Solid Waste & Recycling April-May 2012

BC uct ip h od s 8 Pr ard e 3 ew pag St —

Solid Waste & Recycling Canada’s magazine on collection, hauling, processing and disposal April/May 2012

RESULTS FROM OUR

INDUSTRY SURVEY — page 8

CPMP No. 40069240

An EcoLog Group Publication

Construction & Demolition Waste Recycling — page 29 swr a-m 2012 cvr nl pg 01.indd 1

26/04/12 3:05 PM

swr a-m 2012 ad pg 02.indd 2

11/04/12 2:40 PM

Solid Waste & Recycling

CONTENTS April/May 2012 Volume 17, Number 2

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

COVER STORY

YOUR SURVEY RESULTS

8 Cover art by Charles Jaffe

Earlier this year we polled reader opinion on a range of issues related to waste management, from diversion and recycling to composting and waste-to-energy. Our editor reports.

by Guy Crittenden

DEPARTMENTS

FEATURES TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY: LICENSES

Editorial

4

New technology to verify driver licenses.

by George Sutej

Up Front

6

17

Organic Matters

25

PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP: FUNDING

Waste Business

31

Ontario changes product stewardship funding rules.

by Usman Valiante 21

Regulation Roundup

32

OWMA Report

34

IC&I WASTE: GREEN PACKAGING

Products

36

Ad Index

37

Blog

38

E.F. Walter’s ThermaGreen polyethylene foam.

by Diane Blackburn

CONTEST WINNERS See page 7 to see the four winners of our online survey contest. Each receives a Kindle e-book reader.

Transportation technology, page 17

27

NEXT EDITION Bonus Distribution: Various special industry events Editorial: Waste management in Canada overview.

Waste-to-energy permitting. Polycoat recycling. Compactor technology. Carts & Containers.

Space closing: May 23 Artwork required: May 27

IC&I waste, page 27

MRF equipment, page 29

April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 3

swr a-m 2012 contents pg 03.indd 3

11/04/12 7:50 AM

EDITORIAL

by Guy Crittenden “The exercise had become ‘inside baseball’ only a handful of experts could truly understand.”

The Soviet Republic of Ontario

Y

ears ago when Ontario established the Waste Diversion Organcame to be known) during an election year led to the sacking of an enization, now known as Waste Diversion Ontario or “WDO,” to vironment minister and, absurdly, provincial taxpayers covering the cost oversee the funding program of the province’s blue box and of managing the wastes while the province figures out what to do. various product stewardship programs, we expressed concern over the The problems at the WDO and with the MHSW program are many, contracting out of public policy to an arms-length entity that might imand the story is too complicated to report in detail here. Suffice it to say pose central planning in place of market competition and innovation. that the issues with which minister Bradley and his staff must contend It was not reassuring that some staff at Stewardship Ontario (SO) are well set-out by the Ontario Waste Management Association — the industry funding organization (IFO) for the blue box — were (OWMA) in its written submission letters on both topics. long-time proponents of the “shared cost” model for recycling, which is The OWMA offers possible solutions to a range of problems of just inconsistent with true extended producer responsibility (EPR). To what the kind (unsurprisingly) we fretted about years ago, including the extent, we wondered, might their general outlook taint the development WDO’s ability to protect the public interest being compromised by “the of stewardship programs? embedded conflict of interests in its Board composition” which have Over the years on this editorial page and in numerous columns from “hindered the organization’s ability to fulfill its mandate and effectively contributing editors we advocated starved it of proper resourcing.” government to set and enforce stanIn its critique of the MHSW dards, then let companies that meet program, the OWMA writes that those standards compete to deliver it’s “unfortunate that over the last the best solutions at the lowest price. number years our members have An over-arching concern also despent more time managing the onveloped over the years that the whole going flaws of the Waste Diversion exercise had become “inside baseAct (WDA), than actually working ball” only a handful of experts could to increase diversion.” The truly understand. The public can OWMA’s concerns are replete with understand the benefit of throwing references to incentive programs paper and packaging in a blue box, that fail to leverage competitive but understanding whether or not it’s forces within a fair and open marbetter to, say, have a visible fee for ket. spent household hazardous waste In one place the association packaging, well, that’s pretty much a notes, “Decisions by IFOs are not fulltime job, the exculsive purview of driven by the ‘public interest,’ inPhoto shows a typical collection of under-the-counter hazardous materials in the consultants. On top of that, regulated stead they seek to minimize costs form of commercial cleansers. Ironically the poor roll-out of Ontario’s product industry has a penchant for hiring stewardship program for household hazardous waste led to the government funding and risk for stewards,” adding that an industry program with taxpayers’ money. some of the brightest minds to design this “is entirely rational based on Photo by Guy Crittenden programs and policy options that the position they have been afminimize industry costs, while still appearing to protect the environment. forded under the WDA. However, it means that targets often act as caps They’re abetted in this by politicians eager to announce they’ve solved rather than minimum thresholds. As a result, incentives can be reduced some problem, though insiders know when compromises mock the very simply when a target is met or exceeded.” idea of sustainability or consumer protection.

It was all so predictable.

Currently, Ontario’s Environment Minister Jim Bradley is overseeReading the critique is reminiscent of reports from the old Soviet ing two exercises that, sadly, reveal our early suspicions were well block where factories fulfilled state production quotas while the general founded. We’re nevertheless hopeful the coming changes will fulfill the population starved, drove cars without wiper blades, or could only buy provincial waste diversion framework envisioned in the 2009 white left-soled shoes. paper From Waste to Worth.

We implore the minister to listen to the OWMA and other conThe first exercise is an overhaul of governance at the WDO, which is structive critics; revamp not only the WDO board and the MHSW probeing changed to better fulfill its oversight and compliance responsibilgram, but also the Waste Diversion Act itself. And we suggest other ities under reforms to the Waste Diversion Act proposed by the minister provinces stay abreast of the coming changes so they can (hopefully) (and added duties the minister announced on February 9, 2012). The learn from Ontario’s mistakes and get it right in their jurisdictions... second, and somewhat intersecting, exercise is revamping the stewardthe first time. ship program for Phase Two Municipal Household & Special Waste (MHSW) that garnered bad press due to a poor roll-out of inconsistent Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine. retail “eco fees” that confused consumers. The MHSW fee fiasco (as it Contact Guy at gcrittenden@solidwastemag.com 4 www.solidwastemag.com April/May 2012

swr a-m 2012 editorial pg 04.indd 4

11/04/12 7:50 AM

swr a-m 2012 ad pg 05.indd 5

11/04/12 7:51 AM

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 Account Manager Jamie Ross jross@solidwastemag.com Sheila Wilson Art Director Kim Collins Market Production Anita Madden Circulation Manager Carol Bell-Lenoury Mgr EcoLog Group Bruce Creighton President Business Information Group

BC paper & packaging stewardship

Contributing Editors Michael Cant, Rosalind Cooper, Maria Kelleher, Clarissa Morawski, Usman Valiante, Paul van der Werf, Award-winning magazine Solid Waste & Recycling magazine is published six times a year by EcoLog Information Resources Group, a divi­sion of BIG Magazines LP, a div. of Glacier BIG Holdings Company Ltd., a leading Canadian businessto-business information services company that also publishes HazMat Management magazine and other information products. The magazine is printed in Canada.

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

Subscription Rates: Canada – $51.95 (add applicable taxes) per year, $82.95 (add applicable taxes) for 2 years, single copy $10.00.

USA and all other foreign – $82.95 per year US single copy US10.00 Canadian Publications Mail Product Sales Agreement No. 40069240 Information contained in this publication has been compiled from sources believed to be reliable, thus Solid Waste & Recycling cannot be responsible for the absolute correctness or sufficiency of articles or editorial contained herein. Articles in this magazine are intended to convey information rather than give legal or other professional advice. Reprint and list rental services are arranged through the Publisher at (416) 510-6798.

Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to: Circulation Department, Solid Waste & Recycling 12 Concorde Pl, Ste 800, Toronto, ON M3C 4J2 From time to time we make our subscription list available to select companies and organizations whose product or service may interest you. If you do not wish your contact information to be made available, please contact us via one of the following methods: Phone: 1-800-268-7742 Fax: 416-510-5148 E-Mail: jhunter@businessinformationgroup.ca Mail to: Privacy Officer

Business Information Group

80 Valleybrook Drive

Toronto, ON M3B 2S9 We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Canada Periodical Fund (CPF) for our publishing activities. © 2012 All rights reserved. No part of this pub­li­ca­tion may be reproduced without prior con­­sent.

Print edition: ISSN-1483-7714

Online edition: ISSN-1923-3388

Paper and packaging recycling containers at the regional landfill in Prince George, BC.

I

n March 2012, stewardship body Multi-Material British Columbia (MMBC) received the completed Phase 1 analysis of the current BC waste diversion system and options for delivering an extended producer responsibility(EPR) program for residential packaging and printed paper (or “PPP”, the sort of materials normally collected in blue box programs). The analysis represents a comprehensive effort to understand the amount of PPP supplied into the BC residential market place, plus the existing residential PPP collection and processing infrastructure (and the total amount of this material currently collected and recycled in the province).

For a detailed description of the Phase 1 analysis results, see the article on page 38.

McDonald’s testing paper cups McDonald’s Corp. is investigating an alternative to its ubiquitous polystyrene foam beverage cups for hot drinks. About 2,000 of the company’s restaurants (mostly on the west coast) will test a double-walled fibre hot cup in an attempt to phase out the usually foam cups normally sent for disposal, according to a company news release. McDonald’s has indicated it will assess customer acceptance, operational impact and overall performance.

The possible switch is in response to a shareholder resolution filed in 2011 by As You Sow, a nonprofit organization that promotes environmental and social corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy, coalition building and legal

strategies. As You Sow takes positions in publicly-traded companies, then puts forward forward-thinking ideas on behalf of shareholders.

As You Sow’s proposal asked McDonald’s to assess the environmental impact of different kinds of beverage containers and to develop package recycling goals. Nearly 30 per cent of McDonald’s shareholders who voted supported the resolution, which would make the hot-beverage cups more in-line with the company’s other food packaging, which is normally recyclable and contains recycled content.

To learn more about As You Sow, visit www.asyousow.org

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.”

For more information, visit www.fsc.org

6 www.solidwastemag.com April/May 2012

swr a-m 2012 upfront pg 06-07.indd 6

11/04/12 7:51 AM

UPFRONT

LETTERS In February, Editor Guy Crittenden started an ongoing online article series on www.solidwastemag.com and www. hazmatmag.com informally called “the cancer-prevention lifestyle” about his own dietary and other changes (e.g., removal of toxic under-the-counter commercial cleaning products) to rid his body and immediate environment of toxins. The article series continues so be sure to follow it at the website. The article generated a lot of letters like this one:

Dear Editor,

Awesome... now that is certainly the best stuff you have ever written in my opinion Guy! My wife has switched our family to eating this way based on her own family health history in which she had done a tonne of research. It is truly amazing how aware that your physical body can actually be of the various toxins that we put into it. Eating as natural as humanly possible has made a huge difference in our lives.

Thanks for sharing...and keep up the great work!

Cheers,

Kerry LeBreton

Renewaste Lively, Ontario www.renewaste.com One of our contributing editors Clarissa Morawski had this to say about the page 4 editorial in the last edition about a study that purported to show high diversion rates in European countries:

Dear Editor,

Last month editor Guy Crittenden wrote a very upbeat editorial “We Can Do This” describing a new report which documents a number of best-case strategies for improving waste diversion.

Crittenden makes a special mention of Belgium with its “jaw dropping” 93 per cent packaging recycling program. Sound too good to be true?

Survey contest winners At the end of March we chose the random winners of four shiny new Kindle e-book readers from among the more than 500 readers who responded to our online survey. (The results are the Cover Story of this magazine edition.) The winners were: Barry Janyk Helix Heliports Systems Gibsons, BC

Vincent Bryant Village of Oak Park Public Works Department Oak Park, Illinois

Bill Beaton Lotowater Technical Services Inc. Paris, Ontario

Mike Skrine Wilderness Waste Management Banff, Alberta

A closer look at the 93 per cent reveals that it’s not quite as good as it seems. FOST Plus presents a picture where recycling rates for glass and paper packaging are over 100 percent (that’s fishy...). The importation of heavy glass and non-household packaging introduced into their scheme make it more difficult to present a true picture, so they choose one that’s inflated.

On the bottom side of the equation, the denominator misses out on the actual material generated, because free riders (that don’t report their sales) usually account for at least 10 per cent — excluded from the denominator. Further reading of the fine print tells us that nearly half of the metal recovery (another recycling rate over 100 per cent!) is recovered from the bottom ash in incinerators. This recovered metal will most certainly not be recycled into higher-end uses like aluminum and steel packaging again.

A Belgian colleague put it to me like this, “With these unrepresentative figures, any recycling statistics look nice.” He also sent me this photo taken at the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium last spring. Maybe they should consider deposit-refund?

I am sorry that Crittenden nor the authors of the report bothered to dig deeper, beyond what is reported as collective recycling rates in each jurisdiction, to what the rates actually represent.

Today more than ever, as governments and industry stewards make critical decisions around recycling policy, we must clearly differentiate what the data tells us, which that starts with reading the fine print.

Clarissa Morawski, Principal CM Consulting Peterborough, Ontario

EPR Canada launches Report Card

A

relatively new organization — EPR Canada — has launched a new measure to study the extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs burgeoning in every province across Canada.

EPR programs are an effort to have waste producers pay for the end-of-life management of the consumer products and packaging they put into the marketplace. The measure is the launch of a Report Card to evaluate the policies which support these programs.

“EPR Canada has assembled a panel of the leading experts in the field in Canada to review each government’s response and to score their performance,” says Duncan Bury, one of the leaders of this new initiative. “The results of these scores will be released at an open public event this June and will be posted on the EPR Canada website.”

For further information please contact Duncan Bury or Geoff Love or write to info@eprcanada.ca or visit www.eprcanada.ca April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 7

swr a-m 2012 upfront pg 06-07.indd 7

11/04/12 8:39 AM

The Great Canadian Environment Survey

swr a-m 2012 cvr sty pg 08-16.indd 8

11/04/12 7:57 AM

COVER STORY

Guy Crittenden “There’s definite support among our readers for Canadian jurisdictions doing ‘whatever it takes to become a Zero Waste society: 41.6% ‘strongly agree’ and 46.2% ‘somewhat agree’.”

Our reader’s weigh in on a range of waste-related topics

W

hen I inquired mid-February about the how things were going with our online industry and readership survey, I was very happy to learn from our IT department that over 500 readers had filled in the questionnaire. That’s a great response by survey standards and yields statistically significant results.

Here’s how you, our readers, answered our questions about waste management, recycling and a range of related topics (like what you think of our magazine).

Waste diversion The first thing we asked you was whether or not your local municipality or organization is committed to diverting 50% or more of the waste stream from landfill. Fully 526 people answered this question, 80.4% (or 423 people) saying “yes” and 19.6% (103 people) saying “no.” So, waste diversion appears to be a priority in most jurisdictions and organizations.

Next we asked readers if they’re more optimistic now than they were a year ago that their organization or local area will achieve 50 per cent diversion (or a specific waste diversion level) in the near future. The breakdown was similar (74% yes and 26% no), indicating less optimism, but only slightly.

The split was more down the middle when we asked people if their local municipality or organization has adequate local landfill capacity for the foreseeable future: 58.8% said “yes” while 41.2% answered “no.” (This obviously correlates to where people live.)

We were pleased to see that 88.2% of survey respondents agree with the statement, “Recyclable materials such as paper, metal, glass and certain plastics should simply be banned from landfill disposal.” Only 11.8% disagreed. (Provincial policymakers, take note!)

Systems & service delivery When we asked readers whether they prefer to see municipal solid waste collected, processed and disposed of through a publicly administered

4. Recyclable materials such as paper, metal, glass and certain plastics should simply be banned from landfill disposal.

100% 90%

88.20%

80% 70%

60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

11.80%

10% 0%

Agree

Disagree April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 9

swr a-m 2012 cvr sty pg 08-16.indd 9

11/04/12 7:54 AM

COVER STORY

and publicly delivered system, 57% said “yes” and 43% answered “no.”

Interestingly, however, when we offered the suggestion “I would like to see the municipal solid waste system administered by the government, but would like to see public and private entities compete for the provision of services such as collection, processing and disposal (i.e., a ‘hybrid’ system),” this struck a chord; 83.6% of readers agree with this idea, and only 16.4% oppose it.

We asked readers whether they think their municipal waste authority should adopt a user pay “Bag Tag” or similar “pay as you throw” system (to charge for each garbage bag set out at curbside) in order to encourage waste reduction and recycling/composting. Just over half (50.1%) agreed, about a third (27.9%) disagreed, and 22% of readers answered that such as system is “already in place” in their community.

With this support for charging people for what they discard, it’s not surprising then that 71% of readers think “there should be a strict limit on how many bags or containers of garbage people are allowed to set out for collection” (with only 29% saying this is not a good idea). But people want reasonableness, too. About half of you (49.8%) think folks should be able to put one bag out for free. A third (33.1%) think the first two bags should be free, and 17.1% think three bags should be allowed free of charge.

Whenever we survey reader opinion, we like to ask about deposit/ refund systems for used beverage containers. Interestingly, 69.9% of our readers feel used beverage containers for soft drinks should be collected and recycled primarily through a deposit/refund system (return to retail

or depot), not curbside collection; 30.1% disagree. (As an aside, this is how it’s done in most Canadian provinces.)

We next posed an admittedly “leading” question, but the reply surprised us with its force. We asked readers if they agree with the following statement: “I support the idea of collecting intact glass wine bottles via deposit/refund so they can be sterilized and re-used in local wine production and bottling.” Fully 511 people answered this question; of them 466 (91.2%) answered “agree” and just 45 people (8.8%) disagreed. Let’s hope the folks at Ontario’s Liquor Control Board (and other such entities) notice this level of support. (Currently, most intact bottles collected are smashed up for recycling.)

Diversion success trumps privacy for most of our readers. 69.2% of you agree that we should use clear garbage bags to assist enforcement of what’s allowed for recycling/disposal; 30.8 per cent don’t like that idea.

(What are they hiding?)

Infrastructure, approvals and “who does what”?

Product stewardship is a hot topic these days. (See article about BC’s plan to expand full product stewardship to all packaging and paper on page 38.) 50.1% of readers “strongly agree” and another 40.8% “somewhat agree” with the statement: “Manufacturers and brand owners should pay the full cost of recycling their end-of-life packaging materials, whether they’re collected in a curbside recycling program or via some other product stewardship program.” Only 6.2% of you “somewhat disagree” with this, or “strongly disagree” (3%). So it looks like

6. I would like to see the municipal solid waste system administered by the government, but would like to see public and private entities compete for the provision of services such as collection, processing and disposal (i.e., a “hybrid” system).

100 90

83.60%

80 70 60 50 40 30 16.40%

20 10 0

Agree

Disagree

10 www.solidwastemag.com April/May 2012

swr a-m 2012 cvr sty pg 08-16.indd 10

11/04/12 7:57 AM

COVER STORY

11. I support the idea of collecting intact glass wine bottles via deposit/refund so they can be sterilized and re-used in local wine production and bottling.

100

91.20%

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

8.80%

10 Walinga VC2336

0

6/11/07

N O W

2:36 PM

Page 1

Disagree

Agree

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

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

April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 11

swr a-m 2012 cvr sty pg 08-16.indd 11

11/04/12 7:58 AM

COVER STORY

13. Manufacturers and brand owners should pay the full cost of recycling their endof-life packaging materials, whether they’re collected in a curbside recycling program or via some other product stewardship program.

60 50 40.80% 40 30 20 10 0

6.20% Strongly Agree

Somewhat Agree

what BC is planning would have support across the country, i.e., having the “stewards” pay the full cost of what’s in the blue box.

Our readers are clear that waste management infrastructure shouldn’t be a political football, evidenced by their 87.6% approval (only 12.4% opposed) of the statement, “Waste management facilities like recycling operations, modern waste-to-energy plants, and landfills are just another form of infrastructure, like roads, power plants and sewage treatment facilities.” A similar percentage (81.6% agree, 18.4% disagree) believe “[w]e have fallen being in making adequate investments in waste treatment and disposal infrastructure.

It’s not surprising, then, that even more (a whopping 92.4%) agree that, “Waste management facilities should be highlighted as ‘critical infrastructure’ in all provincial planning processes.” (Only 7.6% disagree.)

Opinion was more divided on whether “the federal government should play a much larger role in setting waste management policy.”

(60.6% agree and 39.4% disagree.) We asked readers to rate the Canadian Council for Ministers of the Environment (CCME) in terms of its performance addressing solid waste issues (e.g., harmonization of standards). 48.6% answered “satisfactory” and 41.5% answered “poor.”

The outliers were “excellent” (just 3.3%) and “completely inadequate” (6.5%). It appears the CCME is getting an average rating for muddling along. (No surprises there.)

Somewhat Disagree

3.00% Strongly Disagree

Composting, WTE and technology Over the 17 years we’ve published Solid Waste & Recycling magazine, we’ve been impressed how the business has evolved from collection and disposal into an increasingly high-tech waste diversion industry. We wanted to measure opinion on things like composting, waste-to-energy (WTE) and new technologies.

We started by getting reaction to the statement, “ I believe every jurisdiction should implement source-separated organics (SSO) collection and composting programs for residents.” 78.6% agreed; 21.4% disagreed. (This may not mean the minority opposes composting; they might just prefer the backyard kind, especially in rural areas.)

We got a bit more technical (from a policy point of view) and asked readers if they’d support “the use of the CCME Class B guidelines to allow the sale of compost from mixed waste processing or from a ‘dirty’ multi-family SSO stream.” Almost three-quarters of you agreed (71.1%); 28.9% disagreed.

We found there’s strong support among readers for waste-to-energy, as long as certain conditions are met. Almost all of you either “strongly agree” (51.7%) or “somewhat agree” (37.8%) with WTE as a treatment/ disposal option, “assuming that most organics and recyclable materials are diverted first, and assuming the latest pollution control technology is employed.” Only 10.6% “somewhat” or “strongly” disagreed (combined).

“Biomass” is also an important topic nowadays. We told readers that

12 www.solidwastemag.com April/May 2012

swr a-m 2012 cvr sty pg 08-16.indd 12

13/04/12 2:11 PM

COVER STORY

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

“69.2% of you agree that we should use clear garbage bags to assist enforcement of what’s allowed for recycling/ disposal.”

November 14 - 15, 2012 International Centre, Toronto, ON Canada “The quality of visitors and prospects were excellent.”

Samantha Goetz, Orbis Corporation

“CWRE offers our company a means to reconnect with our current customer base and establish new customers all in one convenient location.”

Jackie W. Barlow, II Vice President Paradigm Software

California has embraced the concept of biomass “that views energy recovered from solid waste as a ‘renewable resource’ and therefore positive.” Just over half of readers (58.3 %) think we should “more or less adopt California’s approach.” About a third (31%) say we should adopt California’s approach “for such things as energy from methane/composting, but not conventional waste-to-energy.” 10.6% of you think we should “reject the concept that waste is a renewable resource” entirely.

We framed a similar question in energy terms, asking readers whether they agreed that, “Government energy policy should recognize the potential contribution of waste management facilities in generating renewable or ‘green’ energy (e.g., methane from landfills or in-vessel composting, waste-to-energy plants).” A very high number of you (94.4%) agree; only 5.6% disagree. So, the concept that energy from waste can be “green” is supported by most of our readers, by a wide margin.

Apparently our readers are, therefore, technology fans and give only average marks when asked to rate their “municipal government’s efforts to encourage the testing and adoption of innovative technologies for waste disposal.” 48.1% rate their municipality’s efforts as “medium” with only 22.1% rating them “high” and 29.8% rating them “poor.”

We asked readers to rate their provincial government’s efforts in

Reach Your Target Market!

85% of Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo attendees plan to

purchase products from exhibiting companies up to $250,000.* *2011 Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo Attendee Survey

For more information, please contact Arnie Gess Call: +1.403.589.4832 Email: arnie.gess@cwre.ca Visit: www.cwre.ca

12/11SWR

April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 13 CWRE12 SWR Ad 3.375 x 11.indd 1

swr a-m 2012 cvr sty pg 08-16.indd 13

12/5/2011 3:56:19 PM

11/04/12 7:58 AM

COVER STORY

29. Canadian jurisdictions should do whatever it takes to become a “Zero Waste” society.

100 90 80 70 60 50

41.60%

46.20%

40 30 20

7.90%

10 0

Strongly Agree

Somewhat Agree

the same area, with similar results (ever so slightly worse): 50.6% say “medium,” only 10.2% say “high,” while 39.2% answered “poor.”

It seems our government at all levels could do more to speed up adoption of new waste technologies.

Leading-edge policy We’ve published many articles about product stewardship and “extended producer responsibility” (EPR) in these pages. We were curious to know what program design our readers favor.

Interestingly, two-thirds of you (66.1%) favor programs in which “manufacturers and brand owners/first importers fund the recycling of e-waste through an industry stewardship/funding organization that sets fees and approves contractors to do the work.” (This is how most product stewardship programs in Canada work today.) One third (33.9%) of you favor a more radical program design in which “manufacturers and brand owners/first importers directly fund the management of their ewaste themselves or through contractors, with no industry organization setting a fee and/or handling the material.”

Opinion was divided over how product stewardship fees should

Somewhat Disagree

4.40% Strongly Disagree

work. 45.6% of you think a stewardship fee should be displayed “at the cash register.” 46.7% believe there should be no explicit fees (to encourage producers to internalize costs). (Only 7.7% of readers think programs should use “hidden fees.”) It seems policymakers will disappoint about half of our readers whatever way they go on this.

We weren’t surprised that most (77.5%) of readers believe their province or territory needs “to invest in an anti-litter campaign. (The 22.5% who disagree with this, by the way, aren’t necessarily in favor of litter; they simply mightn’t think it’s the province’s job to fund a campaign.)

There’s definite support among our readers for Canadian jurisdictions doing “whatever it takes to become a ‘Zero Waste’ society.” 41.6% “strongly agree” with this idea and a further 46.2% “somewhat agree.”

Only 7.9% of readers “somewhat disagree” or “strongly disagree” (4.4%). This result suggests that policymakers could push the “pedal to the metal” on the Zero Waste idea.

Trade associations & training We wanted to know what specific issues they’d like their waste- or recycling-oriented trade association to “focus its lobbying efforts on.” 129 people

14 www.solidwastemag.com April/May 2012

swr a-m 2012 cvr sty pg 08-16.indd 14

11/04/12 7:59 AM

COVER STORY

“92.4% agree that waste management facilities should be highlighted as ‘critical infra­struc­ture’ in all pro­vin­cial planning processes.” chose to answer this question; they offered a range of ideas that we’ll pass along to the associations. As you’d expect, the range was broad and included such things as this one: “Ban waste, recycle everything. Find ways to make recycling easier. Reduce packaging.” And this one: “By 2025 all governments levels should have systems that have ‘designed’ out waste with diversion programs for reuse, recycling and composting achieving 90% or more diversion of wastes from disposal.” Some were very specific, such as, “Microwaves should be part of electronic stewardship.”

It wasn’t surpising in this digital age that people would “prefer more

professional courses, training and certification-type exams” to be offered “online” (73.3%) as opposed to in “a classroom setting” (26.7%).

The breakdown was identical in answer to the related question, “I am prepared to pay for training courses offered online, to avoid the cost and time commitment of traveling to an onsite gathering/facility.” 156 people also offered suggestions on possible webinar topics, ranging from “how to accurately calculate waste diversion” to “tough and straight talk that compares one manufacturer’s piece of equipment against another.”

(We’ll share these all the ideas with our trade association partners!)

April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 15

swr a-m 2012 cvr sty pg 08-16.indd 15

11/04/12 7:59 AM

COVER STORY

15. We have fallen behind in making adequate investments in waste treament and disposal infrastructure.

100 90

81.60%

80 70 60 50 40 30

18.40%

20 10 0

Agree

Disagree

Solid Waste & Recycling magazine Finally, we wanted to know how our readers are experiencing our magazine and ask for suggestions. It was gratifying to learn that you think highly enough of our magazine to share it with others. A third of you (33.6%) read your copy without sharing, but 22.8% of you pass it along to one co-worker and 43.6% per cent of you share it with more than one coworker. So our audited magazine circulation vastly understates the number of actual readers we have.

We asked how often you read our recurring columns and topics. 80% of you read these either “always” or “sometimes.” The editor’s page 4 Editorial scored always/sometimes over 90%. The Cover Story scored 97%. No regular columnist scored below 85%.

Advertisers will be interested to know that 80.9% of you answered “True” to the statement “Advertising I encounter in Solid Waste & Recycling magazine helps me learn about and select waste management products and services.” 71.7% said their organization “relies on/makes use of my opinion when formulating decisions about what waste management products and services to buy.”

Lastly, we asked survey respondents (43.6% of whom are public sector and 56.4 per cent are private sector, by the way) what changes or improvements they’d like to see in the magazine. We were offered dozens of useful tips, though some people told us they’re happy with the publication the way it is. One respondent wrote, “We need more real life stories about local endeavors and operations, maybe a monthly column spotlighting the small guy.” Another wrote, “More life cycle thinking and less end of the pipe.” Some people commented that they like our cover art

by Charles Jaffe, one stating, “Love the front covers eye catching, appeals to all age groups, positive, often humorous, and packed full of excellent lessons.”

Thanks for the feedback, everyone! And we’ve announced the four survey contest winners of a free Kindle e-book reader on page 7.

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

16 www.solidwastemag.com April/May 2012

swr a-m 2012 cvr sty pg 08-16.indd 16

11/04/12 8:00 AM

T R A N S P O R TA T I O N T E C H N O L O G Y

by George Sutej “Ten per cent of all drivers in Canada do not have a valid license, yet 75 per cent continue to drive!”

License Verification New software reduces non-compliance risk

T

he fleet world continues to change with more compliance rules, due diligence and technologies thrust upon the industry. With so many changes it’s difficult to stay up to date on important changes within various provinces, including the tools that can help operate a fleet easier and safer.

The problem There are many ways for drivers to lose their license for a few days, months or longer, with a chance that the driver won’t inform an employer. Disturbingly, 10 per cent of all drivers in Canada do not have a valid license, yet 75 per cent continue to drive! They’re 56 per cent more likely to get in an accident and cause damage. This translates into seven in every 100 drivers on the road not having a license; the majority because they simply must get to work each day. On average 1.5 per cent of employees checked don’t have a valid license, and that doesn’t include improper class!

Of course a given percentage of drivers become involved in an accident shortly after they lose their license, sometimes injuring another driver. In cases where the driver is driving on behalf of an employer,

such as a waste service company or other hauler, the company can be criminally responsible; this leads to legal damages and other costs, including no insurance coverage.

You may be surprised to learn this also affects companies whose employees and subcontractors use their own vehicles during work hours.

Why does this happen?

The reasons for drivers losing their license are various and include family support issues and stricter nationwide drinking and driving laws related to cars, boats even snowmobiles. An impaired warning of .05 per cent now triggers an immediate suspension (for a minimum of three days and compounding up to six months) with an ignition interlock requirement. An impaired charge of over .08 per cent leads to an immediate suspension for 90 days and minimum one-year to a maximum of a lifetime suspension, with a minimum of one year to lifetime ignition interlock requirement.

Other reasons for suspensions include unpaid fines, failure to renew a license, and medical requirements required by law or imposed by doctors. Additionally, the class of license could be downgraded from failure ... continues on page 20

Batch result of what a fleet customer would see when verifying the license of their company driver file.

April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 17

swr a-m 2012 transtech pg 17-20.indd 17

11/04/12 8:00 AM

swr a-m 2012 transtech pg 17-20.indd 18

11/04/12 8:01 AM

T R A N S P O R TA T I O N T E C H N O L O G Y

The Environmental Benefits of Plastic Pallets

Left: Plastic pallets in use in a warehouse facility. Plastic pallets may now include GPS tracking devices, allowing real-time management of shipping pallets across large geographic areas.

Above: Wood pallets soak up fluids that can become a breeding ground for bacteria and pathogens such as E.Coli, Salmonella and Listeria.

A

s companies adopt sustainable business practices, many are exploring process, rather than clogging landfills at municipal solid waste facilities. how to extend those measures to their supply chains. For instance, • Plastic is non-absorptive and won’t soak up fluids that can become a breeding many companies — such as food and beverage manufacturers, ground for bacteria and pathogens such as E.Coli, Salmonella and Listeria pharmaceutical producers and consumer goods retailers — have begun to that can pose a risk to our food and medicines. In addition, because they’re reassess the environmental impact of how they ship and receive their products. immune to insect infestation, plastic pallets are never treated with insecticides, This reassessment has often resulted in the adoption fungicides, and do not contain formaldehyde, a of plastic pallets as their shipping platform of choice. “According to a 2009 carcinogenic chemical that can be found in adhesives There are myriad reasons for the switch. Chief among used in “engineered wood.” them is that plastic pallets have a number of tangible study conducted by the • Needless to say, plastic pallets help conserve our environmental benefits. For instance: forests. Over the past 150 years, deforestation has USDA and Virginia Tech • Plastic pallets have a dramatically lower en­viron­ contributed an estimated 30 per cent of the atmospheric mental impact than both pooled and one-way wood University, 7.2 billion build-up of CO2, a significant greenhouse gas, and has pallets. An independent life cycle analysis (LCA) been a major contributor to global warming. According board feet of timber was conducted by Environmental Resources Management to a 2009 study conducted by the USDA and Virginia assessed the “cradle-to-grave” impact of each pallet used to make pallets in the Tech University, 7.2 billion board feet of timber was type, including impacts on global warming, ozone used to make pallets in the US in 2006. That would US in 2006. That would depletion and toxicity. According to the analysis, equate to a forest more than 10 times the size of plastic pallets have a significantly lighter environmental Manhattan in just that year. equate to a forest more impact than wood pallets on every regularly-measured As a growing number of industries have embraced dimension, including 65 to 70 per cent less impact on than 10 times the size environmental stewardship in their daily operations global warming and over 90 per cent less impact on — through conserving natural resources, reducing of Manhattan in just that ozone layer depletion. waste, promoting hygiene and reducing fuel and • Plastic pallets are typically lighter than their wood year!” transportation costs — they have begun to realize the counterparts, requiring less fuel for transport. For significant benefits offered by plastic shipping pallets. example, iGPS plastic pallets weigh 48.5 pounds, or And the implications of their decision to adopt plastic about 35 per cent less than a typical multi-use wood pallets certainly will have a demonstrable impact on pallet. By reducing fuel usage, plastic pallets reduce pollution and greenhouse creating a marketplace that is more economically vibrant, healthier, safer and, gas emissions. In short, plastic pallets substantially reduce the amount of nonultimately, more sustainable. value-added weight from the supply chain.

• Most plastic pallets are 100 per cent recyclable. If damaged, the plastic resin Information supplied by Lewis Taffer, Chief Marketing Officer, iGPS from a damaged pallet can be molded into new ones, making its useful life Company, www.igps.net indefinite. Damaged pallets are removed from service and enter a full recycling

April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 19

swr a-m 2012 transtech pg 17-20.indd 19

11/04/12 8:02 AM

T R A N S P O R TA T I O N T E C H N O L O G Y ... from page 17

to complete or update a license endorsement or medical test requirement (making the driver unauthorized to drive a vehicle for the stated class).

Suspended drivers and their habits affect companies. New strict commercial impound laws require 90-day verification to avoid impound. Provinces with government-issued insurance require confirmation of yearly renewal. Updates to the criminal code leave company owners and directors at risk of loss of insurance coverage, fines, and prosecution.

The solution All these issues can now be averted with simple and frequent driver’s license verification.

Recently the company VerX Direct Corp. in Barrie, Ontario negotiated a landmark deal with Canada’s provinces and territories. VerX can now provide companies with their own 24/7 web access to provincial and territorial licensing departments so they can check the license status and class of a driver, either one at a time or in batches (multiple drivers). The service includes online access to reporting op-

Single-capture screenshot of checking one license at a time.

tions that allow export, printing or downloads of past transactions, when needed.

Results may often be obtained in seconds, reducing the time and burden for companies to maintain compliance. This is especially valuable for companies that operate in different provinces, avoiding weeks or even months of work.

“We’ve been using the system checking our drivers every month for over a year now,” says Doug Tilford of the Bluewater Recycling Association. “The system is fast, accurate, and extremely easy to use. Taking a proactive approach to risk has paid off many times over and given me peace of mind.”

Mike Millian, Driver & Vehicle Safety Manager for Hensall District Co-operative, says, “The cost of running a full abstract search can be cost prohibitive if you run a

large fleet and run multiple checks a year.

“The VerX direct service provided HDC with a cost effective way to go from checking or drivers records once per year up to three times per year.”

According to the company, VerX DLV doesn’t replace the use of abstracts, but it does enhance the use of them because it immediately checks whether a driver’s license is valid and is of the correct class. There’s no reason to wait until the next abstract or status check to discover that an issue exists, now that and easy method exists to conduct frequent driver verification.

George Sutej is President of VerX Direct in Barrie, Ontario. Contact George at george@verxdirect.com

20 www.solidwastemag.com April/May 2012

swr a-m 2012 transtech pg 17-20.indd 20

11/04/12 8:02 AM

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

by Usman Valiante “These new policy directives to WDO are the most far reaching since the enactment of the WDA in 2002”

Funding Product Stewardship Ontario changes the rules for better allocation

T

he expansion of Ontario’s Municipal Household and Special Waste (MHSW) waste program on July 1, 2010 led to a firestorm controversy with regard to the use of “eco-fees” levied on producers of designated waste materials (as a means to generate revenue to cover the cost of industry-operated product stewardship programs). Readers in all provinces should be interested in the developments in Ontario and the lessons that may be applied in their jurisdictions. (For an update on BC, see article page 38.)

The controversy led to the provincial government suspending the levying of eco-fees for an expanded slate of materials that included rechargeable batteries, pharmaceutical wastes and mercury-containing devices such as lamps and switches. In the interim, the Ontario government has been covering the costs of collecting and recycling these materials.

On February 9, 2012, Environment Minister Jim Bradley amended O. Reg. 542/06 (Municipal Household and Special Waste — MHSW) under the Ontario Waste Diversion Act, 2002 (WDA). The amendment fundamentally alters the financing of the Ontario MHSW program for the management of materials such as paints, single-use batteries, and automotive wastes such as anti-freeze and oil filters.

Bradley is also requiring the Ontario used tires program (UTP) and Waste Electronics and Electrical Equipment program (WEEE) to fund their programs in a manner consistent with that prescribed in O. Reg. 542/06 for MHSW. These amendments are notable in that they involve a radical departure from the approach to cost recovery typically employed by Canadian industry-operated product stewardship programs.

April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 21

swr a-m 2012 prod stew pg 21-23.indd 21

11/04/12 8:05 AM

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

“These amendments are notable in that they involve a radical departure from the approach to cost recovery typically employed by Canadian industry-operated product stewardship programs.”

Problems with traditional funding mechanisms

In most Canadian jurisdictions producers discharge their waste diversion responsibilities collectively by participating in stewardship agencies. These agencies (in Ontario referred to as Industry Funding Organizations or “IFOs”) operate programs to collect, transport and process various materials on behalf of producers or “stewards.”

Canadian stewardship agencies typically cover the cost of operating their programs by projecting various program costs (i.e., collection, transportation and processing) for the prospective year and then prorating those costs on a projected sales unit basis for each class of product or waste material being managed.

Hence, every like product — say a television in the case of WEEE — from every individual producer bears the same portion of projected program cost. These projected costs

are then passed on through the supply chain from producer to distributor to retailer to the consumer as separate “eco-fees” added to the product price.

In some instances such as Ontario’s WEEE program, retailers remit eco-fees on electronics directly to the stewardship agencies on behalf of producers, thereby bypassing producers entirely.

The challenge with this approach to program funding is that there’s often a very significant variance between the aggregate revenue collected from stewards through their projected fees and the actual program cost realized during the year for which the projections were made.

As an example, if both unit sales of televisions and program costs associated with recycling televisions were underestimated in deriving the projected eco-fees, then the fees produce insufficient revenue and thus a large deficit in the actual operating year.

Trusted Proven Flexible For 30 years Geoware has delivered trusted, proven, affordable, software solutions and professional consulting services to the solid waste industry.

Monitor and control your operation with fast, accurate processing and superior reporting tools.

Experience total peace of mind with our qualified service team providing timely, personal attention, 18 hours a day, 363 days a year.

This fiscal imbalance with Ontario stewardship programs can affect environmental performance. For example, in 2011 Ontario Electronic Stewardship (OES) ran a significant revenue surplus as it was not meeting its recycling targets and was therefore “underspending.” OES’ surplus came under public scrutiny in the media.

In response, OES reduced its fees to stewards in July 2011, despite the fact that doing so would clearly result in a large deficit were OES to meet its diversion targets in the following year. OES is now seeking to reduce financial incentives to WEEE processors for their recycling services in order to address the impending deficit in the 2012 program year.

Shift to actual cost-recovery funding

To address the fiscal imbalance within Ontario recycling programs, the new stewardship program funding requirements replace the

analyze

plancontrol manage

report

execute

Call today. Let’s get started!

1.800.900.4252 | www.geoware4.com 22 www.solidwastemag.com April/May 2012

swr a-m 2012 prod stew pg 21-23.indd 22

11/04/12 8:06 AM

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

prospective eco-fees with a program funding approach based on actual costs incurred.

Specifically, the approach allocates actual program costs incurred in the previous fiscal quarter to stewards by prorating those costs based on a given steward’s market-share of the overall amount of material supplied into the market by all stewards in the same quarter.

The result is that rather than stewards being invoiced on a per-unit basis they receive an invoice for their lump sum share of the costs incurred by the stewardship agency in the previous quarter. Because the approach invoices on the basis of actual costs incurred in the past quarter, the surpluses and deficits common to these programs will be eliminated.

It has been argued that projecting fixed eco-fees facilitates passage of those eco-fees directly down to consumers at the point of sale and results in outcomes no different than that of overt price-fixing: consumers pay fixed recycling prices that are not the subject of competition between stewards on the management of their individual wastes.

The changes to how stewardship costs are allocated to producers much more closely re-

flects the conventions of how other costs of business accrue to producers in free markets.

As such, it is anticipated that these changes will provide producers with an incentive to make stewardship programs more efficient and cost effective for the consumer.

Improved program oversight

The minister issued a number of other significant policy directives to Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) to complement the new cost allocation methodology. These include replacing the sectoral interest-based governance of WDO with a skills-based board and increased WDO oversight of stewardship program effectiveness, whether those programs are delivered through IFOs or by stewards through voluntary Industry Stewardship Plans under s.

34 of the WDA. (For more on these reforms, see Editorial on page 4) Finally, the minister has also requested that WDO review the approach by which stewardship programs provide waste service providers with financial incentives for collecting, transporting and processing wastes. Specifically, the review will address the impact of

these incentives on competitive markets and whether the incentive systems as structured are effective in supporting the achievement of waste diversion targets and program objectives set forth by the government.

These new policy directives to WDO are the most far reaching since the enactment of the WDA in 2002. In redefining the economic transactions between stewardship organizations and producers, and refining the economic transactions between stewardship organizations and the waste service sector, the new regulatory requirements and supplemental policy directives serve as important first steps towards more economically efficient waste diversion in the province.

Usman Valiante is a Senior Policy Analyst at Corporate Policy Group LLP in Orangeville, Ontario. Contact Usman at usman.valiante@ corporatepolicygroup.com NOTE: A version of this article appeared in the “Environews� newsletter of the Ontario Bar Association (Volume 22, No. 1, March 2012 Environmental Law Section).

April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 23

swr a-m 2012 prod stew pg 21-23.indd 23

11/04/12 8:06 AM

swr a-m 2012 ad pg 24.indd 24

12/04/12 7:18 AM

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

by Paul van der Werf “There’s wariness from the agricultural sector of offfarm food waste, whether raw or processed, set in history.”

Door Wide Open

F

ood waste can now be turned into compost, electricity or biofuel.

Eating food provides us with sequestered solar energy, but we have largely ignored tapping into that energy once it becomes a waste.

There’s value in the energy of food we don’t consume, if we allow its transfer back to the farmer’s field. Capturing food waste’s energy is the best strategy for accomplishing this.

In March, the Canadian Farm and Food Biogas conference was held in London, Ontario (www.gtmconference.ca/site/index.php/canadian-farm-andfood-biogas) to discuss these kinds of issues.

On-farm biogas generation is part lingering postWalkerton nutrient-management inclinations married to energy mining of agricultural wastes (tied together with the third prong: revenue streams for that energy and possibly from off-farm food wastes).

Ontario’s Green Energy Act and its policies are controversial and routinely maligned. Some view it as an unsustainable subsidy machine. But sometimes real problems need good solutions, which in turn need a little help.

Wind turbines (which Ezra Levant recently likened to crucifixes!) and solar panels simply collect available energy. Similarly, the anaerobic digestion of food wastes into biogas is an elegant solution because it addresses the management of wastes and captures nutrients and energy.

There are currently about 30 biogas projects in various stages of development in Ontario, with about 10 fully operational. Currently about 6,000 kWh of electrical capacity is online. The Agri-Energy Producers of Ontario represents these facilities. Started by agriculture for agriculture they have been broadening their stage; to reflect this they changed their name post-conference to the Biogas Association.

“We want to include the entire value chain including farmers but also project funders, banks, technology suppliers and possible off-farm sources of waste,” says Jennifer Green, Executive Director of the association. “The name change is recognition that we have been advocates on behalf of the industry and its many players.”

The industry faces some challenges, among them the outcome of the Feed in Tariff review in Ontario. Currently, biogas converted to electricity gets a FIT of 10 to 19.5 cents per kWh. The hope of the Biogas Association is not so much for an increase but a FIT that follows the Consumer Price Index. Another issue is to have biogas accepted as a renewable natural gas so that it can be used as part of the supply mix. The association has submitted an application to the Ontario Energy Board to that effect.

April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 25

swr a-m 2012 organic matters pg 25-26.indd 25

11/04/12 8:07 AM

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

There are considerable opportunities to capture energy and recycle nutrients from offfarm wastes.

“There’s a common misconception that the nutrients from off-farm wastes are going to lead to overloading on farmers fields; this is just not the case,” says Green. “The goal is to find the ‘sweet spot’ that creates efficiencies from all angles.”

As I have written previously, there have been challenges aligning the goals of off-farm food waste recyclers with on-farm sensibilities. There’s wariness from the agricultural sector of off-farm food waste, whether raw or processed, set in history.

As Doug Carruthers, from Organic Re­source Management Inc. (ORMI), describes it, “Back in the 1980s the solid waste industry thought it

was doing the agricultural industry a favour by delivering food waste to farms for a few dollars.”

Farmers used this for animal feed. This ultimately led to examples of serious issues with animal health and ultimately resulted in the regulation of food waste that could be brought onto the farm.

Couple this with the historically uneven (although now moving in the right direction) success in making farm fields a major home for compost, and you get the true potential of food waste recycling at the farm level (which is barely touched).

The receipt of off-farm wastes offers farmers a valuable source of revenue. Currently under the Nutrient Management Act, facilities can accept up to 25 per cent of off-farm wastes.

There’s a move afoot to take up to 50 per cent.

This is a pretty significant double-edged sword:

While the revenue may be tempting there’s a considerable risk of odour issues. The same material-handling issues that challenged composters have the potential to challenge on-farm installations that may not have the requisite odour abatement infrastructure.

Same food. Same odour.

Today, about 100,000 tonnes of off-farm wastes in Ontario are processed on-farm and this is going to grow. For this to be mutually successful, farmers and the waste industry need to learn from one another and finally begin to effectively and responsibly close the loop.

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

Think of the Guardian as insurance for your compactor Only Wastequip offers fail-safe Watch Dog timers™ with our Guardian compactor power units • Watch Dog timers automatically shut down the compactor in the event of unintended continuous operation, preventing catastrophic failure • Automatic Maintenance Scheduler (AMS) alerts you when important preventative maintenance is required Protecting your investment through product innovation...

That’s Wastequip.

wastequip.com/guardian » 877-468-9278 or sales@wastequip.com

26 www.solidwastemag.com April/May 2012

swr a-m 2012 organic matters pg 25-26.indd 26

11/04/12 8:07 AM

Above: Chunks of Thermagreen. Inset: Recycled Thermagreen fluff being conveyed in E.F. Walter’s plant.

by Diane Blackburn

Thermagreen

“Green roofs will double the life span of a conventional roof.”

E.F. Walter’s “green” polyethylene foam

W

ay back in 1893, Canada’s 6th Governor General, Frederick Arthur Stanley, Lord Stanley of Preston, donated to hockey one of Canada’s most beloved icons, the Stanley Cup. In that same year, German entrepreneur Ernst Ferdinand Walter registered a new enterprise, E.F. Walter and Co., in Montreal after purchasing the business from the estate of his former employer. Now, 119 years later, hockey’s Holy Grail tours the country, and the E.F. Walter organization, born in the 19th century, thrives and evolves to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century.

During the war years of 1939-1945, E.F. Walter filled the needs of manufacturers supporting Canada’s war effort. Now the war is all about waste and how to re-purpose it into new products for an ever-widening array of applications. In the 1960’s E.F. Walter opened its Toronto facility and diversified into rubbers, plastics, nonwovens and cork. Free trade in the 1980s opened new horizons with European markets, coming on strong in the 90s. Water-jet technology changed the game and provided a high-tech edge on new products as the millennium rolled in.

E.F. Walter’s product portfolio currently comprises foot comfort and shoe care products, construction, packaging and OEM products.

The newest of E.F. Walter’s innovative lines is an environmentallyversatile product called ThermaGreen, a composite of 100 per cent post-

industrial, cross-linked and closed-cell polyethylene foam.

Foam is the bane of landfills due to its light weight, high volume, and inability to compact. Today, ThermaGreen is turning that problematic waste into synthetic turf, playground underlay, green rooftops, aquatic landscape features and floating covers.

ThermaGreen is ideal as a permeable floating cover to control odour in animal waste lagoons, retention ponds and storage tanks. The cover is placed on the water to create a physical barrier between the liquid surface and the atmosphere. The engineered foam permits rainfall to easily penetrate while preventing volatile chemical compounds (in the forms of gas) to be released into the environment.

For landfill capping, ThermaGreen acts as a geosynthetic material that offers permeability and transmissivity of liquids and gas, and it’s a fully recycled product.

ThermaGreen has another application as a drainage board that provides relief from hydrostatic pressure and drainage as a backfill material for tunnels of all types — wildlife, auto, pedestrian, oil and water. The boards are also used in waterproofing basements and foundation walls, supplying protection from the backfilling operation with the added benefit of insulating below grade living space.

April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 27

swr a-m 2012 ic&i waste pg 27-28.indd 27

12/04/12 11:31 AM

I C & I WA S T E

Left: Thermagreen has uses in many contexts, including landfill capping and (in this photo) as a support for sports stadium artificial turf.

Inset: The recycled polyethylene foam can be used as a floating island in habitat projects.

As a drainage material for green roofs, ThermaGreen once again proves to be an excellent solution, providing not only the drainage but the insulating properties, keeping buildings cool in the summer and reducing heating costs in the winter. Green roofs protect roofing membranes from extreme temperature fluctuations and will double the life span of a conventional roof.

The array of environmental challenges that can be addressed by this recycled product continues to grow, so when you are next visiting the Ottawa Courthouse or Carrot Common (Toronto), the Eco Island

at the Brickworks, Lamport Stadium, your local playground or sewage lagoon, remember that the recycling innovators at E.F. Walter played a key role in making all those installations more environmentally sustainable.

Diane Blackburn is the Events Manager for the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO), which produces the RCO’s annual Waste Minimization Awards, for which E.F. Walter was a finalist.

Contact Diane at events@rco.on.ca

Custom Designed Recycling Solutions

We sell systems & solutions

Van Dyk Baler designs the Recycling Industry’s most profitable plants!

Over 1,000 successful installations in North America featuring: Lowest prices per ton, Innovative designs, TITECH Optical Sorters that minimize labor, Systems that consistently exceed their designed tonnage, Free lifetime technical phone support backed by the industry’s largest parts and service team.

Contact us to begin a custom designed solution for your application. phone 203-967-1100 web vandykbaler.com email info@vandykbaler.com Van Dyk Baler is the Exclusive North American Distributor of Bollegraaf Recycling Machinery and sister company of Lubo USA

28 www.solidwastemag.com April/May 2012

swr a-m 2012 ic&i waste pg 27-28.indd 28

12/04/12 11:30 AM

MRF EQUIPMENT

by Guy Crittendent “The plant can handle 800 tonnes of material per day.”

Construction & Demolition Waste A look at Countrywide Recycling’s plant in Hamilton, Ontario

T

he Countrywide Recycling Inc. (www.countrywiderecycling.ca) plant at 900 Nebo Road in Hamilton, Ontario is a 60,000 square foot indoor material recovery facility (MRF) that specializes in the recycling of renovation, construction and demolition (C&D) material.

The company, which provides advanced indoor recycling of C&D waste to the public, disposal bin companies and transfer stations, bills itself as a “dump and go” recycler — meaning customers drive onto their scales for weighing as they head in and out, and simply dump their material on the tip floor with no sorting required.

According to John Voortman, General Manager for Countrywide, commingled material is first separated into various streams, including wood, metals, plastics, cardboard, shingles, drywall, fines, aggregates and more. Clean wood is ground into two-inch sizes (or less) and used as a fuel in boilers, mulch for horticultural purposes, or is sold to the wood

pellet industry. The fines and/or residuals may be used as an alternative daily cover or roadway for landfills or biomass.

The plant can handle 800 tonnes of material per day. Continental Biomass Industries (CBI) designed and installed all the plant equipment; the conveyors and grinders were manufactured by them. Including plant, trucking and office staff, the plant employs 45 people. Moving equipment includes three Mack tractors and a Mack roll-off, a Peterbuilt hook lift, three moving floor trailers (two of which are Titan) and three dry vans.

Processing

C&D waste is dumped indoors on our tip floor. The excavator then loads the material onto the line, which is fed onto a taper slot (by Action)

Action trommel.

Above: CBI grinders.

Right: Action air knife “dense out” separator.

April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 29

swr a-m 2012 mrf equip pg 29-30.indd 29

11/04/12 9:10 AM

MRF EQUIPMENT

Tipping floor

Picking line.

Nexgen 2 ram baler.

that separates everything 12-inches and less.

(Anything larger is conveyed up to the picking room.) The 12-inches-and-minus is conveyed to the Action trommel; one-inch screens separate the dirt and fines. Material then goes up to the Action air knife “dense out” where the heavies (brick, cement and block) are separated and sent to another line. The balance goes to the line that leads to the picking room.

“That’s where the magic happens,” says Voortman, noting the speed and dexterity of the worker’s hands on the picking line.

Plant Manager Dave Burtt oversees approxi-

mately 25 people who separate out the clean wood, metal, cardboard, plastic, non-ferrous metals, etc.

Burtt checks incoming loads for LEEDs reporting and, along with John’s wife Marie Voortman, helps prepare reports for the environment ministry.

After the clean wood is ground it goes through a series of conveyors, then under a Dings earth magnet to remove any metals (nails, screws, nuts and bolts). President and Operations Manager Joe Lopes is responsible for all the trucking, both tractors and roll-off, and overall maintenance in the plant. Lopes also takes care of a list of special equipment:

a Case 9440 and 240 cx excavator, loaders (Cat 924s), forklifts, one Terex 842 telescopic boom, and a Bobcat. The plant also has two weigh scales supplied by Best Weight Scales of Brantford, Ontario.

With all the demolition, construction, and renovation taking place in southern Ontario, Countrywide is well positioned and well equipped for continued growth in the foreseeable future.

Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine.

Contact Guy at gcrittenden@solidwastemag.com

30 www.solidwastemag.com April/May 2012

swr a-m 2012 mrf equip pg 29-30.indd 30

11/04/12 9:13 AM

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

by John Nicholson “In Canada, an example of a municipality banning wood pallets from landfill is the Region of Waterloo.”

Good Wood The case for waste wood re-purposing in Canada

A

ccording to 2006 data from NRCan, approximately 1.25 million tonnes of wood waste is generated in Canada per year. This quantity amounts to about seven percent of all non-hazardous solid waste disposed. It seems illogical to dispose of wood waste in landfills when there are so many options for reuse and recycling or recover of wood’s energy value.

Waste wood, whether from old buildings, shipping pallets, construction sites, low-grade wood from the forest industry, or any number of sources, is still valuable for use in a number of different ways. (For more on reusable pallets, see sidebar article, page 19)

Energy generation and 3Rs The common use of wood waste is burning, to generate either heat or electricity. The forest products industry itself meets 60 percent of its total energy needs burning wood-waste residue.

Elsewhere across Canada, there are 20 thermo-electric plants in Canada that generate 378 MW of electricity burning wood waste. District heating systems utilizing heat waste can be found in a number of communities across Canada including Charlottetown, PEI, OujeBougoumou, Quebec, Grand Prairie, Alberta, and Revelstock, BC. Besides domestic use, Canada exports wood waste in the form of pellets. Wood pallets await recycling.

There are 37 plants in Canada producing 2.9 million tonnes of wood pellets per year. Approximately 50 per cent of the wood pellets produced in Canada are exported to the northeast USA, Asia, and Europe. The export market is growing with mandates in Europe for renewable energy use and the rising cost of other means of producing energy.

The major reuse and recycling operations utilizing of wood waste include the fibreboard, mulch, and animal bedding.

Flakeboard is one Canadian-based company that manufactures wood panel products from recycled waste wood. Founded in 1960, the company has six mills in North America producing new products from wood waste.

One of the oldest wood recycling companies in Canada is Ontario Sawdust Supplies Ltd., located about an hour’s drive north of Toronto in the Town of East Gwillimbury. The company has been in business since 1954 producing wood flour, livestock bedding, and mulch.

Unbeknownst to many, wood flour is used in a myriad of products in-

cluding absorbents and cleaning supplies, adhesives, paper, rubber, filtration media, and plastic.

Government The growing use of wood waste for energy production and new products is welcome news for Canadians interested in terms of diversion, renewable energy production, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and green jobs. To ensure continued growth, the federal and provincial governments should ensure barriers are not in place that result in wood waste being needlessly sent to landfill.

The State of North Carolina is an example of a jurisdiction committed to high-end utilization of wood waste. As of 2009, wood pallets are banned from landfills in the state. The ban provided a boost to local companies that reuse wood, recycle it into new products or burn it for energy generation.

In Canada, there a several examples of municipalities banning wood pallets from their landfills including the Region of Waterloo. Prior to implementing the ban, it was estimated that the landfill was accepting 3,000 tonnes of pallets and wood waste annually. By banning the pallets, the municipality freed up landfill space, reduced the production of greenhouse gases, and assisting the wood waste recycling industry. The cost of implementing the ban was estimated to be $45,000 annually (in Photo courtesy of Cyclofor. promotional costs, signage and storage bins).

There are precautions with respect to the reuse and recycling of wood waste. Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have a technical draft report covering the use, transport, storage and disposal of wood waste as it pertains to the protection of fish and fish habitat. Similarly, in British Columbia a 2005 Factsheet cautions horse owners that utilize wood waste for stables and riding paths to keep its use 30 metres from any source of water used for domestic purposes.

In Canada, we have only begun to scratch the surface in terms of utilizing the full environmental and economic value of wood waste.

Countries such as Sweden are far ahead of us when it comes to utilizing wood waste in products and for energy generation. As a case in point, 32 percent of all energy is Sweden is generated from biomass — mainly wood waste. The goal is to achieve 50 per cent by 2020.

John Nicholson, M.Sc., P.Eng., is a consultant based in Toronto, Ontario. Contact John at john.nicholson@ebccanada.com April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 31

swr a-m 2012 waste bus pg 31.indd 31

11/04/12 8:16 AM

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

by Rosalind Cooper “Insolvency statutes don’t ‘mesh very well with environmental legislation’.”

Broken Telephone The Nortel case: Are insolvent companies subject to cleanup orders?

A

recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has considered the issue of cleanup requirements in the context of insolvency proceedings. In the decision of Nortel Networks Corporation (Re), the court confirmed that the Ministry of the Environment cannot compel an insolvent company, which has sought protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), to remediate property in priority to other claims from creditors.

Background facts Canadian telecommunications company Nortel and its predecessors conducted manufacturing operations at several locations until the late 1990s. Nortel identified environmental impacts arising from past operations at five locations and, by the time Nortel filed for protection under the CCAA in January 2009, it had disposed of its interest at all of these locations, with the exception of a partial interest in one property.

Nortel was conducting remedial work at certain locations on a voluntary basis even after it ceased having an interest in those locations.

In fact, Nortel had spent some $30.2 million on these remedial efforts since the late 1990s. After Nortel filed for protection under the CCAA, the ministry issued an order against Nortel with respect to one of the properties, requiring that Nortel undertake remedial work. The ministry also prepared similar orders with respect to three other properties.

Nortel’s motion and arguments Nortel brought a motion seeking confirmation from the court that it was no longer required to perform remediation at, or in relation to, the various locations. Nortel also sought a declaration that any claims in relation to current or future remediation requirements by the environment ministry (or any other person against Nortel or against current or former directors or officers) would be subject to resolution in accordance with a Procedure Order and a Claims Resolution Order, both of which were issued by the court to address claims.

Nortel was also seeking a declaration that the ministry orders were

financial and monetary in nature and were stayed by virtue of the Stay of Proceedings previously issued by the court. The Stay of Proceedings prevented any action from commencing or continuing against Nortel, and also stayed any existing proceedings until February 13, 2009. Nortel also challenged the constitutionality of the provincial Environmental Protection Act (EPA) provisions in an insolvency context.

Nortel argued that the ministry orders required extensive further remediation; it estimated that fully responding to the orders would require expenditures in the amount of $18 million. As such, Nortel argued that the orders are, in substance and in effect, requirements for it to pay money, and that the orders were no different than the ministry presenting Nortel with a bill for remediation carried out by the ministry.

Nortel also argued that the ministry already has certain statutory remedies in insolvency matters and that the orders fell outside of those remedies, thereby creating an unlegislated priority claim. Nortel argued that the ministry orders conflicted with the objectives of the CCAA by prioritizing environmental liabilities over all other unsecured claims against Nortel. Finally, Nortel argued that Section 11.8(8) of the CCAA already provides a remedy in these situations by establishing a “super priority” for the government in respect of contaminated real property.

Ministry arguments & court decision The environment ministry argued that Nortel, as the former and current owner of contaminated property, is subject to certain obligations under the EPA, which are performance obligations; it argued that the costs of compliance with orders only become monetary obligations once the ministry undertakes the remedial work and has a claim for those costs.

The ministry argued that these obligations had not yet advanced to the point of being “claims” that could be stayed pursuant to Section 11 of the CCAA or compromised under a plan of arrangement.

The ministry took the position that, if the orders were not upheld, it would unfairly shift any expense associated with environmental remediation to the taxpayers of Ontario and away from the company’s

“Nortel argued that the ministry orders conflicted with the objectives of the CCAA by prioritizing environmental liabilities over all other unsecured claims.”

32 www.solidwastemag.com April/May 2012

swr a-m 2012 regrndup pg 32-33.indd 32

11/04/12 8:17 AM

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

creditors (who chose to do business with the company in the first place).

The ministry pointed out that Nortel had already expended monies to address contamination after the Stay of Proceedings and should not therefore be arguing that the orders were stayed.

Finally, the ministry argued that the “super priority” created by the CCAA was intended to give the ministry a priority only when acting as a creditor.

The court indicated that the motion was as a result of the “untidy intersection” of the CCAA and the powers of the ministry to issue orders requiring remediation of property and that insolvency statutes do not “mesh very well with environmental legislation.” However, the court agreed with the position put forth by Nortel. It stated that, when the entity that’s the subject of the ministry’s attention is

insolvent and not carrying on operations at a property, it’s necessary to consider the substance of the actions by the ministry. If Nortel is required to incur a financial obligation to respond to the ministry’s actions, the ministry is enforcing a payment obligation — which is a step prohibited by the Stay issued by the court.

The court held that money expended by Nortel in respect of ministry obligations is money directed away from creditors participating in insolvency proceedings. It held that the same insolvency considerations ought to apply regardless of who receives the money.

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

ACHIEVING EXCELLENCE THROUGH

PERFORMANCE

With our high-performance recycling equipment, We’re creating a better environment

Equipment for the treatment of recyclable materials Conception – Manufacturing Installation – Repairs • Exceptional efficiency equipment • Fast and measurable investment returns 2250, rue St-Jean, Plessisville (Québec) Canada 819 362-3294

bmgenvironnement.com

• Incomparable after-sales service Get information on our most recent tests with ballistic technology on domestic wastes (removing cardboard from landfill), recyclable materials and compost.

April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 33

swr a-m 2012 regrndup pg 32-33.indd 33

11/04/12 8:18 AM

OWMA REPORT

A

OWMA Annual Conference, 2012

record 160 Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) municipal, private sector and associate members and guests attended the OWMA annual conference and meeting in Toronto on March 7, 2012. The annual conference program contained information sessions, keynote speakers, networking opportunities and a dinner attended by the Honorable Jim Bradley, Minister of the Environment.

The program speakers provided the meeting attendees with interesting and informed perspectives on the current issues and challenges facing the waste sector. The conference program focused on topics such as: new construction and demolition project waste diversion software (SmartWaste, see article page 17); the implications of the Ontario Drummond Report; the economics of recycling in Ontario; the evolution of the approvals modernization project; new MSW landfill guidelines from Environment Canada; the current activities of Waste Diversion Ontario and a panel discussion on the Stewardship Ontario MHSW program. (See Editorial, page 4, and Product Stewardship article, page 21.)

The speaker presentations and minister’s remarks are available on the OWMA website (www.owma.org).

Moira Welsh, Investigative Reporter for the Toronto Star was the special luncheon speaker and shared a unique perspective on the role of the media in driving change in government policy; she spoke about the interesting policy outcomes of media attention on waste management issues over the past several years in Ontario.

The Hon. Jim Bradley provided dinner attendees with a keynote ad-

dress that provided insight into the Ministry of the Environment vision for waste management policy in Ontario and the renewed focus on waste diversion.

Mike Watt of the Walker Environmental Group was appointed as Chairman of the Board and President for 2012 and he reaffirmed the commitment of OWMA to be the strong, persistent “voice” of members and the waste sector in Ontario, continuing to work with the government in addressing the province’s waste management challenges.

The 2012-2013 Executive Committee was confirmed as follows: • Mike Watt (Walker Environmental Group, OWMA Chairman of the Board/President) • Cal Bricker (Waste Management of Canada Corporation, OWMA Secretary/Treasurer) • Jim Graham (TRY Recycling Inc., OWMA Immediate Past Chairman of the Board) • Norm Lee (Region of Peel) • Michael Cant (Golder Associates Ltd.) • Nigel Guilford (Miller Waste Systems) • Adam Chamberlain (Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Legal Counsel) • Rob Cook (OWMA) New members elected to the Board of Directors for 2012-2014 were Pamela McAuley (Vice President, Hotz Environmental Services Inc.) and Joey Neuhoff (Vice President, Business Development, Covanta Energy).

2012 Executive: Back Row (left to right): Adam Chamberlain, Norm Lee, Mike Watt, Cal Bricker.

Front Row (left to right): Rob Cook, Nigel Guilford, Jim Graham, (missing Michael Cant).

34 www.solidwastemag.com April/May 2012

swr a-m 2012 owma pg 34-35.indd 34

11/04/12 8:19 AM

OWMA REPORT D

A B C

F New members elected to the Board of Directors for 2012-2014: (A) Pamela McAuley, Vice President, Hotz Environmental Services Inc. and (B) Joey Neuhoff, Vice President, Business Development, Covanta Energy.

Pic C: AGM dinner speaker Hon. Jim Bradley, Ontario Minister of the Environment.

E

Pic D: A record 160 conference attendees at the event.

Pic E: Luncheon speaker Moira Welsh, investigative reporter for the Toronto Star.

Pic F: George Sutej, President of VerX Direct in Barrie, Ontario at his display booth at the OWMA annual conference.

For more information about the OWMA, as well as past and future events, visit www.owma.org April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 35

swr a-m 2012 owma pg 34-35.indd 35

11/04/12 8:20 AM

PRODUCTS

Wiz-Tec weighing technology

Twenty years ago Wiz-Tec Computing Technologies entered the world of operator terminals in the form of point-of-sale for gas retail.

Today, with over 2000 deployments ranging from Vancouver Island, BC to Halifax, Nova Scotia (and even the North West Territories), the company realized it could bring its expertise in moving people and goods through a check-point quickly and efficiently to the waste management industry. Two years ago Project1 Page 1 Wiz-Tec noticed11/13/06 the potential10:28 of this AM market

for supported technologies to run its scale house operations and municipal and private collection organizations (including the picking up of bins by vehicles).

In November 2010, the company deployed a pilot project at the Drumheller Landfill in Southern Alberta, with operator systems and back office management tools to run an inbound and outbound scale set-up (with two operator terminals networked to facilitate billing and weighing). As Wiz-Tec moves out of the pilot stage, it’s deploying the technology across the country.

With over 300 technicians available across the country, help with software and hardware to run landfill or waste pick-up services is never far away, though most issues can be ad-

Operating system for a landfill scale-house.

William Proulx, Regional Sales Manager for Western Canada, and Andria Porisky, Comptroller for Wiz-Tec, at the Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo in November of 2011 showcasing the company's landfill management systems.

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

www.municipalwaste.ca

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

Inc.

Waste Management Consulting Services

dressed online or via phone. The system features “iManageWaste” for iPOS and a mobile version. Billing, statement generation, charge accounts, origin and destination recording, RFID, gate control, scale interface, and more are contained in a software package that’s quite inexpensive. (A simple transfer site system from can run as little as $69/month.)

Proper implementation of an ECR system can save you literally thousands of dollars in operational costs, and eliminates tedious hours of paperwork, and employee theft. With a simple user profile operators may be trained and operational in less than 30 minutes.

Wiz-Tec has solutions for a range of facilities and needs, including: waste management facilities (solid wastes or liquid, as the company offers pump interface technologies with its operating systems), mobile units, or even provincial governments that require aggregated data from waste sites and businesses.

Visit www.wiz-tec.com

36 www.solidwastemag.com April/May 2012

swr a-m 2012 products pg 36.indd 36

11/04/12 8:21 AM

Advertisers’ Index Company

Page #

Company

April/May 2012

Page #

AMRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Mack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Borden Ladner Gervais . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Molok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

BMG Conveyors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

OWMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Bulk Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 23

Paradigm Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Paul Van der Werf (2CG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Canadian Waste Symposium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

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

Carbon Economy Summit 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Trux Route Management Systems Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Countrywide Recycling Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Van Dyk Baler Corp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Environmental Business Consultants (J. Nicholson) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Walinga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Eriez Magnetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Walker Environmental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Geoware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Keith Walking Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

WasteQuip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Liebherr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Wiz Tec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

OWMA AD

6/5/07

7:33 AM

Page 1

Ontario Waste Management Association

Who’s standing up for Your Business?

If you own or manage a private sector waste management company involved in any facet of solid or hazardous waste management – let us stand up for you …join OWMA today!

OWMA has a primary mission to support a strong and viable waste service industry and to ensure that OWMA member companies are recognized as industry leaders.

Contact: Michele Goulding (905) 791-9500 www.owma.org April/May 2012 www.solidwastemag.com 37

swr a-m 2012 ad idx pg 37.indd 37

12/04/12 8:08 AM

BLOG

by Glenda Gies & Maura Walker “BC’s baseline residential recycling rate is between 50 and 57 per cent.

BC Paper & Packaging Stewardship: Update

I

n March 2012, stewardship body Multi-Material British Columbia refund in BC. This led to the best available estimate of how much PPP (MMBC) received the completed Phase 1 analysis of the current BC material is generated in BC. waste diversion system and options for delivering an extended produBased on this methodology, it’s estimated that in 2010 between cer responsibility(EPR) program for residential packaging and printed 350,000 and 400,000 tonnes of residential PPP were available for colpaper (or “PPP”, the sort of materials normally collected in blue box lection in BC. Considering that 210,000 tonnes of residential PPP were programs).* collected in 2010, BC’s baseline residential PPP collection rate is beMMBC’s Phase 1 analysis represents a comprehensive effort to tween 53 and 60 per cent. Then the average residue rate (as reported understand the amount of PPP supplied into the BC residential market

by BC processing facilities) was factored in, to calculate BC’s baseline place, plus the existing residential PPP collection and processing infraresidential recycling rate of between 50 and 57 per cent. structure (and the total amount of this material currently collected and In order to evaluate a range of PPP program design options, it’s recycled in the province). critical to understand the existing commercial relationships that drive The analysis effort benefited from tremendous goodwill and cooperthe collection and flow of PPP in BC. A program design option is a ation from a wide range of public and private entities in BC. Local governset of actions that MMBC could take to deliver the PPP recovery perments provided a wealth of information regarding the number of singleformance objectives required under the BC Recycling Regulation. These and multi-family households receiving PPP actions include defining system requirements collection services, as well as the specific (i.e., recycling, recovery, reasonable access types and quantities of material collected. to services, PPP materials accepted, etc.) and Private companies as well as non-profits delivering the system requirements either dirprovided information regarding drop-off and ectly (by establishing a wholly-owned and subscription recycling services offered to operated system) or by engaging PPP service residents. Processors reported the quantity providers through commercial relationships. of residential PPP received and marketed (by With the Phase 1 report in hand, commodity and average revenue prices).

MMBC’s next step is to consider the system The findings show BC currently has exrequirements and commercial relationships tensive services for residents to divert PPP identified and assessed by the study team. materials from disposal. In 2010, 1.34 milIt can then select an approach that MMBC Cortes Island depot. lion (78 per cent) of 1.72 million BC singlefeels best allows it to deliver its PPP recovand multi-family households received PPP collection service; another ery objectives. MMBC’s preferred approach will form the basis for 300,000 households (18 per cent) had access to depots. An estimated a program plan to be submitted to the Ministry of Environment by 200 public and private collectors delivered PPP to 28 organizations or November 19, 2012. companies. Of these, 24 operate a single processing facility; four comThe process to develop an EPR program for PPP in BC offers a panies operate another 19. (Some of the collected PPP was consolidated unique opportunity for PPP producers and recycling service providers through nine transfer stations before being received by processors.) to build on the existing system while establishing new relationships to Correcting for volumes of PPP received from the IC&I sector (which increase recovery of PPP. can’t be counted towards residential diversion), these processors received and processed an estimated 210,000 tonnes of residential PPP Glenda Gies is Principal of Glenda Gies and Associates in in 2010. The processors shipped the recycled materials to over 50 endBowmanville, Ontario and was the MMBC Phase 1 project team markets in BC, the United States and overseas. leader. Contact Glenda at glendagies@ggies.ca To calculate provincial collection and recycling rates, the study team Maura Walker is Principal of Maura Walker and Associates in had to first estimate the amount of PPP supplied into the BC residential Duncan, BC and led the Phase 1 data gathering effort. marketplace. A BC PPP generation rate was developed using data from Contact Maura at maura@maurawalker.com BC residential recycling and residual waste composition audits, as well as the quantity of dairy containers collected in BC (milk containers are *MMBC is a not-for-profit agency established under the British Columbia Society Act formed in anticipation of the requirement to develop, submit and implement a not part of the provincial deposit-refund system) and an estimate of destewardship plan for packaging and printed paper. MMBC’s intention is to assume posit containers supplied to residents of BC. The BC data was compared the role of a stewardship agency in order to discharge the obligations of PPP to similar data for Ontario and Manitoba where producers report actual producers (brand owners and first sellers) under Schedule 5 of the BC Recycling quantities of PPP supplied to residents. The data from these jurisdictions Regulation. For information about MMBC, contact Allen Langdon, MMBC Chair, at was adjusted to account for beverage containers managed under deposit604-633-3145 or alangdon@retailcouncil.org

38 www.solidwastemag.com April/May 2012

swr a-m 2012 blog pg 38.indd 38

11/04/12 8:23 AM

LI

BLE TR

BLEED RIM

IVE

Energy creation. Recycling programs. Closed-loop solutions.

All to keep your business moving forward.

These are just a few of the innovations we’re delivering for customers and communities alike. We live in a world where things can no longer go to waste.

That’s why Waste Management is ensuring that we get the most from our existing resources. It’s good for business and the environment.

For more information visit us at wm.com.

©2011 Waste Management, Inc.

001258_Cycles Brand Ad_Mech.indd 1 swr a-m 2012 ad pg 39-40.indd 39

4/12/11 2:45:08 PM 11/04/12 8:23 AM

TO NEVER SLOW YOU DOWN

ADVANTAGE #83 THE MACK TERRAPRO CABOVER AUTOMATICALLY REGENERATES THE DPF WHILE YOU WORK SO YOU CAN STOP AND GO ON YOUR OWN TERMS TO WORK MORE EFFICIENTLY. ®

®

SEE ALL THE ADVANTAGES AT MACKTERRAPRO.COM ©2011 Mack Trucks, Inc. All rights reserved.

MCKTRK_6446_BltTPrCbOv_SWRM.indd 1

1/24/11 10:52 AM

swr a-m 2012 ad pg 39-40.indd 40

11/04/12 8:23 AM