’s wrong with WMIS? Well, number one is that it doesn’t cover “packaging” per se, so it’s hard to conclude anything credible about packaging. Rather it covers broad groups of wastes such as organics, tires, construction, renovation and demolition debris, electronics, white goods, mixed paper and newsprint, and a bunch of recyclable streams some of which do include packaging materials (corrugated and boxboard, glass, plastics, ferrous metals, mixed metals, and copper and aluminum). But it’s not clear how much of the glass, metals, aluminum or plastics is actually packaging and how much is non-packaging.

And if we were hoping to make reasonable conclusions about packaging’s overall diversion performance, there is a significant omission: wooden pallets, boxes and crates. The WMIS survey forms do ask for information about wood but no specific results are given in the statistical tables published. Wooden pallets were the single-largest packaging material consumed in 1996 (at 2.5 million tonnes) and had the high-

COVER STORY

est re-use rate (69 per cent). Indeed, the WMIS data virtually excludes the second of the three Rs (re-use) entirely. There’s no recognition of the re-use of wooden pallets or glass beer and beverage bottles collected through Canada’s many deposit/return systems.

Nor can we conclude from the WMIS results how much packaging is actually consumed by Canadians in the first place, how much is re-used, or sent to landfill. The only information we get is an estimated breakout of a limited number of (perhaps) packaging materials that are “prepared for recycling” and an estimate of how much of these materials (in total) came from industrial versus residential sources.

Statistics Canada freely acknowledges other methodological limitations in the WMIS surveys.

Unlike the national packaging survey of 1996, the WMIS surveys go

to haulers in the waste management industry rather than to the actual industry generators of potential waste packaging materials (such as a factory or a supermarket, for example). Statistics Canada recognized way back in 1996 that as a consequence, “much of the recycling that is performed by the industrial sector is underestimated.” And as WMIS notes in its latest survey: “These data do not include those materials transported by the generator directly to secondary processors, such as pulp and paper mills, while bypassing entirely any firm or local government involved in waste management activities.”

The Paper & Paperboard Packaging Environmental Council (PPEC) has demonstrated how enormously significant that missing data can be.

The council claims that just one large Ontario supermarket chain sends over half a million tonnes of old corrugated containers (OCC) through a

“Just one large Ontario supermarket chain sent four times more OCC than all Ontario municipalities combined for recycling in 2006.

But this tonnage is not counted in the WMIS surveys.”

August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 9

COVER STORY

Average Packaging Recycling Rates Canada 45%

EU 15 46%

Sources: NPMS Canada (1996), European Commission (1997).

paper processor direct to a recycling mill every year. Half a million tonnes was four times more OCC than all Ontario municipalities combined sent for recycling in 2006. But this tonnage is not counted in the WMIS surveys. And this is just one supermarket chain, in one province.

While the quality of residential packaging

data has improved immensely in some provinces over the years, the absence of credible and comprehensive national and provincial packaging data (from the IC&I sector, in particular) has given rise to several common misrepresentations about packaging waste in Canada, of which three stand out.

Misrepresentation #1: That packaging is a huge chunk of the waste stream.

The National Packaging Task Force noted approvingly in its Final Report to CCME that packaging represented only 13 per cent of solid waste in 1996. But here we have Ontario Minister of the Environment, John Gerretsen, claiming publicly on at least two recent occasions that “one-third” of what Ontarians send to landfill is packaging.

The minister, or the staff who prepared his speech, have no basis in fact for concluding any such thing. The 2006 WMIS survey, upon which the minister appears to be basing other parts of his statement, does not even break out disposal by broad material group, let alone packaging. And if you follow the tonnage trail, the minister’s claim would mean that Ontario by itself sent 30 per cent more packaging to waste in 2006 than the whole of Canada did ten years earlier. Further, if you back out the 2006 Blue Box packaging tonnages sent for disposal, then packaging alone, according to the

Li’l Fella

WWW.LIL-FELLA.COM

613-534-2289

Waste Container Delivery Unit

, y l l a n The Weight is Over ... the Rear Axle!

Fi Available on a GMC W5500 Truck Chassis or as a kit, ready to install on your own truck chassis.

For delivery and retrieval of standard side-pocket bins up to 8 cubic yards in size and 6,000 pounds in weight.

DELIVERS YOUR WASTE CONTAINERS WHERE NO CONVENTIONAL F.E.L. CAN GO! The Li’l FELLA’s patented design lifts the weight forward of the rear axle.

No need for a costly heavy-duty truck to balance your load — with the Li’l FELLA, it’s already balanced! The Li’l FELLA SAVES YOU MONEY EVERY TRIP! 10 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

Tight Turning Radius The Li’l FELLA has handling that might remind you more of a sports car than a heavy truck.

Pick-up and deliver containers in tight spots — without leaving the cab!

COVER STORY

minister, would represent almost 45 per cent of all the industrial wastes sent for disposal in Ontario that year (including organics, printing and writing paper, white goods, electronics, tires, and construction and renovation debris).

Sorry, that’s not credible.

In the absence of good data, a more acceptable approach might be to assume the same national disposal rate for packaging that Statistics Canada determined back in 1996, and then apply it to Ontario’s 2006 population.

This would yield Ontario packaging disposal in 2006 as just over one million tonnes, a far cry from the minister’s 3.4 million tonnes. And if that one million tonnes of packaging disposal is a reasonable “guesstimate” we can further estimate that packaging may have represented just over 10 per cent of all wastes disposed by Ontario in 2006. That 10 per cent is not too far from the 13 per cent of solid waste that packaging represented nationally back in 1996, and it’s certainly far more credible than the minister’s mystery 33 per cent claim.

Misrepresentation #2: Canada is doing abysmally compared to the Europeans.

Canadians are suitably impressed when they hear European packaging “recovery” rates of 70, 80 or even 90 per cent. What they frequently don’t realize is that the high “recovery” numbers from Europe usually include packaging materials sent to waste-to-energy plants as well. But the countries of the European Commission (EU) also have separate “recycling” data, which while not sometimes comparable among its member states, is more appropriate for comparing Canada’s relative recycling performance.

In 1997, the closest we can get to comparable Canadian data, the average packaging recycling rate for the 15 countries of the European Commission (EU 15) was 46 per cent.

Canada’s recycling rate from a year earlier was basically the same (45 per cent).

The EU has continued to collect and analyze packaging data since 1997, and while there are various disclaimers about its qual-

ity, recycling rates have steadily improved. By 2006, the average packaging recycling rate for the EU 15 had risen to 58 per cent. However, if you take all of the countries of the expanded EU into account (EU 27), the 2006 average was 49 per cent.

Unfortunately, Canada, or more precisely CCME, has chosen not to collect packaging data since 1996 so we have no national data on the generation or recycling of Canadian packaging that we could use to determine progress or even comparisons. There are bits and pieces of data but they are either not packaging per se, not national, or cover residential packaging only.

So there’s no proof that we are doing “abysmally” compared to the Europeans (whichever Europeans we choose to compare ourselves to) and no proof that we might, in fact, be doing better.

Misrepresentation #3: “Industry” is doing a lousy job in diverting packaging waste compared to municipalities.

nits en tal U R & O DE M Cal l for

allu composting tools ALLU Group Inc.

Info Call: 1-800-939-2558 | Email: usa@allu.net www.allu.net

August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 11

COVER STORY

Caring for

Tomorrow’s Generations

Walker Environmental Group - providing sustainable solutions for all your environmental needs.

Composting ■ Biosolids Management ■ Landfill Gas & Renewable Energy Projects Water/Wastewater Design/Build/Operate ■ Environmental Project Management ■ ICI Waste Haulage ■ Waste Transfer & Recycling ■ Landfill Disposal ■ ■

12 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

P.O. Box 100 Thorold, ON L2V 3Y8

905-680-1900 www.walkerind.com

COVER STORY

The genesis for this claim or implication is again suspect interpretation of the WMIS data.

According to the WMIS 2006 survey, Ontarians, for example, diverted only 19 per cent of the wastes they generated (industry achieving a diversion rate of 12 per cent and municipalities 29 per cent). But, of course, this is all wastes, not packaging wastes. And we have already pointed out the flaws and limitations of the WMIS surveys as far as packaging goes.

So to claim or imply, as some municipal representatives have, that industry is diverting only 12 per cent of its packaging waste is clearly false and misleading. Besides: 12 per cent of what? WMIS doesn’t tell you how much packaging is used in the first place.

In fact, according to the national packaging survey, over 70 per cent of all packaging consumed in Canada in 1996 was either re-used or recycled. “Industry” was responsible for 91 per cent of this: all of the packaging re-use (mainly wooden pallets and glass bottles) and

74 per cent of the packaging recycling (principally corrugated boxes).

It’s somewhat hypocritical to discount the re-use tonnes when there was so much pressure from government and environmental groups to include them as a means of “forcing industry to move up the 3Rs hierarchy.” But even if we exclude re-use, “industry” had a good story to tell about packaging recycling back in 1996.

We suspect, but we do not know, that “industry” had an even better story to tell in 2006 (and does so today, just as municipalities should be proud of the more recent surge in residential recycling), but the absence of current Canadian data on packaging consumption, re-use, recycling and disposal (both IC&I and residential) is a major (and frustrating) handicap. Until we get a comprehensive national database that includes data on packaging, the debate will go on and packaging in general will continue to be bad-mouthed by the ill-informed.

Finding taxpayers’ money for establishing

such a database is clearly not a problem when we can spend $1.2 billion on security for the three-day G8/20 summits; $1.9 million for a “fake lake” media centre so that foreign journalists can experience Ontario cottage country from Toronto; $1.2 million to keep the delegates sandwiches safe; and a provincially-run casino and lottery monopoly (Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp.) can splurge over half a million dollars by sending 250 of its senior staff to a gaming conference. No, we have the money, just not the right priorities.

John Mullinder represented the paper packaging industry on Canada’s National Packaging Task Force for 10 years as Executive Director of PPEC, and is currently President and CEO of Paper Packaging Canada. PPEC’s full report, with all ref­ erences and footnotes, is available at www.ppec­paper.com John can be contacted at ppec@ppec­paper.com

Advertisement:

City of Toronto Upcoming Request for (RFP) 6035-10-3120 for Single-Stream Recyclable Materials Processing Services The City of Toronto (the City) will issue a RFP to procure processing services for up to 150,000 tonnes per year of Single-Stream Recyclable Materials (SSRM) for a period of seven (7) years with the option to extend the term for two (2) additional separate twelve (12) month periods. The City requires processing service to be in full production by August 1, 2012.

The Vendor will be required to receive and process SSRM supplied by the City and to produce products from the City’s SSRM in accordance with recycling market specifications.

The Vendor will also be responsible for marketing and delivering products to recycling markets and for the proper management of residue resulting from processing operations. The Vendor must achieve the required recovery rates set by the City. The City will not consider processing services that involve thermal processing for energy recovery including incineration, gasification or pyrolysis. SSRM can be received and processed at more than one site operated by the Vendor but must be dedicated to receiving SSRM supplied exclusively by the City.

The RFP will be issued in August. Should you wish to be notified when this RFP is issued please contact: Ted Justin, Senior Corporate Buyer by email: tjustin@toronto.ca

899 Nebo Road Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L0r 1P0 Tel: 289-639-2702 Fax: 289-639-267 e-mail: info@recycle-city.ca Ministry of the Environment approved Waste Disposal # 3197-7EUDHRT August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 13

by Guy Crittenden

TRAINING

“ECO Canada estimates the current size of the solid waste industry in Canada as likely exceeding 70,000 employees.”

Training for the Future ECO Canada’s Labour Market Research Study

A

s we reported in the last edition (June/July 2010), ECO Canada has published its Solid Waste Management 2010: Labour Market Research Study (June 2010), a project funded by the Government of Canada’s Sector Council Program. The study looks at employment in the solid waste industry and attempts to understand and anticipate future labour and training needs. The project included a survey of 853 organizations and recommendations from a 17-member National Steering Committee (of which the author was a member). The following information is a synopsis of the findings as described in the report’s Executive Summary.

ECO Canada estimates the current size of the solid waste industry in Canada as likely exceeding 70,000 employees (approximately 59,869 private and 9,354 public sector). Between 2004 and 2006, the industry grew 17 per cent in terms of revenues but shrunk by 14 per cent in terms of number of businesses, in part due to mergers and acquisitions.

Based on the employer survey, solid waste employment is expected to grow by an annual compound rate of six per cent over the next three years.

This translates into more than 4,000 new employees, but the classification of jobs will vary widely according to employers: 80 per cent expect increases in the number of labourers (45 per cent) and operators (35 per cent); only 14 per cent of employers expected higher management positions to grow.

For the purposes of the study, the solid waste industry was defined using three main categories of NAICS codes that follow fairly traditional definitions of waste management. New and emerging activities not yet covered by NAICS were also included: anaerobic digestion/biodigestion; landfill gas management; waste-to-energy (WTE). Certain areas were excluded, including agricultural composting, haz-waste management, manufacturing of products from recovered and recycled materials, and wastewater treatment.

The vast majority of positions in the industry were full-time or permanent (about 95 per cent). Labourer and operator positions represent 78 per cent of total employment. Higher management positions were filled (as one would expect) by older, educated workers. The study identified a potential shortfall in qualified people to fill positions as these upper management workers retire in the near to mid-term future. (Consult the study for a more complete description of the labour market.)

Although most (59 per cent) surveyed organizations aren’t currently experiencing difficulties hiring qualified candidates, more than half (52 per cent) expect to encounter hiring difficulties in the next five years.

Fifty-three per cent of survey respondents say their staff turnover is greatest at the labourer level, followed by operators (24 per cent). Only a third of surveyed organizations offered incentive programs to attract and retain staff, mostly in the form of bonuses (49 per cent). (This finding creates an opportunity for employers to distinguish themselves from other organizations.)

The majority of employers currently offered CPR or health and safety courses (60 per cent), followed by in-house seminars (43 per cent), further education/training (42 per cent) and off-site workshops/seminars/conferences (41 per cent).

Industry challenges & trends

Steering Committee recommendations

Regulations were the most important challenge stated by employers that can affect the growth of their organization and impact the solid waste industry. Roughly two-thirds of employers in both the public and private side of the business judge this issue to be very important. Other important challenges mentioned were production and financing challenges.

The global trend is toward replacing traditional waste collection and disposal with sustainable practices and the use of waste as a resource (e.g., for raw materials and energy). Producer responsibility is also a major trend. The use of new technology is expected to drive a need for highly-skilled, specially-trained professionals.

14 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

Key recommendations

The study developed seven key recommendations related to the solid waste industry and its future employment and training needs.

1. Improve the way the solid waste industry is presented to attract future employees with the right skill sets.

2. Develop better succession and knowledge transfer plans to ensure knowledge retention within the industry.

3. Focus on ensuring effective future hiring and retention practices among lower skilled workers (esp. labourers and operators).

4. Investigate the preparedness of training programs for future skills requirements. On-the-job training remains the rule in the industry and training through post-secondary institutions is limited. In addition, employer awareness of Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) training programs was relatively low. (See accompanying article on page 16.)

5. Prepare for the expected increased need for highly skilled workers with the advent of new technology.

6. Further investigate expected government policy and regulation developments as they may affect labour and training requirements.

7. Improve awareness among solid waste workers about ECO Canada and its job board.

The National Steering Committee (NSC), made up of senior solid waste industry members, provided key feedback on the potential future developments and challenges in the industry based on their experience as well as this study’s findings.

The global trend is toward sustainable practices where waste is viewed as a resource and diversion from disposal is a top priority.

Changes in corporate behaviour and well-designed regulations will drive this trend further in Canada.

The waste stream is starting to be viewed as composed of two streams: organic material and waste from products, each of which can be re-used.

TRAINING

ECO Canada web page.

Very different skill sets will be required for managing the two streams.

The technologies of the future can be thought of as falling into two categories: • Back-end technologies for improving management of waste management (e.g., anaerobic digestion, biomass, landfill gas collection, automated collection, recycling facility equipment); and • Front-end solutions to reduce waste (e.g., redesign of products to reduce packaging and facilitate recycling or reuse, more deconstruction centres, public education, product stewardship programs), etc.

Public opinion and perception will continue to impact the evolution of solid waste in the form of support or opposition to proposed initiatives.

A challenge the NSC identified is that there is currently no consistent nomenclature for solid waste industry occupation standards or certification of key occupations. As noted, skills training is mainly delivered inhouse by organizations themselves and soft skills such as leadership and communication are currently in short supply. As a result, skills training will become more important in the future.

There will be a shift in workers from disposal to diversion as Canada moves toward sustainability. Different skill sets will be required. Automation and mechanization have reduced the need for some staff. However, different, higher-level skills will be required related to information technology.

An in-depth understanding of the specific soft skills training needs is required to effectively incorporate them into training programs.

The NSC made the following recommendations based on their experience as well as the study’s findings: • Develop a consistent occupational nomenclature for the industry that creates standards and competencies to support the successful future management of the sector. Standards for occupations and functions would be developed similarly to those created for the Canadian Water/ Wastewater Industry that results in documented National Occupational Standards (NOS). Given the changing nature and requirements of the workforce, an NOS tool will map solid waste occupations to standardized job descriptions and competency requirements.

• Put in place a body for certifying solid waste management training, which must be independent and distinct from those organizations offering personnel in Canada. Certification will add value to solid waste jobs, and

is vital to ensuring that qualified individuals are operating facilities.

In developing a certification model, the following challenges should be addressed: • Determine if certification is intended to address public safety (as in certification for waste water managers) and/or for career advancement; • Verify the voluntary or mandatory nature of the certification process; • Clarify and gain agreement on how certification and training will be funded; • Ensure criteria are relevant to a wide range of situations ranging from rural municipalities to large cities; • Ensure partnerships are created between the training institutions and the certifying body to ensure appropriate training programs are developed and implemented.

NOS and certification will establish standards to maintain a core competency level that supports the development of required skill sets for the continued evolution of the solid waste industry.

Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine. Contact Guy at gcrittenden@solidwastemag.com For a copy of the full ECO Canada report Solid Waste Management 2010: Labour Market Research Study (June 2010) visit www.eco.ca/swm August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 15

by John Lackie

TRAINING SIDEBAR

“SWANA certification is now recognized by governments and industry across North America.”

SWANA Solid Waste Training

F

or over 40 years, the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) has been the leading professional association in the solid waste field. The association serves over 8,000 members in both Canada and the United States, and thousands more with technical training courses, conferences, certifications, and publications. Across Canada, SWANA’s 850 members comprise four chapters: SWANA Atlantic Chapter (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland & Labrador), SWANA Ontario Chapter, SWANA Northern Lights Chapter (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories), and SWANA BC Pacific Chapter.

SWANA certification is now recognized by governments and industry across North America. Through the many activities of its seven Technical Divisions, SWANA has developed numerous training and certification programs. The Divisions are: Collection & Transfer; Communication, Education & Marketing; Landfill Gas; Landfill Management; Planning

GIVE YOUR BUSINESS

& Management; Recycling & Special Waste; and Waste-to-Energy.

SWANA offers more than 40 training programs for both classroom and home/workplace study. The classroom courses run from one to three days, with the certification courses having a three-hour certification exam on the fourth day.

SWANA certification courses (3 day courses) 1. Manager of Landfill Operations (MOLO) The SWANA “Manager of Landfill Operations” course teaches the operator/inspector how to plan, permit, operate, and close a modern sanitary landfill. Issues covered include regulatory requirements, compliance with design and operating standards, waste receiving, operational and safety techniques, and landfill economics as well as environmental monitoring and control of landfill gas, leachate and surface runoff.

AN EDGE Stationary and Self-Contained Compactors Belt Filter Presses • EPS Foam Densifiers Depackaging Xtractors • Dewatering Extruders

USA Made - USA Backed Waste & Recycling Systems Designed per application

MACHINE

SCHUYLER’S RUBBER EDGE

COMPETITOR’S RUBBER EDGE

JD 624H 740 HOURS 350 HOURS CAT 966 768 HOURS 375 HOURS JD 644H 785 HOURS 380 HOURS

OUR CUTTING EDGE CUTS THE COMPETITION IN TWO Recent tests demonstrate that our durable cutting edge lasts twice as long as the leading competitor’s. You’ll save money because you won’t have to replace the blade as often. And fewer replacements mean less down time for your equipment and your employees.

Call 1-800-426-3917 to find out more about our long-lasting cutting edge.

WWW.SCHUYLERRUBBER.COM 16 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010 AD SIZE : 4" X 5"

AD VERSION 1

XTRACTOR

www.brightbeltpress.com www.sebrightproducts.com

269-793-7183 • 800-253-0532 US 269-793-4022 fax • Hopkins, MI 49328

TRAINING SIDEBAR

2. Managing MSW Transfer Systems The SWANA “Manager of Transfer Station Systems” course instructs operators, engineers and managers in all aspects of the design, permitting, construction and operation of a modern transfer station. Included are sections on waste characteristics, types of transfer stations, equipment options, routing, construction materials and techniques, safety, and environmental concerns for various materials handled, including MSW, recyclables, yard waste, bulky wastes, and commercial waste.

3. Construction and Demolition Material This C&D course was developed in cooperation with the Construction Material Recycling Association (CMRA). It will instruct you in the fundamental skills, abilities, and knowledge required by a manager of C&D debris

WELL COVERED.

operations. Through classroom exercises and case studies, individuals will be trained on subjects important for the environmentally and economically sound design and operation of recycling and disposal operations for C&D debris materials. As well, issues such as facilities siting, site design and materials marketing will be reviewed.

4. Managing Recycling Systems This prep course for the Recycling Certification exam will help you to understand the marketing tools of recyclables in order to simplify your system and maximize your revenues.

Recognize the issues that need to be considered when planning, designing and managing waste reduction, recycling and composting systems. Receive hands on instruction and learn about “reduce, reuse and recycle” strat-

egies and initiatives that pertain to municipal waste. Use these tactical methods to apply to and improve your program. In addition, grasp the key concepts of marketing recyclables and explore the basics of system costs, funding and ownership/operation decisions that increase revenue.

5. Managing MSW Collection Systems Be able to collect waste with haste through this prep course for the Collection Systems Certification exam. Receive instruction in different areas of the collection system such as an understanding of the logistics of planning, managing and operating solid waste and recyclables collection services. This course consists of presentations, classroom exercises, and case studies that will enable you to navigate and chart routes more effectively. You

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

gorecover.com August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 17

TRAINING SIDEBAR

will examine waste characteristics, service types, equipment, routing and system design.

Furthermore, learn up to date practices for handling various materials, including residential MSW, traditional recyclables, yard wastes, bulky items and commercial wastes.

6. Managing Composting Programs In this prep course for the Composting Certification exam, issued jointly by SWANA and the U.S. Composting Council (USCC), professionals who manage or would like to manage composting programs will be exposed to the various opportunities for composting municipal, agricultural and industrial waste. This course will enable you to turn your program into a successful and cost effective operation by gaining an understanding in both the composting of materials and the full range of technologies involved in planning, designing and operating composts.

Canadian training opportunities Fall 2010: SWANA Atlantic Chapter: Fall Training Week (October 4-8, 2010), MOLO Manager of Landfill Operations. Visit www.atcanswana.org SWANA Ontario Chapter: Fall Training Week (October 4 to 8, 2010) MOLO Manager of Landfill Operations, Construction and Demolition Materials, Manager of Bioreactor Landfills. Visit www.swanaon.org Future training opportunities, visit www.swananorthernlights.org and www.swanabc.org 7. Principles of Solid Waste Management Solid waste professionals in or hoping to move into a managerial position can help advance their career in leadership roles and responsibilities for multi-component solid waste systems.

This is a helpful prep course for the MSW Systems Management Certification exam. Understand the basics of developing solid waste systems along with management theory and its implications. You will become familiar with

managing financial and human resources to make sound management decisions. Also you will discuss the vital roles of ethics, leadership and the importance of building public consent and media relations.

John Lackie is Canadian Representative to the SWANA International Board and Executive Director of the SWANA Ontario Chapter.

Contact John at j.lackie@sympatico.ca

As Solid Waste Management moves towards sustainable practices . . .

Will there be the right people with the right skills for this critical industry?

Download ECO Canada’s Solid Waste Management report for free at:

www.eco.ca/swm

18 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

ECO CANADA

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.

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

by Grant Caven “Experience has demonstrated that the best way to communicate a message to an individual is through their pocketbook.”

To Fee or Not To Fee? That is Ontario’s question

E

co fees are not new in Canada; in fact they were introduced apretailer the eco fee may be marked up two or three times; a 10 cent eco proximately 15 years ago to fund the British Columbia paint stewfee could costs the consumer 20 cents or more. ardship program. Since then there has been an ongoing debate Some will argue that manufactures are getting a free ride by charging to define responsibilities under product stewardship or extended proconsumers these fees and not bearing the full cost of these programs. ducer responsibility (EPR) programs and how such programs manage However, in the end, the consumer ultimately pays these fees. So the eco fees. Retailers have long stated that they require the flexibility to question becomes: Should consumers know they are paying these fees manage these fees as a separate line item on the cash register tape. On and how much they are paying? the other hand, many provincial governments and consumers would Previous Ontario stewardship program launches did not generate prefer that product brand owners or first importers (stewards) be such widespread media coverage or consumer outrage. Why was responsible to pay these fees and include them in the price of this program launch different? Was it that it launched on the their products. (See articles, pages 4 and 54.) same day as the HST (Harmonized Sales Tax)? The HST has Ontario, being a late entry into EPR programs in a much greater financial impact to a consumer than eco Canada, has made up for lost time by designating and apfees, but its implementation went through with minimal proving numerous stewardship programs for product such media attention. as hazardous waste, tires and electronics in the past few Why the difference? years. The recent July 1 launch of the phase II Municipal The answer lies in program communication. Due to Hazardous or Special Waste (MHSW) program introduced extensive prelaunch advertising, the general public was new eco fees on thousands of consumer products and has familiar with all aspects of the HST. However, Stewardship fuelled the eco fee debate once again.

Ontario (SO) launched its program before the stewards Government fears regarding consumer reaction to these were obligated to pay any program fees, thus SO had little new fees are understandable. Ontarian’s haven’t forgotten money available to conduct a comprehensive public comDavid Peterson’s $5 tire tax that was never used to develop munication initiative. a scrap tire management system in Ontario. Let’s face it: There are also merits to charging a visible eco fee. a visible eco fee on the cash register tape has the look and Experience has demonstrated that the best way to communifeel of a tax, not an industry run stewardship program. cate a message to an individual is through their pocketbook.

Consumers are sceptical of environmental programs If consumers know they have paid a stewardship fee — to that appear to be green washing or have the appearance of responsibly manage unused or end of life products — they a government tax. This scepticism is compounded when are more likely to use the programs they have paid for. new programs are launched before the required collection, Furthermore, once a retailer puts the eco fee on a cash registransportation and processing infrastructure needed to supter tape the financial cost of the program becomes transparent. port consumer demand have been set up.

The current form of stewardship programs may not be The stewards that fund the programs have pushed for perfect. However, the government’s decision on July 20, visible eco fees for two reasons: Visible fees are the least 2010 to prohibit visible fees has the potential to reduce transcostly method of managing program costs; and, they parency, increase overall program costs and increase Mismanaged “eco fees” became provide a level of transparency and program communiconsumer confusion regarding which products require toxic to Ontario’s Liberal cation that a hidden fee does not. special collection and treatment. Visible eco fees are not government in July.

If a manufacturer or an importer incorporated eco popular but they are effective. fees into the price of the product, this fee would increase the cost of their goods. Then, standard business processes would apply mark-ups to both Grant Caven is President of GLA Environmental the actual cost of the product as well as the eco fee cost. Thus, by the Consulting in Toronto, Ontario. Contact Grant at time the product passes through an importer and/or wholesaler, to the grant.caven@glaenvironmental.com

20 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

by Catherine Leighton

PA C K A G I N G

“The beeswax container performs the same function as a traditional plastic container.”

Mind Your Beeswax Candle or Container?

C

atalina Navarro, a 2010 graduate of the Ontario College of Art and Design University (OCAD), created an innovative design for her final thesis project titled “Second Life Zero Waste.” She created a cosmetic packaging container made of local beeswax that’s designed to have a dual-use as a candle. Once a consumer is finished with the cosmetic product, the container serves as a candle. The zero-waste container is designed to bypass the waste stream and not to put stress on municipal landfills and recycling facilities.

Navarro created five prototype containers, each one designed to hold a cosmetic product currently on the market. One particularly innovative design is modeled after a Body Shop hair product container for “Beeswax Texturizing Wax.” The Body Shop container is made out of polypropylene that must be recycled. The beeswax container performs the same function as a traditional plastic container. The dimensions and amount of product held in the container are the same. Even its lid has threads that allow the container to be opened and closed like any typical twist-off lid.

Catalina Navarro holding her innovative packaging.

Leaders in the distribution of specialized heavy equipment in the construction and environmental industries Mobile Crushers

Landfill Compactors

SALES

RENTALS

Innovative line of equipment Machines that provide new ways of being competitive and efficient while being profitable Shredders & Grinders

Stationary Plants

PARTS

SERVICE

Unparalleled client experience

Screens

Crushing Equipment

info@voghel.com Qc 514 990.6636 Ont 416 444.1358 www.voghel.com

Committed to your success!

August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 21

PA C K A G I N G

The container is very durable. It’s been tested by various drop tests and has not broken when dropped from a height of nine feet. When I squeezed the container as hard as I could, the container moved slightly under pressure but did not break. Navarro explained that beeswax is malleable, and the wick actually strengthens the container. The organic cotton wick is coiled within the container so that when it’s used as a candle, the flame travels in a spiral.

The candle takes approximately three hours to burn. (Navarro is currently in the process of perfecting the design so that all the wax is burned and the candle does not drip.)

Many functions of the beeswax packaging are similar to the original plastic version; however, there are some important differences.

Since Navarro’s packaging is made from beeswax, the container should not be kept for extended periods of time in hot locations.

The beeswax container weighs 65 grams and

Beeswax candle holders.

is just over twice the weight of the original plastic design, which weighs only 28 grams.

The cost of producing Navarro’s beeswax package is high ($1.90 per container). Thus, Navarro’s beeswax dual-use candle container is more expensive to purchase and transport than a typical container; but, it gives consumers additional pleasure and represents 100 per cent producer responsibility.

OCAD University recognized Navarro’s innovative environmental design by awarding

her the OCAD Industrial Design Medal, Mimi Vandermolen Scholarship, Nora E. Vaughan Award, and the Spoke Club Membership Prize. Navarro also won the Sustainability Award, the Cimetrix Solutions Award, and the Campbell Venture Opportunity Award at the Rocket Show (an annual Industrial Design competition between OCAD University, Humber College and Carleton University).

The Venture Opportunity Award allows her to pitch her design to successful business entrepreneur, David Campbell. Navarro hopes to continue to perfect her design and create similar beeswax containers for precious goods, chocolate and seasonal gifts.

Catherine Leighton has recently obtained her Master’s degree in Environmental Studies from the University of Waterloo. She is currently based in Toronto and can be contacted at catherine.e.leighton@gmail.com

custom designed solutions for e-scrap sorting

Shredding E-Scrap?

Losing metals in your plastics?

TITECH combisense

TITECH optical sorters are the solution to recover more than 97% of your NF metals and circuit boards.

TITECH finder

Lubo uSA iS the excLuSive North AmericAN DiStributor for Lubo & titech recycLiNg equipmeNt iN the pAper, pLASticS, e-ScrAp AND wASte mArketS 78 hALLoweeN bLvD., StAmforD, ct 06902 (p) 203-967-1140 (w) www.LubouSA.com (e) iNfo@LubouSA.com

22 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

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

by Paul van der Werf “Elevating the composting brand to the same stature as the compost brand requires concerted industry efforts to resolve technological and operating issues.”

COMPOSTING PIONEERS

The First Twenty and the Next Five

T

his is the final instalment in the Composting Pioneers series.

I had imagined that this would be a triumphant conclusion to the series which was meant to be a celebration of the industry’s accomplishment. However, today as I started to write this column I looked at the headline in my local newspaper that proclaimed “Composter raises a stink.”

While as an industry we celebrate 20 years of sustained composting activity I wish we were beyond negative headlines like this.

While a newspaper headline is just a newspaper headline in this case it’s continuing to create a narrative that’s deleterious to our industry.

Newspaper headlines such as this are a kernel of perception that — if allowed to repeat — eventually becomes public consensus or (worse yet) confirms the consensus.

This is seriously eroding the hard work of the industry, most of whose members operate their facilities well and make high quality compost.

As an industry we have successfully created the message that compost is good. Compost is a solid brand.

We have not had the same brand success with composting and, in particular, the composting of more challenging feedstocks, such as source-separated organics. If you asked the average resident about having a composting facility near their neighbourhood I think you know what the answer would be: They don’t want our factories.

We are twenty now and it’s time for the industry to shed its growing pains and fully mature. To ensure the longevity of our industry I believe we have less than five years to improve composting brand.

This means identifying and solving technological and operational problems to the point where facilities consistently perform and where odour is no longer an off-site issue. If not the consideration and implementation of other biological treatment technologies will continue.

Veolia Environmental Services is a subsidiary of Veolia Environnement, the world’s largest provider of environmental services

Turnig Waste into a Resource www.veolia.com

August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 23

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

While some of this shift in the marketplace is consistently poor performers: “You’re not natural, continued odour issues will accelerate helping us to build our brand and we do not this process. accept this.”

While the foregoing can be perceived as 2. Technology: Some would argue that all the negative or overly pessimistic, I think it’s the required composting technology is available truth. and on the market and that all issues come The other truths are that there is far more down to facility siting and facility operation. good than bad in our industry and I believe the That may be true but I would suggest that industry has the skill and willingness to solve a detailed assessment needs to be made on odour problems and build a better composting why compost facilities generate off-site brand. odour and to determine the root cause of A few observations and ideas follow: this failure. I suspect that odour abatement 1. Zero Tolerance: It’s clear that there’s zero technologies used at facilities are sometimes tolerance for any off-site odour from cominsufficient due to inadequately developed posting facilities. We need to understand technology and/or poor technology implethat (and I mean really understand that). mentation. The industry needs to convene Fairly or unfairly that’s the way it is. Zero a working group to undertake this work and tolerance VC2336 also means the industry standsolve Walinga 6/11/07 2:36 PM Page 1 these problems. ing up and self-policing and saying to the 3. Compost Facility Capacity: The main rea-

N O W

son for odour problems at compost facilities are caused by bringing more material on to the site than the technology and odour abatement equipment can manage and exceeding the site’s “carrying capacity.” I know this sounds simplistic and obvious at the same time. On the one hand a compost facility’s “rated capacity” may be inaccurate from a facility performance (i.e., “carrying capacity”) perspective — that is, they generate off-site odours when at or below their rated capacity. There are many factors that can be involved in this including quality of construction, quality of odour abatement equipment, the quality or state of feedstocks received at the facility and the skill level of the compost facility operator.

This can also happen when a facility brings in more than their rated capacity on site to

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

24 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

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

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

make a few extra dollars. While the temptation is great but the downside can be even greater.

4. Graduated Permitting: To better control compost facility operational issues fully graduated performance-based permitting needs to be implemented. That is a Certificate of Approval that would allow a facility to compost a part of its rated capacity in a number of incremental phases and only be allowed to compost its rated capacity once it had clearly demonstrated its ability to operate in a nuisance free manner. For instance a 60,000 tonnes per year (tpy) facility would initially only be allowed to compost 20,000, then 40,000 and finally 60,000 tpy. A regulator could immediately bump capacity down to 40,000 tpy or even 20,000 tpy if the facility creates an off-site odour nuisance and keep it

there until problems are rectified to the satisfaction of the regulator. This puts the onus squarely on the owner of the compost facility and their cash flow.

5. Increase the Capacity of the Industry: It’s clear to me that in Ontario at least we have insufficient processing capacity for all the source-separated organics that are diverted. This in my mind has been a great contributor to odour problems. The industry, in cooperation with government, needs to develop jurisdiction-specific plans on required processing capacity (including some redundancy) and work towards implementing high quality capacity and develop a road map on how to meet that capacity. The plan needs to include a way to weed out consistently poor performers.

Conclusion

The industry has come far in the last 20 years. Many industry members have volunteered their time and efforts to make it what it is today. People understand and like to use compost. The majority of composting facilities operate very well and produce high quality compost. However, there’s still work to be done. Elevating the composting brand to the same stature as the compost brand requires concerted industry efforts to resolve technological and operating issues.

It is within our capabilities. Let’s get there in the next five — and preferably sooner.

Paul van der Werf is president of 2cg Inc. in London, Ontario. Contact Paul at www.2cg.ca

August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 25

Covering all aspects of environmental business in Canada

nt mana geme

nt mana geme

PCBs

the How to Comply with irements New Destruction Requ

Canada’s magazine on collection, hauling, April/May 2009 processing and disposal $10.00

Landfill Mining

Canada’s magazine October/Novembe on collection, hauling, processin g and disposal r 2009 $10.00

Emissions Offsets

The City of Barrie’s restoration project — page 8

InSIdE:

BROWNFIELDS Published by HazMat

Managem magazine Management ED PUBLISH

IN

for Decoding the new rules businesses — page 8

MARKETPLACE

TION ASSOCIA

FCM

Centre for Sustainable Community Developments

The Canadian Real Estate Association

Canadian Brownfields

WITH:

Network

Canadian

WINTER 2009

SYDNEY S TAR POND

BROWNFIELDS

on cleanup Update on progression progression

Published by HazMat

Management magazine ED PUBLISH

IN

Centre for Advanced

MARKETPLACE

TION ASSOCIA

FCM Fund Green Municipal vert Fonds municipal

The Canadian Real Estate Association

O R E D S P O N S

Canadian Brownfields

WITH:

Network

CORPORATE PARTNER:

FALL 2009

BANFF BIOSOLIDS

CPMP No. 40069240

B Y :

SITE REMEDIATION

Visualization

restoration The Guild Inn

project

AM 12/15/08 10:13:42

cover pg 17.indd BFM winter 09

Publication An EcoLog Group

p

& Recycling

Environment Business of the Solutions for the

—

ield Regs Ontario Brownf

Solid Waste

www.h

Ethanol ER training reduction Diesel emissions update Sunrise Propane

Solid Waste & Recycling

17

40069240 / CPMP no.

O R E D S P O N S

Centre for Advanced

BFM fall 09 cover

40069240 / CPMP no.

HazMat PRofiling

Publication An EcoLog Group

pg 17.indd 17

B Y :

Visualization

pages 17-31

PM 08/09/09 2:56

– pages 38-42 PRoDuctS

CPMP No. 40069240

An EcoLog Group

Publication

Advancements

Co-Composting

in Scale House

in the Scenic Town

An EcoLog Group

Publication

Waste Pelletizati on

and Plant Tour

— page 14

— page 8

Tech — page 24

BROWNFIELDS Marketplace Workshops 2011

&

PCB Destruction Disposal Seminars

Television Series

For Advertising and Sponsorship Opportunities, please contact: Brad O’Brien, Publisher Call: 416 510-6798 Email: bobrien@bizinfogroup.ca

ng cli cy ets Re ark e 20 M ag

Guide

se Emergency Respon

g

HazMat

Annual Buyers

pa

Environment Business of the Solutions for the

FALL 2009 azmatmag.com

te as n W &I sio ies IC iver tud 7 D e S 4-1 1 s Ca es

HazMat

WINTER 2009 ag.com www.hazmatm

Jamie Ross, Account Manager Call: 416 510-5221 Email: jross@bizinfogroup.ca

COMPOST TECHNOLOGY

Unique Biogas System BHS acquires NA rights to Kompoferm AD system

Kompoferm overview

B

ulk Handling Systems (BHS) of Eugene, Oregon — a leading manufacturer of recycling processing equipment — has signed an exclusive licensing agreement with the European company Eggers­ mann Anlagenbau to design and build high­solids biogas facilities in North America. The Kompoferm® system utilizes a unique anaerobic digestion system that creates energy from organic waste.

The Kompoferm system uses a highly efficient dry fermentation process, with low investment costs and high biogas yields. The system meets the growing demand for more economy and ecology in the bur­ geoning waste­to­energy industry, says BHS President Steve Miller, adding that the agreement is a perfect complement to BHS’ lineup of recovery systems.

“As we continue to move forward in our efforts to extract more value out of the waste stream, we could not ignore the renewable energy po­ tential available from the organic portion of solid waste,” Miller says.

“The Kompoferm system is the leading technology of its type in the world and enables BHS to provide its customers with systems that ex­ tract high­value recyclable materials from the waste stream, to make these systems energy neutral, and to provide additional renewable power to the communities where the waste is generated.”

Utilizing a well­controlled, biologically­stable, and proven design, the system’s percolate cycle ensures the production of biogas at a uni­ formly high level. The special layout shortens the percolate path to a minimum and significantly reduces the area required for the system.

Production is continuous, simple, safe and highly­automated.

Several biogas plants in Europe have used the process with excel­ lent success, Miller says, adding that although there are biogas plants operating in North America, the standard technology currently used is not as advanced or efficient as the Kompoferm system. Several projects using the design are already in the planning stages in North America, with the first Kompoferm plant slated to begin operation in 2011 in San Jose, California.

Total system solution

The Kompoferm anaerobic digestion process can be used on its own or combined with the BHS system to create a complete zero waste solu­ tion.

In a combined system, municipal waste is brought to a facility where the BHS Bag Breaker releases the contents of bagged material without damaging the commodities and eliminates the need for manual August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 31

COMPOST TECHNOLOGY

Process flow

labour to open bags. The Nihot Single Drum Separator further processes the waste using the latest in air technologies to separate by material density. The BHS Polishing Screen has the unique ability to create three material fractions: mixed fibre, containers and organic fines.

Unders from the Polishing Screen are conveyed to a container line for further separation.

A cross belt magnet effectively removes ferrous metals from the container stream. Optical sorters use high-speed infrared detection technology and precise colour sensing technology to rapidly identify and separate containers

with high efficiency and low product loss.

The BHS Eddy Current Separator uses a strong magnetic field to efficiently and accurately repel aluminum from incoming materials. The patented Debris Roll Screen uses unique disc design and configuration for optimum material agitation and separation and

Choose the Leader in Container Management Solutions Recycling & Waste Collection Rehrig Pacific understands collection containers. We can also provide effective asset and participation tracking services to help you focus on what you do best – your core business.

Come see us at WASTECON Booth #3047

Call today for more information.

Š2010 Rehrig Pacific Company

Customer Service 877-456-8094 Email: info@rehrigpacific.com Web: www.rehrigpacific.com

A fAmily tRAdition of gRowth, seRviCe And nd innovAtion innovA innov Ation Ation

32 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010 0431_RPC_CollectCombo_SWR_Jun10_r2.indd 1

5/27/10 5:22:32 PM

COMPOST TECHNOLOGY

Digestor hall.

EMF a

accurately sizes organic material for further processing.

The organic material is prepared for the Kompoferm dry fermentation system and loaded into the digester tunnels and processed in a batch system. At the beginning of the process, oxygen is added to the organic waste to bring the material up to the temperature necessary to begin the dry fermentation process.

The exhaust from this initial phase is sent to a bio filter.

Conditioned water, or percolate, is added to the organic material during the fermentation period. Percolate is drained from the digester tunnels and returned to the percolate tank. The percolate goes through a sediment trap for removal of any solids before the liquid continues on to the tank.

The percolate is heated within the tank, creating a methane rich gas. Percolate continues to be added to the biomass in the digester tunnels at specific intervals during the process period of about 21 days. Methane gas is produced during the methanogenic process and is transferred to the percolate tank where it is then combined with the methane gas already in the tank. The mixed methane gas is transported to a storage tank.

The methane gas is transferred from the storage tank to the combined heat and power station to create energy. As the anaerobic digestion process continues, the biomass is reduced in volume and methane production tapers off. Air is added at the end of the process to terminate the methanogenic phase. The exhaust from the termination stage is sent to the bio filter.

At the end of the anaerobic digestion the resulting digestate is ready for further processing. The digestate is transferred into in-vessel composting tunnels where it’s mixed with fresh biomass to further the composting process. Air is added to the digestate mix to initiate the composting process.

The exhaust from the composting tunnels is transferred to an oxidizer where heavy particles are captured before the air continues to the bio filter. The secondary waste is taken to the composting or storage area for maturation.

Visit www.bulkhandlingsystems.com

12/12/08

10:48 AM

Page 1

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 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 33

How do you thrive despite hostile driving environments and brutal economic conditions? Get a smarter tire program. With premium, best-in-class retreads. Backed by legendary service. Bandag. The company that has been leading the precured retreading industry for over 50 years. ROLL SMART.

X FIND OUT HOW BANDAG COULD SAVE YOU 10% OR MORE ON TIRE COSTS. SEE BANDAG.COM/SAVE. ©2008 BANDAG — ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

by Carl Friesen

EMISSIONS

“Being able to demonstrate due diligence in carbon management will become an area of competitive advantage for private service providers.”

Managing the disruption risks from climate change

Electric power transmission lines can be shut down by ice storms, making it impossible for waste processing facilities to function.

H

ow will climate change affect the waste management sector in Canada? Two ways: The pressures being made on the sector to mitigate its contributions to greenhouse gas, and the risks that climate change poses to the way that the sector operates.

These two pressures were described at the symposium “Business disruption from climate change: risk management for companies and their stakeholders” presented in Toronto on May 18 by the consulting firm Golder Associates, insurance company Marsh, and the law firm Bennett Jones. While the waste management sector was not mentioned in the proceedings, what was said has a great deal of relevance to the readers of this magazine.

Presenters touched on the rising demands that organizations of all kinds limit their “carbon footprint,” or the amount of greenhouse gas for which they are responsible.

The heavy, diesel-powered vehicles used to collect and transport waste mean that the sector’s carbon footprint is both large and resistant to downsizing. Improvements in diesel engines, driver training to

manage emissions, effective maintenance programs and more efficient routing are possible ways to reduce the footprint. However, there is not much room to make large carbon-reducing changes.

Processing waste, including landfill management, adds to the sector’s output.

Probably the greatest room for improvement, from a carbon point of view, comes from capturing methane before it has a chance to reach the atmosphere — methane being a particularly potent greenhouse gas.

Private-sector entities in the waste management sector, as in other lines of business, are coming under pressure from their shareholders and financial sources to become more carbon-friendly, or risk an impact on their abilities to raise financing. Many investors and lenders are reluctant to lend to entities seen as “dirty” from a carbon point of view.

As well as financial pressure, there is likely to be increasing regulation in this area. In Ontario, for example, there is a trend towards requiring more landfills to take steps to capture landfill gas and either flare it to turn it into less-impactful carbon dioxide, or use it as an energy source.

August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 35

®

B AL ER S

Public pressure is being brought to bear, particularly on publicly provided services. For many people, waste collection and disposal are the areas of their municipality’s services that impact them most directly. Municipal collection trucks drive past their home on a weekly basis, with multiple pickups in some cases. Accordingly, they will be more likely to put pressure on their elected representatives to manage the carbon footprint of these operations, more than perhaps any other municipal service.

Being able to demonstrate due diligence in carbon management will become an area of competitive advantage for private service providers, but also for municipalities as they seek to be seen as “greener” than others. Waste management departments in municipalities may find themselves under pressure to show due diligence in reducing their impacts on climate change — and managers who are able to do so may find that their skills are in high demand.

Shifting from mitigation to adaptation

Power, sPeed, strength - the Harris HRB Centurion EHD two ram baler tops its class. Harris took a bottom-up approach and designed a baler that would be faster and stronger, while being more cost effective to operate and takes up less space in your facility.

®

800.373.9131 770.631.7290

www.harrisequip.com 36 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

As more people accept that climate change is actually happening, the focus is shifting from finding ways to mitigate one’s climate change impacts to seeing what risks an organization faces that come from climate change, and finding ways to manage those risks. Sometimes, there are potential benefits from climate change, and so organizations need to find ways to maximize their access to those. Presenters at the symposium indicated that one of the most important threats are from catastrophic events. Examples applying to the waste sector might be: • A larger-than-usual storm washes out a bridge on the only road leading to the landfill; • A hurricane knocks out most of the refining capacity along the US Gulf of Mexico coast, instantly spiking the cost of diesel fuel and supply shortages that reverberate through the North American market; • Excess rainfall causes more water to percolate through a landfill, generating larger quantities of leachate, contaminating groundwater with a plume that seems headed straight for the capture zones on some municipal wells; • An ice storm brings down power lines, so that recycling operations cannot take place, and more waste than usual must be landfilled as a result.

As well as these sudden, catastrophic events, climate change comes in gradual changes that over the years, add up to a lot. Golder Associates presenter John Fahey referred to it as “climate creep.”

For example, consider that pavement is designed to work well within a certain “envelope” of temperature changes. However, fluctuating winter temperatures may cause a gradual increase in the number of freeze-thaw cycles, and this more-variable weather becomes the

EMISSIONS

new normal. One of its effects is that pavement wears out sooner than roads-maintenance workers can patch potholes. Rougher pavement has many side effects — possibly including premature wearing out of waste collection and transfer vehicles traveling that roadway.

This increases maintenance costs and reduces the lifespan of vehicles.

Or it could be that more stormy conditions means more snowstorms, days in which collection cannot be made, causing an increase in overtime pay as pickups are added later in the week.

How can organizations, including those in the waste sector, respond? Andrew Little of law firm Bennett Jones says that one of the first steps is assigning a member of senior management the role of determining the organization’s vulnerabilities to climate change.

Next, use a methodical process to determine what those vulnerabilities are. This should use accepted risk-evaluation method-

ologies, which include determining the likelihood of the event occurring, and the severity of the consequences if the event occurred.

Then, determine what preparation or avoidance steps can be taken.

This must be done in a transparent way.

Increasingly, public companies are being called upon by securities regulators to declare their vulnerabilities to climate change as a material concern.

While the effects of climate change are unknown — this is unchartered territory — it is possible to use the current best available understanding of the future environment then determine if operating and capital changes need to be made.

Routes to and from waste disposal facilities are vulnerable to extreme weather events, causing larger-than-usual storms that may wash out bridges and culverts.

Carl Friesen is Principal of Global Reach Communications in Mississauga, Ontario and frequently writes on waste management and other environmental matters. Contact Carl at 1-289-232-4057 or cfriesen@rogers.com

Recycling Council of Alberta Conference & AGM

Building Tomorrow October 13 – 15, 2010 The Fairmont Chateau Lake Louise, Lake Louise, AB

Events

Chateau Eco Tour Nature Walk Gala Banquet Rs of Excellence Awards  Exhibits & Networking Opportunities    

Sessions

     

Keynote

Building Awareness Speakers Communities of Tomorrow  Jennifer Koole Corporations of Tomorrow (Masdar City) Building Municipal Systems  Jerry Powell Issues of the Future (A Vision Biodegradable Plastics of Tomorrow)

Registration, exhibit or sponsorship info: 403.843.6563  info@recycle.ab.ca  www.recycle.ab.ca

August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 37

by Anne Boyd

DIVERSION

“London’s buildings have only 50 per cent of the recommended number of recycling containers.”

A La Cart Project brings best multi-rez diversion practices to London, Ontario

E

arlier this year London municipal council voted to support a range of Zero Waste strategies to help London achieve the 60 per cent waste diversion goal set by Ontario’s environment ministry. One of these strategies aims to increase recycling rates in London’s multiresidential buildings. Blue Box recycling in multi-rez buildings is a continual challenge for municipalities that offer this service; however, because recycling rates are low, these often represent the next-leastcost-tonnes to recycle. With funding available from Waste Diversion Ontario’s (WDO) Continuous Improvement Fund (CIF), this is a good time for Ontario municipalities to invest in their multi-rez programs.

London (population 380,000) offers recycling collection service to 162,000 households, of which 49,000 are in multi-residential buildings.

There are 750 buildings of six+ units, with an average building size of 65 units. In 2009 the average capture was 65 kg per unit per year. This

38 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

represents approximately 30 per cent of all available blue box materials.

The recycling rate for this program is only half of what it is for the other two thirds of the households, which are single-family detached homes, semis, small buildings of five or fewer units, and row-housing.

Several program differences contribute to the lower recycling rate.

These include: 1. Less convenient recycling: For multi-rez buildings there’s usually a communal area that (unlike convenient curbside access) may not be close to where people live.

2. More convenient garbage disposal: Residents can dispose of garbage at any time, and for buildings with garbage chutes, access is on every floor. Curbside households, by contrast, must wait for the scheduled collection day.

3. Not enough recycling containers (more on this below): build-

DIVERSION

London is implementing a project to increase the recycling rate by increasing the number of recycling carts in buildings.

ing owners are required to purchase 95 gallon carts and the number available for residents to use is limited by available storage space and the building owner’s budget. Curbside residents can purchase their own recycling containers (blue boxes) and there’s no limit to how many they can set to the curb.

4. Less informed residents: London provides infrequent recycling updates to residents in multi-rez buildings, and generally on an asrequested basis. Curbside households on the other hand receive an annual calendar full of program updates.

2005 Pilot & 2010 CIF Project

In a 2005 pilot project London isolated these four factors noted above to learn how they impact recycling performance. The project report

August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 39

DIVERSION London will subsidize the cost of recycling carts to encourage building owners to purchase enough to meet the recommended ratio: 1 cart to 7 units. On average, London buildings are at 1 cart to 14 units (50 per cent short of target). The deal on carts is this: buy enough carts to get the building to the 1 cart to 10 unit ratio and pay 50 per cent of cost price, buy above this and up to the recommended ratio of 1 cart to 7 units and pay only 25 per cent of cost price.

found that “Increasing the amount of capacity to store recyclables between collections was found to have the most significant effect on recycling rates. This was tested at four building sites. The increase in capacity at the test buildings ranged from 50 per cent to 140 per cent and the resulting increase in the recycling rate ranged from 35 per cent to 100 per cent” The project was funded by Stewardship Ontario’s Effectiveness & Efficiency Fund and can be found on their website. This project laid the groundwork for London’s current project of implementing multi-rez best practices (see below) with an emphasis on increasing the number of recycling containers. Based on the CIF best practice guidelines of providing 50 litres capacity for each residential unit, London’s buildings have only 50 per cent of the recommended number of recycling con-

Up to 1400 homes per day Truck can be used for both automated resi and commercial Works with LH or dual drive Best solution for going automated

The Slammin’ Eagle is the most durable and productive automated carry-can on the market today.

Call: (707) 939-2802 Video at: thecurottocan.com 40 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

DIVERSION

tainers. The goal is to double the number of recycling containers (360 litre carts). To reach this goal, London will assist building owners to purchase recycling carts by subsidizing the cost of them. And to get the best available price, London has partnered with other municipalities to issue a cooperative cart purchase tender. To encourage building owners to buy enough carts to reach the best practice level, London is using an incentive pricing structure.

The project has received funding from CIF and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Implementing best practices

The London project is one of more than a dozen multi-rez projects underway in Ontario, funded by the CIF. What they have in common is their goal to implement identified best multi-rez recycling practices. These include:

• Conducting site visits to all buildings; • Creating a database of property information (everything from contact information to number and location of recycling containers); • Collecting baseline information about each building’s recycling performance and barriers to recycling; • Increasing the number of recycling containers to the best practice minimum of 50 litres per unit (i.e., one 95 gallon cart per seven units, or one 4-yard bin per 60 units). This benchmark is based on the average provincial blue box generation rates for multi-rez buildings and the amount of container capacity required to store 70 per cent of recyclables generated if collected on a weekly schedule; and • Distribution of promotion and education (P&E) materials to building residents, staff and owners.

In addition to providing funding to implement the best practices noted above, CIF has also developed tools and templates to assist. For example, promotion and education materials such as brochures, posters and a recycling handbook have been developed and there is web access which allows users to add their own municipal customization. There is funding available from CIF for this type of project and for innovative ideas and new technology that can increase recycling in multi-rez buildings.

Anne Boyd is Waste Diversion Coordinator for the City of London, Ontario and secondee to the CIF multi-rez project. Contact Anne at aboyd@london.ca

High Performance The RC1754 offers contractors a high performance machine.

At 14,500 lbs it allows easy transportation from job to job. It’s high productivity and ability to grind a variety of wood waste materials makes it ideal for processing tree limbs, brush, sawmill waste, pallets and lumber scraps.

Some of the features offered are: • 140 hp John Deere diesel engine • Quick change screens • Rubber infeed belt • Versa-Feed load sensing hydraulics • Oversized radiator with reversing fan • Hand-held radio remote control allowing operators instant response for the various functions of the machine

RC1754 Horizontal Grinder

www.gcduke.com

1184 Plains Road East Burlington, ON L7S 1W6 Burlington Area: 905-637-5216 Toronto Area: 905-338-2404 Toll Free: 1-800-883-0761 Fax: 905-637-2009

August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 41

Canada’s ONLY trade event serving the waste, recycling and public works markets

November 3 - 4, 2010 International Centre Toronto, ON, Canada www.cwre.ca

waste driven. environment inspired. out of the box solutions.

Join us in 2010 for an exciting, new look and feel!

The 13th edition of CWRE will embody. . .

EvErything you want . . .

• A strong showing of leading manufacturers • A diverse and qualified group of key buyers • Numerous networking opportunities

anD MorE . . .

• An informative conference program - redesigned • Top notch showcase of new products • International pavilions • New segmented areas • Insightful facility tours

Register Today at www.cwre.ca/AD1

November 1 - 3, 2010 Westin Bristol Place Toronto Airport Toronto, ON 08/10 SWR

Canada’s ONLY trade event serving the waste, recycling and public works markets

OUR EXHIBITORS A.I.M. Distribution & Marketing Accent Wire Products AGO Industries, Inc. All Treat Farms Limited Armal, Inc Association of Ontario Road Supervisors Authorized Transmission Remanufacturing Avery Weigh-Tronix Bale Force Recycling Equipment Bayne Premium Lift Systems Blackhawk Technology Company Bunting Magnetics Busch Systems International Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance Canadian Scale Company Limited Cascade Engineering Chevy Lane Fabrications Chevy Lane Fabrications Compost Council Of Canada Conveyors B.M.G. Inc. Convoy Safety Technologies Cover-All Building Systems of Ontario CP Manufacturing Inc. Cram-A-Lot/JV Manufacturing Cubex Ltd D.G. Bevan Insurance Brokers Ltd. Danatec Educational Services Del Equipment Dican Downing & Associates Durabac

Dyson Canada Ltd Ecoloxia Group Environnemental EMF Containers Inc. Environmental Science & Engineering Mag ERIEZ Erin Recycling Fleetmind Solutions Inc. GeoShack Canada GINOVE Golder Associates Ltd. Goodyear Canada Inc. Groeneveld CPL Systems Canada Hallco Industries Inc. Harnois Industries Harper Power Products Inc. Harris Waste Management Haul-All Equipment Holly Services ING.BONFIGLIOLI SPA Innov-X Canada IPL Inc. J & M Tire International Inc. Jake Connor & Crew Inc. Keith Mfg. Co. Kendrew Distribution Services Knapzak Benelux BV KOMPTECH USA Inc. Krown Corporate ‘Krown Rust Control’ Labour Ready Labrie Environmental Group London Machinery Inc. Machinex Recycling Services Inc. Mack Canada Inc.

Marcel Equipment Limited Marshall Industrial Inc. Meshwear Technologies Inc. Metro Waste Paper Recovery Inc. METTLER-TOLEDO MidPoint International Inc. Molok North America Ltd. Morbark Inc. Multi Bag Inc. Municipal Waste Association NAPA Canada NBB Controls, Inc. NCIRecycling.com Norseman Environmental Products Ontario Environment Industry Association Ontario Waste Management Association Otto Environmental Systems North America Palfinger North America Group Paradigm Software LLC PC Scale Tower, Inc. Perkins Manufacturing Company Pigmalion Environmental Products PKS Equipment & Engineering Inc. Plastic Advanced Recycling Precision Waste Systems Limited PTR Baler & Compactor Purves Redmond Limited Recycling Council of Ontario Recycling Product News Recycling Today Media Group Rehrig Pacific Company Resource Recycling Magazine

RouteOptix, Inc. RouteSmart Technologies, Inc. RTS Companies Inc Samuel Strapping Systems ScrapMonster.com Shred-Tech Silver Top Supply Soft-Pak Inc. Solid Waste & Recycling Magazine SSI Schaefer System International SSI Shredding Systems Inc. SWANA, Ontario Chapter Tank Connection (Canada) Corporation The Curotto Can Toter Incorporated Trojan Tire Inc. TRUX Route Management Systems Ty Cushion Tire Universal Handling Equipment UNTHA America, Inc. Van Dyk Baler Corp.

VERTAL Inc Voghel Enviroquip Inc. Walker Environmental Group Walker Magnetics National Ltd. Waste Management Web Work by Tero Western Weld / Mifab Manufacturing Winsted Group Inc. XL Shelter Zone Defense LLC AND MORE...

SPECIAl EVENTS CANADIAN WASTE SECTOR SYMPOSIUM NOVEMBER 1 - 3, 2010 WESTIN BRISTOl PlACE HOTEl

WASTE SECTOR FACIlITY TOURS November 1 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM Tours will depart & return from the Westin SYMPOSIUM November 2 - 3 8:45 AM - 4:45 PM Visit www.OWMA.org for details

ASSOCIATION lUNCHEONS NOVEMBER 3 - 4, 2010 INTERNATIONAl CENTRE

SWANA ANNUAl gENERAl MEETINg AND lUNCHEON November 3 12:00 PM

Guest Speaker, TBD

WElCOME RECEPTION

November 1 6:00 PM NORTHERN lIgHTS RECEPTION/DINNER

November 2 6:00 PM Guest Speaker, Gordon McGuinty

COMPOSTINg COUNCIl OF CANADA lUNCHEON November 4 12:00 PM Guest Speaker, Gordon McGuinty

Register Today at www.cwre.ca/AD1

COLLECTION

Solving by Desolving

Mesh lawn bags offer green alternative to paper

The dsolv™ mesh lawn bag is made of a plant-based resin and completely dissolves in composting facilities according to the industry standard ASTM-D6400.

A

new product caught the attention of home-and-garden retailers at the recent National Hardware Show in Las Vegas. New dsolv™ lawn bags replace traditional paper bags and are made of a compostable mesh. The lightweight bags are sold in a starter kit with a spring-loaded sleeve that holds them open, a carrying handle, and eight bags. (Additional bags are sold in sets of eight.)

“This is an innovation for which consumers are clamoring,” says Paul Kolada, Principal and Owner of PD Worx, which designed the dsolv bag and system. “People are so frustrated with paper bags, and they’re looking for ways to live greener. Our research led us to design a 100 per cent compostable, mesh bag. It’s easier to use than the old paper bags, and just as affordable.”

Other compostable bags already exist, Kolada explains. But they’re just as hard to fill as paper bags, and are more expensive.

Ease-of-use is indeed a major feature of the dsolv bag. With the lightweight mesh propped open by a spring-loaded sleeve, its circular opening is 33 per cent larger than that of a paper lawn bag. The bag is more stable too, because it won’t collapse back into its folded state, as paper bags do.

Once filled, the bag is easy to dispose of. The user simply pulls out the sleeve, ties the top of the bag, and uses the ergonomic handle to carry up to three bags at once. The bag’s rip-stop mesh is durable enough to be dragged along a driveway or lawn. It’s a system that’s easy for a single person to use — even kids and seniors.

The dsolv mesh lawn bag is made of a plant-based resin and com44 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

pletely dissolves in composting facilities according to the industry standard ASTM-D6400. It carries the 100 per cent compostable certification issued by the US Composting Council and the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI). Many municipalities are now requiring residents to use only BPI/USCC certified bags for their lawn waste.

Waste collectors are also expressing excitement about the time- and labour-saving features of the unique bags. The mesh allows collectors to view the contents and verify that there are no inappropriate items inside.

The dsolv bags are clearly labeled, so they can be correctly sorted and sent to composting facilities. Plus, the ventilated design spares collectors from having to hoist smelly, disintegrating paper bags.

Though compostable, the dsolv bag does not break down in water.

So unlike paper lawn bags, which can get soggy in the rain or from rotting contents, the bag remains intact. The ventilated mesh actually allows rain to flow through and contents to dry out, virtually eliminating slimy messes. When compared gallon-for-gallon, the new dsolv bags match the price of paper bags (assuming a retail price of 50¢ per paper bag). And because the mesh bags hold 50 per cent more than paper bags, fewer bags are needed.

PD Worx is taking orders from retailers now for widespread distribution of dsolv™ products in Spring 2011. Limited availability will occur sooner, in Fall 2010, via the website at www.dsolvbag.com.

Contact Frederick Feeney, Director of Corporate Sales at ffeeney@prioritydesigns.com or visit www.dsolvbag.com

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

by John Nicholson, M.Sc.,P.Eng. “Los Angeles deemed Entech’s system the lowest cost-per-ton thermal process out of 400 technologies reviewed.”

Trusted

Proven

The Wesleyville Project

Flexible

Australian WTE technology finds a home in Canada

For over 25 years solid waste management organizations have trusted Geoware to provide solutions that guide you through the requirements of a dynamic, ever-changing industry.

We are dedicated to simplifying your world with proven, industry standard software and services that are practical, flexible and scalable to respond to any business need.

analyze

plan pla a n manage

Entech conversion unit.

W

hile Europe and parts of Asia were busy building and operating WTE facilities over the past 20 years, Canada and the U.S. were perfecting the art of landfilling. However, change is upon North America and thermal treatment is now considered a viable alternative to burying BTU-containing material in the ground.

One global player includes Renewable Energy Solutions (Entech), headquartered in Australia.

The privately-owned company has been around for 20 years developing and building waste gasification systems. The company has grown to specialize in the design, engineering, manufacturing, and commissioning of its WTE solution.

control con ntrol n trol

report r e p o rt execute

The technology

Although Entech markets itself as a total waste solution provider its core technology, called WtGas, is based upon a low-temperature gasification process that converts waste from a solid to a synthetic gas (syngas) that can be used as fuel. The emissions from burning syngas are cleaner — arguably as clean as natural gas and definitely cleaner than directly incinerating the waste.

With the low-temperature gasification technology utilized by Entech, the maximum process temperature is 875°C and the process air input one-twentieth that found in an incinerator. It takes between over 16 hours to gasify solid waste at that temperature.

The resulting syngas is used in gas burners to produce either steam for heating or electricity generation. Independent test results on a WtGas system showed that it meets the standards of the US EPA, the European Union, and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Besides its WtGas low-temperature gasification process, Entech has developed other waste 1/3 Page Ad conversion technologies such that the company can treat a broad range of waste streams and avoid the need for landfilling. The accompanying technologies to it thermal process include recycling 1/3 page vertical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1⁄8" x 10" (WtRecycle), transformation of plastics to fuel oil (WtOil), and moisture recovery of organic waste (wtWater).

Call today. Let’s get started!

1.800.900.4252 www.geoware4.com

August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 45

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

The biggest endorsement for Entech came in 2007 when the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Task Forces deemed Entech’s low temperature gasification system as the lowest cost-per-ton thermal treatment process out of 400 technologies that were reviewed. Currently, Entech is negotiating a letter of intent for a waste contract with the County of Los Angeles for a thermal processing facility to be built in Huntington Beach.

Canadian project

Renewable Energy Management Inc. (REM), based in Pickering Ontario, is a project development company that owns the Intellectual Property License of Entech for Canada, the United States as well as the Caribbean Territories.

REM is building a plant in Wesleyville, Ontario, approximately 100 kms east of Toronto.

In order to build the plant, REM is required to go through an environmental screening review (ESR) and also obtain a Certificate of Approval

Entech Syn-Gas burner.

from Ontario’s environment ministry.

Doug Starr, Executive Vice President for REM, estimates that the company is approximately 60 per cent of the way through the ESR process. According to Starr, public response has been positive. He attributes the favourable views to a long-term commitment to educating the public about the company, the technology, and the plans for the site.

The first-stage plan for the Wesleyville site is to build a waste processing facility that can handle 180,000 tonnes per year (tpy). The company plans to have the facility up and running by the later part of 2012. Three quarters of the waste accepted at the facility will be

from the private sector, with the remainder coming from municipalities.

Of the 180,000 tpy accepted at the site in the phase one development, the company plans on recycling 25,000 tpy (metal, plastic, paper, and glass), recover 43,000 tpy of water for internal use, and convert the remaining 110,000 tpy into 15 MW of electricity to send offsite.

Long term, the company goal for the project would be to expand the facility through two more phases to the point that it would accept 540,000 tpy of waste.

The WTgas process produces two per cent ash that’s considered inert. The company believes that it will generate revenue selling the ash as aggregate or for other uses.

When all three phases of the facility are complete, the facility will employ over 70 workers and operate 24 hours per day, seven days a week.

John Nicholson, M.Sc., P.Eng., is a consultant based in Toronto, Ontario. Contact John at john.nicholson@ebccanada.com

ON-SITE

Operator Training

Be a brown noser.

On-site Compost Facility Operator Training. · Improve your site operation and compost quality · We train your operators and staff at your site · Includes customized lectures and hands on training · 7 years facility operating experience · 11 years training experience

Paul van der Werf, M.Sc. 519-645-7733 | 877-801-7733 | 2cg.ca 46 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

Because the Audit Bureau of Circulations audits the circulation of Solid Waste and Recycling Magazine, advertisers know that our audited information is accurate.

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

by Rosalind Cooper, LL.B “The project involves the development of an industrial-level system for recovery, de-labelling and sanitization of wine bottles.”

Waste Initiatives across Canada Newfoundland targets wine bottles

The Multi-Material Stewardship Board’s Solid Waste Management Innovation Fund and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency are supporting a new initiative in St. John’s, Newfoundland aimed at enabling recovery and reuse of wine bottles. The initiative is, apparently, the first of its kind in North America. The project involves the development of an industrial-level system for recovery, de-labelling and sanitization of wine bottles. The company proposing to conduct these activities is Ever Green Environmental Corporation, which has indicated that it will provide 500,000 wine bottles annually for use by wineries in Newfoundland. This equates to an annual reduction of approximately 2,500 metric tonnes of greenhouse gases.

The challenge associated with large volume recycling of wine bottles relates to the wide variance in shapes, sizes and dimensions of wine bottles, and the variety of labelling materials and methods of label adherence. Ever Green Environmental has developed a process to address sanitization, de-labelling, recovery and reuse in a single integrated industrial process.

Almost 2.5 million bottles are imported into the province annually by the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, private companies and wineries. These bottles are sourced from Europe via air cargo to Montreal and truck transport to St. John’s, and then redistributed to local operators. The life cycle for such bottles is currently a one-time use, after which they are crushed and the material shipped out of province for recycling. (See the next edition for detailed coverage.)

Saskatchewan adds new WEEE products

Saskatchewan has amended its Waste Electronic Equipment Regulations to add a new class of products to the Saskatchewan Waste Electronic Equipment Program (SWEEP). The products to be included are personal or portable audio or video playback systems and home audio and video playback or recording systems. The proposed amendments also include home theatre-in-a-box systems, vehicle audio and video systems, and non-cellular telephone or answering machines. Fees range from 40 cents to six dollars depending on the device.

Alberta targets plastic bags

Alberta has joined a number of other provinces and municipalities that have undertaken initiatives relating to plastic bag usage and reduction.

The government has announced an agreement with the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers and the Canadian Association of Chain Drug Stores. The agreement is to voluntarily reduce the use of plastic bags in Alberta by fifty percent by 2013. Currently, there are approximately 900 million plastic bags in use each year in the province.

PEI e-waste recycling program

The Ministry of Environment, Energy and Forestry in Prince Edward Island has announced that, as of July 1, 2010, electronic waste will be diverted from landfill sites. This decision is based on a plan to manage

a recycling program for electronic waste that was submitted by Atlantic Canada Electronics Stewardship and accepted by the government.

Atlantic Canada Electronics Stewardship is an industry organization that represents electronics manufacturers, distributors and other stakeholders. As of July 1, 2010, a fee will be charged on the purchase of new electronic products as a means of funding the cost of the recycling program. Products included in the plan that will no longer be accepted in residential solid waste carts or commercial waste collections include computers, televisions, portable stereos and CD players, VCRs and DVD players and non-cellular telephones.

Transboundary waste movement consultation

The federal government has undertaken a process of public consultation in order to update Canada’s regulatory framework for the transboundary movement of waste and hazardous recyclable materials. The objective is to streamline Canada’s regulations and ensure that practices are harmonized with international standards and agreements. Some of the regulations that will be updated include the Export and Import of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Material Regulations, 2005, the Interprovincial Movement of Hazardous Waste Regulations, 2002 and the PCB Waste Export Regulations, 1996.

The review includes examining regulatory provisions governing the export and import of non-hazardous waste for final disposal and the export and import of designated electrical and electronic equipment destined for final disposal, recycling or reuse. The review will also examine streamlining and integrating provisions for the export and import of hazardous waste containing PCBs, and simplification of interprovincial requirements and alignment with requirements under other regulations.

The intent is to improve the enforceability of the legislation, while reducing administrative and paperwork burden on stakeholders.

Beverage container recovery programs

Alberta’s Beverage Container Management Board has released a paper that analyses beverage container recovery programs and costs associated with such programs across Canada. The paper entitled “Who Pays What: An Analysis of Beverage Container Recovery and Costs in Canada 2010” identifies trends and examines container reuse and recycling programs across Canada. The paper concludes that the beverage industry in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick (for liquor), Yukon and Northwest Territory bears no cost to operate the provincial collection and recycling programs. Instead, the system costs are paid for by the “wasting consumer” — defined as the consumer that does not return containers for recycling, and by the recycling consumer. (See the previous edition of this magazine for further details.)

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 August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 47

PRODUCTS

Norseman Green Bin

The Green Bin program has been a huge success since it’s inception eight years ago. Over 2.5 million homes in Canada now separate their food waste from the rest of the waste stream.

The progressive de design of the Green Bin and Green Bin+ coupled with dynamic promotional and edu educational materials al allow for high participa participation and capture rates contamina with very low contaminamunicipal tion. As more municipalities look to implement source-sep a program for source-separated organics (SSO) they look to Norseman Environmental Products for solutions that are proven to work and ensure success. Norseman’s products and expertise in implementing SSO programs are second to none.

Visit www.norsemanenvironmental.com and www.earthmachine.com

track record in mechanical manufacturing and assembly to electrical manufacturing and assembly. The company’s professional team of 2,500 serves a multitude of industrial and agricultural sectors including renewable energy.

The XACT BioReactor allows Intecnial to offer a sustainable solution to its clients who face the challenge of better solid organic waste management. The in-vessel rotating drum technology converts massive amounts of solid organic waste into quality compost within four to seven days. Whether the organic waste comes from poultry farms, commercial processors, or municipalities, the BioReactor rapidly processes the material with little or no odour using very low horse power. Intecnial is confident that the robust design and engineering of the composting system will enhance and add to their vision of being a part of the global “going green” initiative.

Contact Doreen Rafuse Westall, Marketing Director, 613-394-1922 x304

Rotating drum for organics

XACT Systems is pleased to announce its selection by Intecnial S.A. of Erechim, Brazil as a new strategic partner in its commitment to providing economically viable solutions for organic waste management. Intecnial is a diverse company with expertise and a proven

“Bagster” dumpster in a bag

Waste Management, Inc. (NYSE:WM) has announced the Canadian introduction of its firstPub−2009−E.jpg ever retail product: Bagster®, Dumpster in a Bag®. An innovation in waste removal, this

48 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

product is a cost-effective, on-demand solution for do-it-yourself (DIY) enthusiasts or professional contractors when a dumpster is too big for the job. It’s ideal for projects ranging from home renovations and neighbourhood cleanups to garage organization and cleaning.

The Bagster bag is a highly durable, woven bag that will not tear if punctured and can hold three cubic yards of debris and up to 3,300 pounds, including full sheets of plywood, doors and even a bathtub. Bags can be purchased at participating home improvement and hardware stores in Canada, a list of which is available at www.thebagster.com Homeowners and contractors can use the bag for as long as they need to complete their project. When the task is finished, collection can be paid for and scheduled online at the website or by calling 1-877-789-2247. A local operating subsidiary of Waste Management will collect the bag within three business days.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation offers some interesting facts about Canadian home renovations: • Approximately 50 per cent of Canadian households renovated their home during 2009. (40 per cent of Canadian households renovated their home during 2008.)

• The average Canadian home renovation in 2009 cost $12,100.

• 98 per cent of Canadian homeowners have some intent to do a home renovation in 2010.

Suggested retail price for a Bagster bag in Canada is $39.95. The collection fee is $159.95 in most areas but varies by region due to regional disposal cost differences — generally the cost is 50 to 70 percent less than a dumpster rental.

Bagster bags are available throughout most parts of Canada at local home improvement and hardware stores, including participating The Home Depot, RONA and Lowe’s stores.

Visit www.thebagster.com

PRODUCTS (Left to right) Joel Paikin (Sennebogen), Constantino Lannes (Sennebogen), Benoit Trottier (Hydromec), Erich Sennebogen (Sennebogen), Jean Trottier (Hydromec) and Walter Sennebogen (Sennebogen).

Sennebogen machines in Northern Quebec

Recycle buckets offer multiple options

JRB recycle buckets by Paladin Construction Group include the powerful JRB refuse/ transfer bucket and the versatile JRB grapple bucket. Both are engineered to increase wheel loader productivity in a wide variety of recycling, landfill and transfer station applications.

To maintain maximum efficiency, high-wear areas have drilled (instead of welded) width and edge hole patterns designed to fit standard OEM wear parts. JRB recycle buckets may be used as a pin-on attachment or with the company’s quick coupler system.

The JRB refuse/transfer bucket comes in two profile style designs: a pushing style to move debris and a loading style with a deeper pocket to pick up debris and easily dump it where needed. A heavy-duty tubular visibility spill guard is located toward the top of the bucket so operators can see when the load is reaching maximum capacity. This makes it easy to see the material being moved or scooped for precise bucket filing and optimal productivity.

The bucket’s base is constructed of minimum 50-yield steel, while all wear areas are made from a minimum Burnell hardness of 400. The bucket is available in five wheel loader size ranges with capacities from four to 10 cubic yards. The grapple bucket is available in three different designs: a full-side design to move small and fine material, a half-side design that is lighter in weight and can handle mediumsize material, and a cutaway design to move larger debris. Each design has two separate grapple arms that can be independently moved by the dual hydraulic cylinders, allowing for better control and versatility when clamping uneven loads. An optional screen guard can also be used when maximum material retention is crucial or when transporting small and fine material. The grapple bucket is available in seven wheel loader size ranges with capacities from one to eight cubic yards.

Visit www.paladinbrands.com

For 35 years, the Trottier family has operated Hydromec, building a reputation for quality work and rapid service. So, when the company decided to expand its product line, it sought out a manufacturer that would allow it to maintain this reputation. It quickly set its sights on Sennebogen.

Constantino Lannes, President of Sennebogen America, recently announced that Hydromec has been appointed as the newest addition to the company’s growing distributor network. Hydromec will represent the Sennebogen’s green line in Northern Quebec from its two locations in Dolbeau-Mistassini and Chicoutimi. Hydromec will start offering the Sennebogen product line to its customers involved in forestry operations as well as those in sawmills, logging operations, waste management facilities, recycling operations and scrap metal yards. He will be covering most of Northern Quebec including the Gaspe region.

“We are bringing in four material handlers, the 305 and the 821 for the recycling and waste industries and the larger 825 M and the new 830 M-T wagon puller machine for logging applications, so we will have at least one or two machines at all times at our location.”

Visit www.sennebogen-na.com

Overstock collars and couplings

A new overstock parts list featuring shaft collars and couplings that were typically production overruns and can eliminate the need for custom ordering is being offered by Stafford Manufacturing Corp. of Wilmington, Massachusetts. Stafford overstock collars and couplings include a wide variety of first quality parts resulting from overruns and discontinued items. Providing designers and maintenance personnel with the ability to solve problems instantly, without custom ordering, the parts are in-stock for immediate delivery at approximately 50 to 80 per cent off their original cost. Featuring different sizes, materials, and configurations, the parts list includes part numbers, category and description, quantities available, photographs for some, and pricing.

This list is dynamic, updated several times throughout the year and sometimes includes various types of tools and equipment.

Visit www.staffordmfg.com

IMAGINE Imagine going weeks between collections of waste, recyclables, and even organics.

With Molok®, you can.

www.molok.com

August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 49

by Guy Crittenden

EQUIPMENT

“An advance warning is automatically sent to let our customers know that someone needs to come and switch out the container.”

A Matter of Scale

Scale system weighs scrap food materials efficiently

“I

love being a garbage man,” says Denny Pool, owner of SP Industries in Hopkins, Michigan. SP Industries supplies waste management equipment for businesses such as ReConserve Inc., which purchases scrap food materials to process into feed for livestock.

Since joining SP Industries in 1983, Pool has seen a great amount of growth in this part of the waste industry.

“It has become a big market because of the high price of corn,” Pool says. “Now many of these businesses are buying from these scrap generators or providers.”

With the industry becoming increasingly competitive, ReConserve wanted a fair way to buy scrap materials directly from various providers.

In order to do this, the company needed an efficient method of weighing scrap materials. Of the several scales ReConserve tested, one scale system, used in conjunction with equipment from SP Industries, stood out.

“We tried platform scales, but they constantly got dirty and generally didn’t work well,” Pool says. “We also thought of trying a paddle system with a load cell, but that would not take very much abuse — which is a concern in our industry. After some research, we decided to try the Avery Weigh-Tronix (AWTX) scale system, and it has worked extremely well.”

This scale system includes an AWTX SimulCast™ WI-130 forklift scale and an AWTX Model E1070 indicator, which communicates with a PLC to deliver a robust weighing solution. The system was the brainchild of Patrick DiCianni, president of Allied Measurement in Crestwood, Illinois.

Article continues on page 52...

THINKING MORE SUSTAINABLY We are AECOM. Our waste management expertise ranges from strategy and planning, diversion, processing and transfer systems, to disposal and waste-to-energy systems.

AECOM…Enhancing the world’s built, natural and social environments.

www.aecom.com 50 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

EQUIPMENT

SP Industries can mount the forklift scale onto any of several fork attachments, which are constructed to withstand varying weights ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 lbs.

Une Société de TransForce A TransForce Company

Composting BioReactor Landfill Waste Water Treatment Facility Soil Remediation Facility 17125 Lafleche Road Moose Creek ON 613-538-2776 • www.laflecheenvironmental.com

IMAGINE Imagine having six times more capacity in the same area compared to

Find your green.

2cg

• Private & Public Sectors • Waste diversion planning • Residential, IC&I and • Recycling, MHSW, C&D waste streams Composting, MBT, E-Waste • Waste auditing Paul van der Werf, M.Sc. | 519-645-7733 | 877-801-7733 | 2cg.ca Mary Little | 905-372-4994

surface bins.

With Molok®, you can.

Inc.

Waste Management Consulting Services

www.molok.com

August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 51

EQUIPMENT

“We incorporated the AWTX forklift scale into the lift forks of an extended height dumper (EHD) by SP Industries,” DiCianni says.

When this combination was paired with the E1070 Indicator, ReConserve had a robust, efficient solution.

“First, a tote full of food by-product and scrap is placed onto the forklift scale,” DiCianni continues. “The EHD then rotates 135 degrees and releases the materials. The AWTX E1070 allows us to record the weight of the full tote on the way up, and also to record the weight of the empty tote on the way down.

The indicator then reports this information to a PLC, which calculates the net weight.”

“So many manufacturers have tried to do this in many different ways, but the forklift scale made more sense,” DiCianni adds. “It’s very simple and works flawlessly.”

HMI

The AWTX forklift scale features Weigh Bar® weight sensors for reliable, repeatable results. In addition, the scale’s out-of-level compensation ensures that readings remain accurate, even when a fork changes positions.

The E1070 provides process control and data management with flexible connectivity options and built-in network interfaces. In addition, the E1070 has a NEMA 6/4X rated enclosure to offer a robust solution for wet, dusty or otherwise hazardous environments.

This system also offers a simple solution for both scrap food providers and ReConserve employees, who pick up the scrap materials once the containers are filled. Employees dropping off scrap food materials simply punch a number into the PLC describing which area or department they represent, and the scale automatically raises the container of materials,

Management Solutions

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

⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

CONSULTANT Operations Strategic Planning Procurement Project Management

⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

RFP & Bid Evaluations Cost Control Maintenance Programs Design & Layout

Helping Manage Industry STERLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES Providing solutions through necessary actions...

Mitchell Gibbs CES, CEC, CAQS Agent

Sterling Group of Companies N.A.

905.517.5330 mitch@thegibbs.ca

weighs it and dumps the materials — handsoff, quickly and safely. This way, materials are both weighed and documented; allowing companies to determine which of their departments produce the most scrap waste — information that’s important in facilitating lean manufacturing. In addition, the E1070 is configured so that it sends out an advance warning to ReConserve when their containers are almost filled.

“This allows us to have a hands-off type of system,” Pool says. “An advance warning is automatically sent to let our customers know that someone needs to come and switch out the container.”

Pool says the system can be configured to define “nearly full” in different terms, sending a warning when a container is 75 to 90 per cent full, depending on the application. “It’s an adjustable type of system, which is nice,” Pool adds. “Some applications may take two days to have a ReConserve truck service the account, and others it may take two hours.”

SP Industries can mount the forklift scale onto any of several fork attachments, which are constructed to withstand varying weights ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 lbs. In addition, this system allows the company to dump materials from nearly any range required — from 3 to 29 ft. high.

“That’s the nice thing about this system — the flexibility,” Pool says. “We try to keep it broad enough fit into different categories but fine-tuned to each particular application.”

The system helps ensure the safety of employees as well.

“Safety is a major issue in this industry,” Pool says. “This system is compliant with OSHA and ANSI Z245.2 safety standards for waste equipment compaction and dumping.”

The simplicity, safety and flexibility of this system, in conjunction with its rugged construction, makes this combination of an AWTX forklift scale and E1070 indicator an effective solution that can be applied at many companies.

For more information on Avery WeighTronix products and distributors, visit www.wtxweb.com Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine. Contact Guy at gcrittenden@solidwastemag.com

52 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

Advertisers’ Index Company

Page # Company

August/September 2010

Page #

2cg/Paul Van der Werf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,51

Laurin Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

ALLU Group Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Mack Trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

AMRC/Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators . .51

Molok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49,51,53

Audit Bureau of Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Norseman Environmental Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Bandag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation . . . . . . . . . .56

Battery Broker Environmental Services Inc ., The . . . . . . .51

Recycling Council of Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Recycle City Waste Disposal & Recycling Facility . . . . . . .13

Bulk Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Rehrig Pacific Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42-43

Scarab Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

City of Toronto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Schuyler Rubber Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Curotto-Can, The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Sebright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

G .C . Duke Equipment Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Sims Cab Depot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

ECO Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Sterling Management Services/Mitchell Gibbs . . . . . . . . .52

EMF Containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Supreme International Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Eriez Magnetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Trux Route Management Systems Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Geoware Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Van Dyk Baler Corp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Glad Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Veolia Environmental Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Gore & Associates, W .L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Vermeer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Harris Balers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Voghel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

HMI Management Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Walinga Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Lafleche Environmental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Walker Environmental Group . . . . . .1897 . . . . . . .MetalOutAd_3_09:Layout . . . . . . . . .12 1 3/26/09 www.molok.com

IMAGINE Imagine a waste area without odour, insects, wildlife or litter.

With Molok®, you can.

12:25 PM

Page 1

Eddy Current Separators

Magnetic Drum Separators

Suspended Electromagnets

FREE VIDEO & LITERATURE! Call: 1-888-300-3743 or visit www.eriez.com

August/September 2010 www.solidwastemag.com 53

BLOG

by Usman Valiante & Don Dewees “How many million has OES accrued in ecofees not expended on recycling? OES isn’t required to tell so no one knows.”

Eco-fee monopolies must end

W

hen the Ontario government backtracked in July on eco-fees for municipal hazardous or special wastes, the sorry event was just the latest incident in a long saga of failures associated with an approach to paying for recycling in many Canadian jurisdictions. (See articles on pages 4 and 20.)

Incredibly, the McGuinty government transferred financial responsibility for the program from product producers and consumers to the general taxpayer — an about face on a policy that makes those who produce waste responsible for dealing with that waste.

So where does the eco-fee problem come from in the first place?

Take the case of electronics products.

When you buy a television in many Canadian jurisdictions, you pay an additional eco-fee — $26.25 in Ontario on a large television, irrespective of brand, where in the province you bought it, or who you bought it from.

That $26.25 is an amount agreed to by a combine made up of electronics product producers and retailers. The combine — Ontario Electronic Stewardship (OES) — includes the likes of Sony, Hewlett Packard, Canon, Dell and big box retailers such as Home Hardware, Best Buy Canada, Hudson’s Bay and Sears. That this group gets together and sets TV and computer eco-fees is quietly ignored by many Canadian jurisdictions but is actually mandated in Ontario by the Waste Diversion Act. Every manufacturer or importer pays OES the same “eco-fee” irrespective of how green or how dirty their products are or how much or how little of their product is recyclable. Since every producer bears the same “fixed” eco-fee, it’s natural for them to pass the fee on to consumers by adding them on to wholesale prices. Retailers in turn pass them on to consumers at the till with sales taxes levied on those eco-fees.

Even if one manufacturer finds a way to recover and recycle its products more cost effectively than its competitors, there’s no incentive to do so when the producer must pay the standard eco-fee anyway.

In general, Canadian law restricts producer monopolies, price-fixing and market domination because they interfere with the competition and innovation that bring us better products and lower prices. Canadians should tolerate (much less require) monopoly only in special circumstances where it will demonstrably yield better results. We do not think

54 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2010

that this applies to recycling programs for consumer products and we are especially critical of virtually unregulated monopolies.

Consider that after a year of operation OES has only reached 40 per cent of the annual electronics recycling target it set out for itself. How many million has OES accrued in eco-fees not expended on recycling?

OES isn’t required to tell so no one knows.

Although Ontario Environment Minister John Gerretsen has told OES that he is, “... disappointed with the collection and diversion results achieved in the first year of the program,” he has no recourse under the Waste Diversion Act to compel OES to improve recycling rates.

The solution to this lack of product-producer environmental and economic accountability has already been identified by the Ontario government. It has proposed to make individual product producers accountable for the end-of-life recovery and recycling of their wastes and to set reasonable recycling targets and environmental standards for those producers.

By making individual producers — and not collectives of producers — responsible for environmental outcomes, those producers become subject to the Competition Act Canada. The setting of common eco-fees then becomes subject to the same discipline that prevents producers from getting together and setting prices when they sell their products.

From an environmental perspective, making recycling competitive rather than monopolistic means the manufacturer’s motivation to reduce costs and maximize profits in selling their products drives them to make those same products greener and less costly to recycle.

Amendments to the WDA that would create a competitive dynamic between producers and address the eco-fee issue are long overdue.

The Canadian “eco-fee” experiment with monopoly must end. It’s time to foster an economy that is competitive, innovative, efficient and green and that ensures Canadians get the environmental bang-for-the buck that only competitive markets can deliver.

Usman Valiante is principal of Corporate Policy Group in Orangeville, Ontario. Contact Usman at valiante@corporatepolicygroup.com Written with Don Dewees, an economics and law professor at the University of Toronto.

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