Solid Waste & Recycling August / September 2013

g ons cin si du is 6 Re ll Em ge 2 fi a nd p La —

Solid Waste & Recycling Canada’s magazine on collection, hauling, processing and disposal August/September 2013

INDIVIDUAL PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP

Coming Soon! A Plan for Every Product and Package — page 8

CPMP No. 40069240

An EcoLog Group Publication

Compost Council of Canada Conference Schedule — page 19-22 p 01 swr aug-sept 13 cvr nl pg 01.indd 1

13-09-04 10:02 AM

NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF VERSATILITY.

Wherever there’s a job to do, there’s a Mack truck built to handle it. And then there’s the Mack® TerraProTM—the truck that adapts to the needs of the job and the driver.

TerraPro accommodates front, side and rear loader applications. It also comes with a range of horsepower options, three door configurations, and diesel or natural gas engines. Whether the job calls for the Cabover or Low Entry, TerraPro is the versatile workhorse the industry relies upon most.

LIVE BY THE CODE. DRIVE BY THE CODE.

Mack_REF_02_November.indd 1 p 02 swr aug-sept 2013 ad p 02.indd 2

MackTrucks.com

10/9/12 5:37 PM 13-08-29 9:04 AM

Solid Waste & Recycling

CONTENTS August/September 2013 Volume 18, Number 4

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

COVER STORY PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP:

8

With Ontario’s proposed Bill 91 Waste Diversion Act, 2013 making individual stewards responsible for end-of-life management of their product and packaging wastes, our experts say it’s time to look at individual stewardship plans (ISPs).

by Michael Cant & Mandy Pereira

FEATURES

DEPARTMENTS

EPR: PHARMACEUTICAL WASTE A stewardship plan for pharmaceutical waste.

by Brad Wright

12

MRF TECHNOLOGY: PROGRESSIVE WASTE A new commerical waste MRF in Vaughan, Ontario.

by Guy Crittenden

18

LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY: GOING AEROBIC Reducing impacts from leachate and air emissions at landfills.

by Richard Aho

SPECIAL SECTION

COMPOST COUNCIL OF CANADA 23rd Annual National Compost Conference Program Details — pages 19-22

Landfill Technology, pg. 26

Cover art by Charles Jaffe

INDIVIDUAL PLANS

OWMA Report, pg. 34

26

Editorial Up Front Organic Matters Waste Business IC&I Waste OWMA Report Event Report Regulation Roundup Ad Index Blog

4 6 16 30 32 34 35 36 37 38

NEXT EDITION: October/November 2013 SH OW EDITION: Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo Edi torial: Recycling guideline.

Waste electronics. MRF robotics.

Stewardship agency.

Space closing: September 30, 2013.

Artwork required: October 4, 2013.

Waste Business, pg. 30

August/September 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 3

p 03 swr aug-sept 2013 conts p 03.indd 3

13-08-29 9:05 AM

EDITORIAL

by Guy Crittenden “The situation pits local community members who agreed to host a landfill on certain conditions.”

The Otter Lake Landfill Dispute Stealing defeat from the jaws of victory?

A

dispute over how waste is managed by Halifax Regional Muniable and revenue-generating product. cipality (HRM) sheds light on how things can go wrong when a The CMC says the front-end facilities were never designed to do consultant makes recommendations based on technical concepts this. The HRM has extensive curbside collection of recyclables and orwithout taking enough account of the goodwill of local citizens. ganics, in addition to a special wastes depot. (The HRM already enjoys The dispute centres on a report submitted to the HRM in January a diversion rate of about 50 per cent.) The purpose of the FEP is to sort 2013 by consultants from Stantec, which was peer reviewed by consultout organics and send them to the WSF for stabilization before they get ants from Dillon and also SNC-Lavalin. The report and peer reviews landfilled as an inert dry fluff. The CMC says that the HRM’s continued triggered acrimonious exchanges between different stakeholders, inoverlooking of this point will be the basis of the public consultation cluding government officials at all levels. that’s planned to begin in September.

The Stantec report was requested by the CAO, under approval by The situation pits local community members who agreed to host a council, in order to find efficiencies in the existing waste management landfill on certain conditions (i.e., that it accept only stabilized waste) system. The cornerstone of the system is the Otter Lake landfill facility, that may be expensive, against residents and businesses further away which only accepts waste after it first who might focus only on cost. passes through a front-end processor The issue has become political. Prov(FEP) and waste stabilization facility incial Environment Minister Sterling (WSF). Putrescible materials (that generBelliveau has written that the HRM ate methane gas and leachate) and certain won’t be allowed to close the FEP and other contaminants are not accepted.

WSF facilities, and is supported in this by The Stantec report is long and techthe leaders of the opposition parties. A nical, and makes many recommendations resolution at Province House stated the aimed to reduce HRM disposal costs and same and passed unanimously. extend the landfill’s life (including by It’s difficult to understand why the putting a lift on it). Objections to the reHRM would contemplate breaking port focus on the proposed changes at the agreements with a happy host communOtter Lake facility. ity and its facility operator, or try to Local residents protest suggested changes to a stabilized landfill The Otter Lake facility and related change the operating permit when the they agreed to in 1999. infrastructure weren’t achieved in a vacprovince says “no.” uum. They stem from a hard-won 1999 agreement between HRM and The CMC is also concerned about Stantec’s suggestion that two prothe local community, represented by the Halifax Waste-Resource Socitection liners be removed from the landfill — despite regulatory requireety. This society was created by HRM in order to have a citizen’s body ments from Nova Scotia Environment — and the proposed increase in with which it could enter into a formal written agreement. The agreethe landfill’s height by 15 metres (which would extend the landfill life by ment created a Community Monitoring Committee (CMC) populated by 23 years). The community also has issues with Stantec’s vision of a directors of the Society, the mayor, council members and citizens apwaste “campus” at the site, including construction of a MRF and compointed by council. posting facilities (as they need replacement) and outdoor compost curThe 1999 agreement assured the community that the FEP and WSF ing on-site. would send only inert, residual waste or stabilized organics to the landfill.

The Stantec report contains suggestions the community would likely The Stantec report recommended doing away with the FEP and WSF. approve, but when it notes that the current cost of $170/tonne (which The Dillon peer review was commissioned by Mirror, the landfill includes capital, operating and perpetual care) at Otter Lake “far exceed operator, in part because Dillon has been involved with Otter Lake since more typical industry costs of $50 to $100/tonne” and that “pre-processit was sited, working with Mirror to design the landfill, each cell, coning of waste is rarely undertaken elsewhere” it, and the HRM, appear to duct monitoring, etc. (CMC members say they use the Dillon peer rebe missing the public and environmental benefits of waste stabilization view because HRM staff disallowed the group from spending part of its for which the willing host community is prepared to pay. budget on its own peer review.)

As the adage goes, “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”

The CMC and Dillon object to the Stantec report’s contentions that the FEP and WSF “serve no useful purpose” — the FEP only diverts Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine. Contact Guy at 200-300 tonnes of waste per year, and the WSF doesn’t create a marketgcrittenden@solidwastemag.com 4 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2013

p 04-05 swr aug-sept 2013 editl p 04-05.indd 4

13-08-29 9:12 AM

CWSS Broch

Canadian Waste Sector Symposium ‘Waste to ResouRces’ November 18-20, 2013 — Hyatt Regency Hotel, Montreal, QC Room Reservations available on the website at www.canwastesectorsymposium.ca

PLAN TO ATTEND THE 2013 CANADIAN WASTE SECTOR SYMPOSIUM

T

he CWSS is a 2 1/2 day event providing waste facility tours, over 30 workshop sessions, several networking opportunities, evening cocktail receptions — PLUS free entrance into the Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo that begins on November 20th, 2013 at the Palais de Congres in Montreal.

The CWSS is the premier waste sector event for the priviate and public sector leaders in Canada’s waste management sector.

Michele Goulding, Symposium Manager Ontario Waste Management Association 905-791-9500 — Mgoulding@owma.org The Canadian Waste Sector Symposium (CWSS) will be held in Montreal with show organizer, Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA), and sponsor partners Conseil des Entreprises de Services Environnementaux (C.E.S.E.) and RÉSEAU environnement. Solid Waste & Recycling Magazine is the official publication of the CWSS.

CWSS p 04-05Brochure swr aug-sept 2013.indd 2013 editl 1 p 04-05.indd 5

13-04-12 13-08-29 10:02 9:12 AM AM

Solid Waste & Recycling

UPFRONT

LETTERS

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

Guy Crittenden Editor gcrittenden@solidwastemag.com Brad O’Brien Publisher bobrien@solidwastemag.com Dave Douglas Account Manager ddouglas@bizinfogroup.ca Sheila Wilson Art Director Kimberly Collins Market Production Anita Madden Circulation Manager Carol Lenoury Mgr EcoLog Group Bruce Creighton President Business Information Group Contributing Editors Michael Cant, Rosalind Cooper, Maria Kelleher, David McRobert, 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: $52.95 (add applicable taxes) per year, $85.95 (add applicable taxes) for 2 years, single copy $10.00. USA: 1 Year $55.95; 2 Years $91.95. Foreign: 1 Year $85.95; 2 Years $134.95.

Hi! I just wanted to tell you that I really enjoy your magazine! I always look forward to reading your editorial. The subjects are interesting and diversified.

Long live Solid Waste & Recycling!

Best regards,

Josee Yelle, DGE

CycleEnvironnement Mirabel, Quebec

New website on paper bags

T

he Paper and Paperboard Packaging Environmental Council (PPEC) has launched a website intended to serve as a fact versus fiction reminder about the use of bags in Canadian society. The website Paper Bags Canada offers readers a rundown on different types of bags — from light paper to multi-wall sacks — and how they’re made.

According to PPEC Executive Director, John Mullinder, one of the primary agendas for the website is to dispel the myth that paper bags equate to the destruction of trees. Paper Bags Canada wants to highlight that most bags in Canada are made from wood chips and sawmill residues left over from lumber operations.

The website notes that “The whole Canadian forest industry (pulp, paper, lumber, and other products) harvested less than 0.2 per cent of the commercial forest in the most recent year for which data are available (2010).” Paper Bags Canada goes on to say that forests must be regenerated by law. About 67 per cent of the harvest is currently regenerated through tree planting and direct seeding (some 500 million seedlings per year). Waste-based biomass now also provides almost 70 per cent of the Canadian pulp and paper industry’s overall energy requirements.

Visit paperbagscanada.org

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 80 Valleybrook Drive, Toronto ON M3B 2S9 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 of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

A

fter a four-year stint at Waste Management, Mount Forest, Ontario-based Mark Hillis has rejoined Molok North America Ltd. as Chief Operating Officer, the company has announced.

Hillis’s wife and company CEO Marja Hillis says the company will continue to focus on long-term growth strategies as Hillis returns from his Business Development Manager position at Waste Management. (Hillis was previously in a general manager role at Molok for more than seven years.)

Hillis will run the day-to-day operations of Molok, with a focus on forging new partnerships and working with national customers, service providers and installers.

Molok North America Ltd., a PROFIT 500 company, has been headquartered in Mount Forest, Ontario, since 1999. The company provides commercial, residential and municipal applications with an innovative new way of managing waste and recyclables in “deep Mark Hillis collection” systems.

Visit molokna.com

© 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this pub­li­ca­tion may be reproduced without prior con­­sent.

Print edition: ISSN-1483-7714

Mark Hillis rejoins Molok

Online edition: ISSN-1923-3388

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 August/September 2013

p 06-07 swr aug-sept 2013 upfront p 06-07.indd 6

13-08-29 9:12 AM

UPFRONT

COMPOST CONFERENCE ADDS TOURS

T

Harvest Power, London

he 23rd Annual National Compost Conference, to be held in Toronto, Ontario on September 11-13, 2013 at the Eaton Chelsea hotel has added an extra day of tours to the agenda. (Also, on Tuesday, September 10 there will be two optional courses: Odour Management 101 and a mini Compost Facility Operator Course).

The facilities that will part of the Tuesday, September 10 tour include: Walker Environmental Group Compost Facility, Thorold; City

O

PEEL REGION APPROVES WTE PLANT

n June 27, 2013, Peel Regional Council approved the region’s plan to design, build, operate and maintain the Peel Energy Recovery Centre, a component in the region’s long-term waste management strategy.

Using an established waste-to-energy (WTE) technology, the facility will process 300,000 tonnes per year of Peel’s residential garbage to produce useable energy, such as steam or electricity and recover recyclable metals. It will allow the region to reduce the overall volume of waste going to landfill by up to 90 per cent.

In 2012, the Region disposed of over 250,000 tonnes of residential garbage, which remained after residents reduced, reused, recycled and composted their household waste. Even with planned diversion programs, projections show that when the new centre opens in 2020, the region will need to dispose of more than 270,000 tonnes of garbage per year, with as much as 400,000 tpy over the facility’s 30-40 year lifespan.

Visit peelregion.ca

of Hamilton Central Composting Facility; City of Guelph Organics Waste Processing Facility; Harvest Power, London.

Facilities on the Wednesday, September 11 tour include: Region of Peel Integrated Waste Management Facility; City of Toronto Dufferin Organics Processing Facility; Exhibition Place Organics Collection Program & Sustainability Initiatives; and, Miller Compost, Pickering.

Visit compost.org or call 1-877-571 GROW(4769)

CSSA seeks packaging stewardship harmonization The recently-formed Canadian Stewardship Services Alliance (CSSA) says it’s working on a harmonization imperative to put recyclers on a sustainable path in Canada over the next six to 12 months. CSSA is aiming for a shared administrative and customer service business infrastructure for producers and stewards of extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs and provincial producer responsibility organizations in Canada.

Sonya Fiorini, Senior Director of Corporate Social Responsibility for Loblaw, and John Coyne, VP of Legal & External Affairs and General Counsel for Unilever, presented a progress update CSSA at PAC NEXT on May 15, 2013.

CSSA was incorporated in September 2012 by a group of retailers that includes Loblaw, Walmart, Metro, Canada Safeway and Sobeys, along with consumer packaged goods companies Kraft, Unilever, P&G, Coca-Cola and Maple Leaf Foods.

Coyne has been on record to state that there has been a lack of co-ordination and sharing of best practices when it comes to companies paying for the costs of several stand-alone provincial stewardship agencies, all with different reporting methodologies and systems.

Contact Catherine Abel, Stakeholder Relations at CSSA, at cabel@cssalliance.ca August/September 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 7

p 06-07 swr aug-sept 2013 upfront p 06-07.indd 7

13-08-29 9:12 AM

COVER STORY

by Michael Cant & Mandy Pereira “The transition from EPR to IPR will not come without challenges.”

Individual Stewardship Plans Moving from extended to “individual” producer responsibility in Canada

I

ndividual producer responsibility (IPR) has recently become a focal point in public policy discourse in Canada and abroad as a potential alternative to traditional stewardship schemes. The introduction of Ontario’s draft Bill 91 Waste Reduction Act (WRA) has garnered significant attention, and is causing producers of products and packaging (and waste management professionals) to ask what IPR is, and how it differs from “extended producer responsibility” (EPR).

Little is actually understood about what IPR really is, where it fits within the broader framework of EPR, and what it may look like when implemented.

Municipalities are especially interested to learn how their curbside recycling and other programs might be impacted as industry “stewards” are assigned full responsibility (and costs) for end-of-life management of discards.

SO WHAT IS IPR? Unlike conventional EPR models which discharge a company’s financial obligations through a single compliance scheme (e.g., Stewardship Ontario, Eco Enterprises Quebec, Multi Material British Columbia), IPR makes companies individually responsible (physically and financially) for their products at end-of-life.

The government sets the outcomes and enforces them, while business figures the best way to achieve them.

The thinking is that this approach allows companies in a competitive model to drive innovation and efficiencies through design, take-

back logistics and/or processing. Collective recycling schemes can still occur, but participants cannot discharge their responsibilities and must adhere to competition rules. Companies would make decisions based on what is in their best interests.

Depending on the product or type of company, approaches to IPR could vary significantly, including: • Producer self-managed; • Contracting with service providers to manage end-of-life products on their behalf; • Tendering for available processed materials; • Incentives paid for collection and/or processing of materials.

Though there are few current examples of IPR schemes in a North American context, the adoption of this policy approach is driven by a convergence of municipal and producer interests that reflect a broader movement to promote waste diversion, encourage cost containment, and fully realize the value of waste as a resource. Further to that point, stakeholders from both the public and private sector have criticized existing industry funded organizations (IFOs) for lacking transparency and equitability in determining how recycling systems are financed.

The success of IPR in European jurisdictions (e.g., United King­ dom, Germany) has encouraged provincial governments to endorse IPR as the primary vehicle for implementing producer responsibility.

Ontario in particular seems poised to

8 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2013

p 08-15 swr aug-sept 2013 cvr sty pg 08-15.indd 8

13-08-29 9:11 AM

COVER STORY

Diagram from Ontario Ministry of the Environment presentation.

embrace IPR in the near future, publishing reports in both 2009 and 2013 that propose that the existing waste diversion framework be significantly modified to promote IPR. With the above in mind, is IPR an inevitability? Is it even feasible for certain products and packaging types?

TRANSITIONING TO IPR Since Ontario’s proposed WRA was introduced on June 6, 2013, interest in IPR has skyrocketed. Many companies that were considering making the leap to a self-managed stewardship program are now motivated by Bill 91, which takes a firm approach to “make producers responsible for waste derived from their products.”

Some producers frustrated by current IFO stewardship programs are eager to understand the benefits of an IPR program that will restore their control over confidential sales data, service provider contracts and environmental accountability. (Various media reports have left producers wondering if their electronics will be found burned at the side of a river in China.)

While the WRA provides prescriptive details as to how producers

will register, report, pay, collect, transport, process and even work with “intermediary” waste reduction service providers there’s still no solid understanding as to how the system will look. Proponents of the IPR model believe industry will provide innovative solutions to manage the waste stream and that infrastructure is in place to collect and process eligible waste. Others are hopeful that producers will remember the true meaning of producer responsibility when designing and manufacturing the product with its end-of-life in mind (known as design for environment or “DfE”).

The transition from IFO to IPR will not come without challenges.

The good news is that examples of IPR programs that exist, along with data and lessons learned from failed IFO models; these can provide best practices for future IPR programs.

Some problems experienced by producers in an IFO model will cease. Issues such as “free-riding” producers and orphan waste will be identified in IRP; however, there will likely be a need to address some issues via a collective approach. Future models will likely be a combination of independent and collective producer responsibility programs working simultaneously to achieve a common goal.

August/September 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 9

p 08-15 swr aug-sept 2013 cvr sty pg 08-15.indd 9

13-08-29 9:11 AM

COVER STORY

CASE STUDY: THE CWTA

A variety of individual producer responsibility programs exist in Canada for certain products and packaging.

The photo above shows a box used to return cell phone batteries in the voluntary Call2Recycle program (www.call2recycle.ca/swr) — an industry-led return-to-retail program that allows consumers to drop off their old cell phone batteries at convenient locations where they may shop for electronics. Call2Recycle is Canada’s first and largest battery stewardship program. Since 1998, Call2Recycle has diverted more than 5.5 million kilograms of used batteries from landfills in Canada. Call2Recycle is the battery stewardship program for a variety of sectors such as manufacturing, waste management, utilities, municipalities and community centers who are committed to reducing their environmental footprint. Call 1-888-224-9764.

Other IPR examples include a deposit- refund system operated by The Beer Store in Ontario that not only accepts used beer containers for refilling and recycling, but also used wine and liquor bottles, which the system collects on behalf6/11/07 of the Liquor Control of Ontario Walinga VC2336 2:36 Board PM Page 1 (LCBO). Yet another system collects waste products and packaging at pharmacies. (See article, page 12.)

N O W

The cell phone program serves as a good example of various schemes working simultaneously to achieve high diversion of cell phones nationally. The CWTA (Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association) “Recycle My Cell” program recycles cell phones and other wireless devices and accessories via a variety of collection models. Devices may be dropped off at retail locations (cell phone stores), Recycle My Cell drop off locations, or via mail-back programs.

In this model, various stakeholders are able

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

10 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2013

p 08-15 swr aug-sept 2013 cvr sty pg 08-15.indd 10

13-08-29 9:11 AM

COVER STORY

Rogers is one of several Canadian communications companies whose consumer telecom division offers a convenient return-to-retail program where people can drop off old cell phones and batteries for recycling. Typically the end-of-life products are collected in a box and shipped off for processing when full.

Photo by Guy Crittenden

to identify how materials will be collected. This has led to several creative and effective programs such as Bell’s Blue Box Program and the Rogers’ “Phones-for-Food” program that satisfies recycling targets and also addresses corporate social responsibility obligations (by generating funds that are used for philanthropic initiatives).

Although the Recycle My Cell is a robust program with various members, other collection programs operate locally, provincially and nationally such as Ontario Electronics Stewardship (OES), Green Calgary and the Toronto Zoo (to name a few). (For more on Toronto Zoo programs, see article on page 30.) With the cell phone model it’s evident that competition has had a positive impact with respect to capture rates and diversion. However, to be fair, very little is known about the enforcement of recycling standards by processors and refurbishers.

CONCLUSIONS Taking all this into consideration, producers should be excited at the opportunity to develop programs that can work effectively and efficiently. However, despite their dissatisfaction with the current IFO models, some stakeholders have taken the “better the devil you know” approach and have been reluctant to throw their support behind IPR: retailers have concerns with reporting to yet another quasi-governmental structure; municipalities, who have suffered the most at the hands these policy programs, are concerned they’ll have to negotiate with hundreds of producers; and, producers are concerned about destroying models already in place, and potentially increasing their administrative burden.

These concerns are natural, grounded as they are in the current recycling framework with which we’re familiar. Some in the current model have an interest in preserving it through whatever means, including scaretactics. It’s important to take a step back when accessing this model. Just because we have done something for many years one way doesn’t mean it’s the right way. IPR offers a way of addressing the many failures in the current framework. It will potentially drive innovation, cost savings and environmental accountability; and, last but not least, it could relieve the need to subsidize the cost of expensive IFOs.

Michael Cant is the Waste Practice Leader at Golder Associates in Whitby, Ontario. Contact Michael at mcant@golder.com Mandy Pereira is the Principal Consultant at PEAR Consulting in Mississauga, Ontario. Contact Mandy at mandy@pearconsulting.ca The authors wish to thank Calvin Lakhan of PEAR Consulting for his assistance in preparing this article.

Recharging the planet. Recycling your batteries.TM

With Call2Recycle Batteries Never Die Call2Recycle provides an easy, efficient and eco-friendly way to recycle your organization’s batteries and cellphones.

To participate in the program visit www.call2recycle.ca/swr or call 1-888-224-9764.

August/September 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 11 BC metro vancouver 3.375 x 4.875.indd 1

p 08-15 swr aug-sept 2013 cvr sty pg 08-15.indd 11

13-08-14 5:41 PM

13-08-29 9:11 AM

EPR

by Brad Wright “2012 saw an additional 16 per cent increase in collections as pharmacy participation increased.”

Sharps and Medications in Ontario An Individual Product Stewardship success story

O

n October 1, 2012 Ontario Regulation 298/12 “Collection of Pharmaceuticals and Sharps — Responsibilities of Producers” came into effect. It’s not only Ontario’s first extended producer responsibility (EPR) regulation created under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA); it also sets a new and innovative approach to producer responsibility regulation.

Pharmaceuticals comprise a range of products that include drugs as defined in the Food and Drugs Act (Canada) and natural health products as defined in the Natural Health Products Regulations made under the same Act. Sharps are defined as a “…needle, safety engineered needle, lancet or other similar instrument that is designed to puncture the skin of individuals or companion animals for medical purposes.”

Pharmaceutical products are prescribed with the intent to be fully consumed, whereas sharps are single-use products. Both materials pose unique health, safety and environmental risks with end-of-life management.

Historically, this management occurred through the voluntary collection network of retail pharmacies in Ontario that accepted unused/ expired medications and used sharps from consumers, and covered the cost of handling and disposal. Because the network was voluntary and without comprehensive coverage, a significant portion of these materials ended up in the municipal hazardous and special waste collection system (and were therefore managed at a cost to taxpayers).

On July 1, 2010, the responsibility and cost for managing these materials shifted to Stewardship Ontario (SO) under the expanded Municipal Household and Special Waste (MHSW) “Phase 2” program as convened under the Waste Diversion Act. As a result of the eco-fee controversy that arose from the launch of the Phase 2 program, the provincial environment minister cancelled the levying of stewardship fees to producers on July 19, 2010. While the logistics of the SO-administered program remained, program costs

CONVENIENT

ACCESSIBLE COMPETITIVE City of Toronto Solid Waste Management: Drop & Load (Tolling) Service Toronto Solid Waste Management Services offers a convenient way to manage your waste collection.

■ Bring waste to one of 7 conveniently-located Toronto transfer stations ■

Use your own haulers and disposal sites

■

Access our certified scales, skilled staff and equipment

■

Competitive rates at $13/tonne*

■

No appointment required for collection vehicles – use facilities any time during our convenient hours including Saturdays at some location

■

Haulers can schedule loading times that work with your operations to minimize the time your drivers are onsite

To find locations and for more information visit toronto.ca/garbage/depots or call 416-397-1356 *Subject to review

12 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2013

p 08-15 swr aug-sept 2013 cvr sty pg 08-15.indd 12

13-08-29 9:12 AM

Photo by Guy Crittenden

A Leading Waste Management Company

Composting Biosolids Management Landfill Gas Commercial Organics Waste Haulage Transfer Services Building Performance Grease Trap Services Landfill Disposal PO Box 100, Thorold, ON L2V 3Y8 905.680.1900 www.walkerind.com August/September 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 13

p 08-15 swr aug-sept 2013 cvr sty pg 08-15.indd 13

13-08-29 9:12 AM

EPR

POST-CONSUMER SHARPS AND MEDICATIONS COLLECTED AT ONTARIO PHARMACIES (KGS)

were covered by the Ontario government (i.e., taxpayers) for the next 26 months.

In the summer of 2012, with the Ontario government’s commitment to fund the Phase 2 program ending in October of that year, the environment ministry proposed a new regulatory approach to producer responsibility for pharmaceuticals and sharps under the EPA. The EPA-based regulatory approach is truly unique in that it does not require producers to file stewardship plans. Rather, it sets out some key compliance requirements and leaves it to producers to determine how they discharge their obligations. Specifically the regulation: • Assigns end-of-life responsibility for waste pharmaceuticals and sharps to individual producers of pharmaceuticals and sharps

(i.e., manufacturers, brand owners or importers); in turn; • Allows a producer to establish and operate such a system on its own or as part of a collective of producers. (Notably, the ministry does not regulate any producer collectives that may form); • Requires producers to utilize service providers who have EPA environmental compliance approvals for the operation of waste management systems specific to the collection and proper end-of-life management of post-consumer pharmaceuticals and sharps (public waste); and, • Requires minimum collection coverage (to ensure collections from the approximately 3,000 retail pharmacy locations generating consumer returns of waste pharmaceuticals

and sharps), proper handling and management standards, and annual reporting to the ministry regarding collection performance.

In anticipation of the regulation, Health Products Stewardship Association (HPSA) was chosen by industry as the collective, producerdriven national producer responsibility organization. HPSA has led the transition of the SO program to a producer responsibility compliance model under O. Reg. 298/12.

HPSA’s compliance model is highly successful and builds on earlier efforts.

Consider that in the six month period prior to the start of the MHSW Phase 2 program in July 2010, 1,005 retail pharmacies collected pharmaceuticals and sharps voluntarily. By the end of the Phase 2 in October 2012, the number of participating pharmacies almost

14 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2013

p 08-15 swr aug-sept 2013 cvr sty pg 08-15.indd 14

13-08-29 9:12 AM

EPR

By March 2013, 84 per cent of Ontario pharmacies were participating in the HPSA administered program.

Photo by Guy Crittenden

responsibility that gives producers the flexibility to drive the environmental outcomes the public wants.

Brad Wright is Principal Consultant at Environment and Resources Consulting and has been the consulting lead on the development and implementation of the HPSA’s Ontario producer compliance scheme for pharmaceutical and sharps wastes.

Contact Brad at bwright@ercinc.ca

tripled to over 3,000 as the costs for recovery and end-of-life management of these materials transferred from retailers to SO. By March 2013, 84 per cent of Ontario pharmacies were participating in the HPSA administered program.

Between 2010 and 2011 there was a 32 per cent increase in the amount of material collected at retail pharmacies. 2012 saw an additional 16 per cent increase in collections as pharmacy participation increased and consumer awareness improved. The first nine months of the HPSA producer responsibility program saw a further 10 per cent increase in the collection of sharps and medications.

HPSA plans to aggressively expand the retail collection network and drive more consumer awareness, with the objective of diverting all waste pharmaceuticals and sharps away from municipal collection and disposal systems to their network of retail pharmacies (that are properly equipped to handle and dispose of these materials).

The response by producers to Ontario Regulation 298/12 has been positive and retail pharmacies continue to voluntarily embrace the HPSA administered programs. The successful performance of the programs speaks well for a streamlined approach to producer August/September 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 15

p 08-15 swr aug-sept 2013 cvr sty pg 08-15.indd 15

13-08-29 9:12 AM

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

by Paul van der Werf “Municipalities are looking for high quality product at a reasonable price that is also easy to access.”

Always Fresh!

Or, it’s time to sing a different compost marketing song

I

“Hear my song. People won’t you listen now? Sing along.

You don’t know what you’re missing now.

Any little song that you know Everything that’s small has to grow.”

n June, Alberta Environment released Municipal Compost Use in Alberta — A Report on Survey Results. The survey was conducted to better understand how Alberta municipal green spaces are managed and constructed, with an underlying goal of finding viable markets for all compost products produced.

They found that sports fields, playgrounds and boulevards are the three most common green spaces managed by municipalities, and that top dressing with compost was a relative rare occurrence. More than half ofADVERTISER: these municipalities to build new green spaces, such as these, EL-EN planned Packaging in the next two years. Almost 40 per cent reported mixing in composts CONTACT: LENDT - slendt@motumb2b.com (416-598-7588) with topsoilsSTEVE when establishing green spaces.

Nonetheless, compost use appears to be impeded primarily by weak soil standards and developers completing construction based on municipal construction specifications.

This has been a challenge across Canada and the US (although it appears to be changing here). Specifications become entrenched. The prospect of change negatively impacts perceived risks and project costs, so they remain.

Municipalities and other levels of government have the power to make change. They’re the ones encouraging the diversion of organic wastes, on the one hand, but who often have the other hand in their pocket when it comes time to — if not outright mandate product use — at least better facilitate its use.

MADE TO DEGRADE

Just like the corn they’re made with.*

Learn more or request a sample: www.elenpac.com *We use BASF ecovio® bioplastics, consisting of the compostable BASF polymer ecoflex® and polylactic acid, which is derived from corn.

16 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2013

p 16-17 swr aug-sept 2013 organic matters p 16-17.indd 16

13-08-29 9:11 AM

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

According to the survey, most Alberta municipalities don’t have any Always Grows? The best slogan could be devised by the industry as a specific policies regarding compost use, yet they don’t outright discour- whole, or maybe a smart company will figure it out.

Like Always Fresh, this marketing campaign needs to be built age its use. That is to say, if compost is available when required, it will around the high quality products and composts attributes that are now probably be used. If it’s not there, it will likely not be “sought out.”

Progress has been made at the provincial level entrenching compost thoroughly proven.

California sunlight, sweet Calcutta rain in certain projects. For instance, Alberta Transportation includes the Honolulu Star-bright, the song remains the same. use of compost blankets in The Field Guide for Erosion and Sediment Control (2010). The Product List outlines consideration for use of compost for filter berms and blankets. The City of Edmonton, a large Paul van der Werf is President of 2cg Inc. in London, Ontario. producer of compost, has developed a design guide for low-impact de- Contact Paul at 2cg@sympatico.ca velopment, which includes guidance on using compost.

The vast majority of Alberta municipalities reported no problems or barriers with compost use; however, those that did identified product quality and cost as key issues. Notably, two thirds of survey respondents were unaware of the Compost Council of Canada’s Compost Quality Alliance (CQA) program.

To parse the study, municipalities are looking for high quality product at a reasonable price that is also easy to access. (This also seems to work well for cars, coffee and Caribbean vacaHighest Efficiency Composting & Lowest Electrical Use tions.)

+

The Power of 2 Provides:

Marketing The marketers of compost have come a long way in the last two decades. They’re now at a healthy plateau of their own making, but are still asking some of the same questions, like “How do we get people to buy and use compost?”

As if stuck in the event horizon of a Star Trek Voyageur quantum singularity, the messages one hears today are the same ones as 20 years ago: compost is a good source of organic matter, it contains nutrients, it improves water-holding capacity, and so on. To get to the next plateau, marketers need to move beyond these messages and get people thinking about compost as simply another consumer product.

Tim Horton’s created seemingly eternal line ups at its stores through the simple “Always Fresh” master stroke of throwing out pots of coffee after 20 minutes. There it is in two words, the embodiment of a company’s approach to its key product and one that clearly resonates with customers.

I know in London, Ontario each year on the first Saturday of May, the three words ”Compost Value Day,” (a community event to promote compost use), induces Tim Horton-sized line ups to buy top notch compost produced by Try Recycling Inc. — at least for a few hours until supplies are exhausted.

How can you market compost in two words?

Healthy Soils? Growing Plants? Growing Soil?

Combining BDP’s fully automated, agitated In-vessel Composting System (ICS) with BacTee’s ultra efficient, negative aeration/ventilation and odor control systems maintains the highest quality compost with the lowest energy consumption and smallest facility footprint

Don Mathsen, Chief Engineer Grand Forks, North Dakota Ph: 701 775 8775 Email: don@bactee.com www.bactee.com

Richard Nicoletti, Product Manager Greenwich, New York Ph: 518 695 6851 Email: Rich@bdpindustries.com www.bdpindustries.com

August/September 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 17

p 16-17 swr aug-sept 2013 organic matters p 16-17.indd 17

13-08-29 9:11 AM

MRF TECHNOLOGY

Overhead truck loading hoppers for quick and clean load out of biomass fuels.

C&D Recycling Plant

by Guy Crittenden

Progressive Waste Solutions’ new facility in Vaughan, Ontario

K

nown as the Freshway Construction and Demolition Sortation Plant, Progressive Waste is located in the City of Vaughan near intersection of Highways 407 and 400. Situated on 10 acres, the plant — which officially opened its doors on June 25, 2013 — is located centrally to service a majority of construction in the Greater Toronto Area.

The site is comprised of asphalt and is designed to allow easy and clear access to all truck traffic. The 60,000 sq. ft. plant consists of; • 15,000 sq. ft. tipping floor.

• 35,000 sq. ft of material processing area.

• 8,000 sq. ft. mechanical, electrical and employee facilities.

• 2,000 sq. ft. education center.

THE PROCESS The processing line includes primary separation of materials by use of a 10-inch finger screen that divides the material into two streams. (See photo) The finger screen, trommel and conveyors were fabricated by Premier Tech (Erin).

The first stream is greater than 10-inch material, which is conveyed

“The plant represents a 14 million dollar investment in the recovery of materials traditionally landfilled.”

to the sorting building for manual recovery of wood, steel, cardboard, plastics, gypsum, concrete and residue.

The second stream is less than 10-inch sized material, which is conveyed to a trommel that extracts 3-inch minus material, which is conveyed to an overhead truck-loading hopper; this material is taken to Progressive’s Ridge Landfill to be used as alternate daily cover (ADC) or road base material on the landfill. (This has the advantage of replacing the imported quarried materials that are traditionally used.)

The trommel ejects a 3–10 inch component that’s conveyed to an optical sorter that, in turn, recovers 80–85 per cent of the wood in that stream. The remaining material from the optical sorter is residue.

The wood from the main sort line and the secondary optical sorter line is conveyed to a hammer mill (manufactured by Wast Salem Machinery) which reduces it in size to 3-inch minus fuel. ... continues on page 23

18 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2013

p 18,23-25 swr aug-sept 2013 spotlight p 18,23-25.indd 18

13-08-29 9:10 AM

p 19-22 swr aug-sept 2013 CCC p 19-22.indd 19

13-08-29 9:09 AM

p 19-22 swr aug-sept 2013 CCC p 19-22.indd 20

13-08-29 9:09 AM

Our 2013 National Compost Conference Sessions

MPOST! O C …

L I O S E H FEED T agement ed Organics Man

RESEAR CH ADV ANCES

Source-Separat rward A Green Way Fo anics Processing Solid Waste Org al ip ic un M on t en Quality Technical Docum Aerobic Compost An Assessment of

TO AGRICULTURE COMPOST DIGS IN d Farm Soils

THE INS-AND-OUTS OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

Cities Fee ch Studies Green Bin-Derived Compost Resear

SSING E C O R P & Y TECHNOLOG

Technology Development Optimizing Systems Progress and Challenges

REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS Moving Forward with Organics Recycling, Composting and Anaerobic Digestion

STING O P M O C Y IT ment nity Engage u COMMUdN m m BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS o C n st E ucatio 

Compo

unds School Gro g in rm fo s Tran osting nity Comp u m m o C n Urba

S.O.S. – Smart on Soil Expanding Large-Scale Markets for Compost Green Roofs on the Rise!

TAKING THE “WASTE” OUT OF WASTEWATER Municipal Biosolids as an Ingredient for High-Grade Compost

COMPOST PRO GRAM SUCCES On-Site at an U SES rb an Rooftop Gre en ABILITY:

COMPOST SS AND PROCE PRODUCTS ostables

Comp The Role of s iversion Rate D g in iz im x a Tools for M endly s Process-Fri le b a st o p m o Making C

On-Farm Compo sting Green Cart Pilo t

house

SAFETY AS A FIRST PRIORITY Evaluating Risk at Composting and Anaerobic Digestion Facilities

COMPOSTABLE www.compostable.info

p 19-22 swr aug-sept 2013 CCC p 19-22.indd 21

13-08-29 9:09 AM

p 19-22 swr aug-sept 2013 CCC p 19-22.indd 22

13-08-29 9:09 AM

MRF TECHNOLOGY

... continued from page 18

A view of the primary finger screen at the front end of the system.

EagleVizion optical sorter for wood products on the system’s “B” line. ... continues on next page

November 20 - 21, 2013 Canada’s ONLY trade show serving the waste, recycling and public works markets

Get face to face with your market!

Palais des Congrès, Montréal, QC Canada

i n n o v a t i o n

n e t w o r k i n g

p u r c h a s i n g

demonstrations

e d u c a t i o n

t e c h n o l o g y

f a c i l i t y

l u n c h e o n s

Register Today at www.cwre.ca/ADS1 For more information, visit www.cwre.ca

t o u r s

August/September 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 23

p 18,23-25 swr aug-sept 2013 spotlight p 18,23-25.indd 23

13-08-29 9:11 AM

MRF TECHNOLOGY

(above) A view of the system’s “A” line.

West Salem Machinery hammer mill at the back end of the system sizes recovered wood product to end-market specifications.

The fuel is stored in overhead truck bins to be loaded into trailers to fuel electricity and steam production (as an alternate fuel to coal).

Other equipment of note is the EagleVizion optical sorter, storage hoppers from Western Pneumatics, and a Cat 330D excavator with hydraulic raised cab capability.

End markets for recycled C&D material include: wood chips used as fuel to produce electricity; cardboard returned to the mill to produce cardboard boxes or liner board; steel smelted to produce new steel, gypsum used in new wall board; and, concrete crushed for incorporation in new cement production or aggregate.

“This plant represents a 14 million dollar investment in the recovery of materials traditionally landfilled,” says Brian Kent, Transfer Station Manager. “It demonstrates Progressive Waste Solutions commitment to developing new and innovative processes which help move

the waste industry to new levels of recycling and environmental responsibility.

Currently, the construction and demolition industry in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is estimated to produce nearly 500,000 tonnes of waste annually. The new facility is equipped to process about 20 per cent of the market’s construction and demolition debris, or 100,000 tonnes of waste per year, representing the equivalent of 3,500 tractor trailer loads of material that can be diverted from landfills.

“Through the Education Center located at this facility,” he adds, “Progressive is committed to reaching out to future generations to ensure that the foundations being built upon today will be sustained.”

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

24 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2013

p 18,23-25 swr aug-sept 2013 spotlight p 18,23-25.indd 24

13-08-29 9:11 AM

MRF TECHNOLOGY

PROGRESSIVE WASTE SOLUTIONS

Currently, Progressive Waste Solutions has more than 110 natural gas powered vehicles on the road in Canada, including fleets in Surrey, British Columbia, and Simcoe County, Ontario. This represents approximately 10 per cent of its Canadian fleet. The company expects to have nearly 150 natural gas powered vehicles in Canada by the end of 2013, with the addition of trucks in markets such as Montreal, Quebec. In 2014, Progressive Waste Solutions expects 50 to 55 per cent of the total number of vehicles it purchases in Canada and the US, through the normal course replacement of its fleet, will be fuelled by compressed natural gas.

A

s one of North America’s largest full-service waste management companies, Progressive Waste Solutions (NYSE/ TSE: BIN) says it provides non-hazardous solid waste collection, recycling and disposal services to commercial, industrial, municipal and residential customers in 13 US states, the District of Columbia, and six Canadian provinces, with vertically-integrated collection and disposal assets.

The company is comprised of major brands IESI, BFI Canada and Waste Services Inc. The company traces its roots to 2000 when BFI Canada Inc. was founded after purchasing the Canadian oper-

ations of the Allied-owned BFI (US), which had been in the waste business in Canada for well over 20 years.

IESI Corp., based in Texas, was acquired in 2005, adding operations in the US south and the US northeast comprising 10 states. In 2008, BFI Canada changed its corporate structure from an income fund to a dividend-paying corporation. In 2010, the company acquired Waste Services Inc. (WSI), with operations throughout Canada and the US southeast, to become the third largest non-hazardous solid waste services company in North America. The overall parent corporation changed its name to Progressive Waste Solutions Inc. in May 2011.

August/September 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 25

p 18,23-25 swr aug-sept 2013 spotlight p 18,23-25.indd 25

13-08-29 9:11 AM

LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY

by Richard Aho “Leachate processed aerobically onsite can be utilized beneficially as ‘compost tea.’”

Wet aerobic digestion in a landfill cell.

The Aerobic Landfill Strategy cost-effectively eliminates long-term liability

A

erobic operation of a modern landfill offers a cost effective and environmentally sound opportunity to eliminate the liability of waste while sustaining resources.

Accelerated Biological Organics Processing (ABOP) is a quantum leap forward for the treatment, utilization, and the sustainability of organics. Aerobic processing is the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for organics in a landfill or a source-separated organics digester, and shortens the leachate-contaminating lifespan of a landfill.

Municipalities must decide between risking groundwater resources or not. The short cycle time (40 days) of ABOP makes it easy to define performance and convert detractors.

Systems old and new The “aerobic” landfill systems of the early 1990s failed because the operations led to landfills catching on fire. By forcing air or oxygen

TIME

NUMBER OF CELLS

0 minutes

1

20 minutes

2

40 minutes

4

60 minutes

8

2 hours

64

4 hours

4096

8 hours

16,777,216

24 hours

4,722,366,482,869,650,000,000

26 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2013

p 26-29 swr aug-sept 2013 landfill p 26-29.indd 26

13-08-29 9:08 AM

LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY

into the wastemass air of “dry aerobic” landfills, aerobic processing occurred, but spontaneous combustion started fires (something that doesn’t go unnoticed).

Other waste conversion technologies can be expensive and controversial (e.g., waste-to-energy incinerators or gasifiers, and purpose-built anaerobic digestion plants).

Utilizing a landfill as a “wet” anaerobic digestion system is less expensive and very effective at degrading putrescibles with modern strategies.

To start with, a modern landfill liner represents a well designed and effective waste and water containment system. However, an anaerobic waste mass will outlast the competency of the liner system meant to contain it. (If someone tells you different, they likely have never built a landfill and dug into an anaerobic wastemass.)

Using a modern lined “cell” to process waste — rather than just store it — allows a landfill operator the chance to aerobically digest the organic portion of the wastemass. It makes sense to to digest the components of waste that foul water and kill organisms, wile preserving the multimillion dollar containment “vessel.”

Wet aerobic digestion contradicts several principals that most compost experts hold dear. Windrows, forced aeration, and static piles fail to utilize much of the power of microbial processing. ABOP does a much better job harnessing the awesome power and flexibility of exponential biological growth. (See figure.)

Wet aerobic processing relies on water to move heat, nutrients, organisms, and processed materials within the wastemass. It also eliminates fires, methane emissions, and the majority of the long-term liability associated with leachate formation.

The science The ABOP breakthrough is easily observed as massive aerobic digestion. Observations of the macro work of the 4.7 sextillion organisms that can be produced from a single organism in one day can be observed when it’s combined with the offspring of a sextillion other starter organisms.

These amazing numbers can’t be sustained without manipulation of conditions in the wastemass. ABOP aerobic digestion allows nature to reach a larger fraction of its potential — a stabilized level that hasn’t

After 40 days of digestion, only some wood remnants are left.

August/September 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 27

p 26-29 swr aug-sept 2013 landfill p 26-29.indd 27

13-08-29 9:08 AM

LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY

Relatively fresh material: food waste and paper are gone, with wood just starting to decompose.

been achieved before. The organisms found in the wastemass are nurtured and evolve at amazing speed. A new, better acclimatedgeneration organism is “born” and doubles its population every 20 minutes (in theory). It might be ten minutes per generation in a million-tonne wastemass; the potential number of variables (and opportunities) is staggering.

Aerobic digestion relies on water to bring nutrients, new generations of microbes, and oxygen to the wastemass. The water also removes excessive heat, digested materials, and

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

November 20 - 21, 2013

Palais des Congrès, Montréal, QC Canada

CWRE is bringing the market face to face with leading companies from around the globe.

Want to Know More?

other constraints to the microbiology.

The organisms tear apart the wastemass by opening up the materials as they digest.

Surface area increases as the organisms access the shrinking organic component. The exponential population growth and the associated digestion continue until the plateau of the system capability is achieved. Digestion reaches a stable level of biological activity that’s not achieved in nature.

Aerobic processing releases the energy of the organics in the form of heat and carbon dioxide. Methane emissions in the active phase of the landfill are aerobically eliminated.

Natural and safe mesophilic bacteria already present in the feedstock are utilized to process the organic material to an inert state.

Leachate is processed aerobically onsite such that it can be utilized beneficially as “compost tea” discharged to surface water or groundwater. Most undesirable odors associ-

Download our iPhone app

Contact Arnie Gess at 1.403.589.4832, e-mail: arnie.gess@cwre.ca or visit www.cwre.ca

CWRE13_SWR_halfpage ad_2.indd 1 28 www.solidwastemag.com

p 26-29 swr aug-sept 2013 landfill p 26-29.indd 28

“Wet aerobic processing eliminates fires, methane emissions, and the majority of the long-term liability associated with leachate formation.”

August/September 2013

2/12/2013 12:11:20 PM

13-08-29 9:08 AM

LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY

A piece of wood separated from the partial digestion pile.

A partially digested mattress.

ated with anaerobic purification are eliminated (the feedstock stinks).

ABOP can also be used to process source-separated organics (SSO), where the lined system is far less expensive and safer than conventional composting. The evolved biology necessary to digest a landfill can also be utilized to attack toxic compounds from industry and municipal set-

tings. Wet aerobic processing can assist in the remediation of contaminated materials and human and animal biosolids.

Richard Aho is Principal of EWS LLCÂ in Marquette, Michigan.

Contact Richard at raho@ewsview.com

Environmental Fracking Technology October 8, 2013

BMO Institute for Learning, Toronto, Canada Produced by:

Learn about the latest innovations in environmental fracking used to enhance and accelerate site remediation, including simultaneous recovery of subsurface contaminants and in situ treatment.

Early Bird Rate available until September 13, 2013

Sponsored by:

Visit www.hazmatmag.com/environmentalevents for more information or to register.

August/September 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 29

p 26-29 swr aug-sept 2013 landfill p 26-29.indd 29

13-08-29 9:08 AM

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

by John Nicholson “The operation will start producing 500 kW of electricity (enough to service 250 homes) by the end of 2014.”

ZooShare

Toronto’s ZooShare Biogas Cooperative

B

ioenergy has been touted in Canada as a great untapped resource.

Proponents of bioenergy see a future where waste from agriculture and forestry is used to create renewable energy.

Bioenergy should not be confused with waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration. The feedstock for a bioenergy facility is organic matter from plants and animals (i.e., animal wastes or trees) and not the municipal solid waste typically used in a WTE facility. Bioenergy is considered renewable and is, for the most part, supported by environmental activists and neighbours.

The Toronto Zoo plant The construction and operation of an anaerobic digester to manage animal waste at the Toronto Zoo was the idea of the zoo itself. The concept of creating a cooperative to plan, finance, build, and operate the facility was the brainchild of Daniel Bida — the founder and driving force behind the ZooShare Biogas Cooperative.

Bida is a young and energetic entrepreneur who holds a Bachelor of Commerce from McMaster University and is a Chartered Financial

Analyst. Besides his role as Executive Director of ZooShare, Bida is the president of ReGenerate Biogas Inc., a company that assists in the development of bioenergy facilities.

Having served on the Board of Directors since 2011, I can attest to the enthusiasm people have for the ZooShare project. There’s overwhelmingly positive response when people hear of ZooShare’s plan for an anaerobic digester that will take animal manure from the zoo, mix it with food waste from a local grocery chain, and convert it into methane (that will be burned for heating and electricity generation) and fertilizer.

The project has captured several awards and honours, including the Green Innovation Award from the Toronto Community Foundation, first place in the ClimateSpark Social Venture Challenge, and an award in Excellence in Corporate Responsibility from Greenliving Enterprise.

FIT and funding The plans for Canada’s first cooperatively-owned biogas plant got a major boost recently when ZooShare received news from the Ontario Power Authority that its Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) application was approved.

Rendering of Toronto’s ZooShare Biogas Cooperative facility.

30 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2013

p 30-31 swr aug-sept 2013 waste bus p 30-31.indd 30

13-08-29 9:08 AM

Striped fuel generators.

Renewable energy projects in Ontario rely on the FIT program to ensure the project is financially stable. A FIT contract for a biogas facility means the OPA will guarantee the purchase of the electricity produced by the facility at a price of $0.16 per kilowatt-hour (plus another one cent per Kwh because it’s a community power project) for a 20 year period.

With a FIT contract in hand, a biogas company can then secure financing for construction.

In the case of ZooShare, the funding to construct the anaerobic digestion facility will be in the form of community bonds sold to members of the cooperative. (There are currently over 120 members.) Interest in the bonds should be high as they’ll pay an annual return of seven per cent over seven years.

Any individual can join the cooperative simply be filling out an application fee and paying $100. Members are then eligible to buy community bonds.

Operation With the FIT contract in hand, an agreement in place with the Toronto Zoo, and a contract for feedstock supply from a local grocery chain secured, the cooperative is just getting underway with the sale of its community bonds.

If everything goes as planned, construction will begin in the spring of 2014 and the operation will start producing 500 kW of electricity (enough to service 250 homes) by the end of that year.

Once operational, the biogas facility itself will become part of the zoo’s attractions.

Families and school groups will see first-hand how poop from the zoo’s animals is anaerobically digested and converted into fertilizer and methane.

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

Cummins Westport The Natural Choice

Introducing the 2013 ISX12 G, a 12 litre natural gas engine for heavy duty truck and refuse applications: 320 – 400 hp / 1150 – 1450 lb-ft torque Maintenance-free aftertreatment Wide OEM availability

For durability, performance, and lower fuel costs with natural gas, the ISX12 G and the 9 litre ISL G are The Natural Choice. cumminswestport.com

August/September 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 31

p 30-31 swr aug-sept 2013 waste bus p 30-31.indd 31

13-08-29 9:08 AM

I C & I WA S T E

Vegetable and flower garden of the Glengarry Memorial Hospital in Alexandria.

by Diane Blackburn

Green Healthcare The Canadian Coalition for Green Healthcare

O

n May 27, 2013 the National Post reported that knee replace­ ment surgery generates more waste than a family of four pro­ duces in one week. This astonishing finding is based on a West­ ern University study: the waste per surgery averaged 13.3 kg, based on 47,000 knee replacements performed in Canada over a 12 month period.

Annually, that’s 407,899 kg (by weight) of landfill waste!

This is a hefty statistic to digest as we dutifully haul our blue bins to the curb. What can be done to change it?

Fortunately for Canadians, organizations exist that care about hos­ pital waste and its impact on our environment. Collectively, they are the “Canadian Coalition for Green Health Care,” founded in October 2000 by two dozen dedicated volunteers, with the commitment of the University Health Network as a cornerstone institutional member.

The greening of healthcare is an undertaking of monumental propor­ tions, so the coalition is well supported in its efforts by the Canadian Health Engineering Society (CHES), the Ontario Hospital Association (OHA), and CAPE (Canadian Association of Physicians for the En­

“St. Michael’s Hospital has composted its 22 tonnes/ month of organic waste for more than 15 years.”

viron­ment), plus other organizations that have signed on since the launch in 2000.

The coalition has helped in such national initiatives as mercury thermometer exchange events, and the facilitation of environmental management systems (with support from the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention). It’s also co-authored publications such as “Doing Less Harm: Assessing and Reducing the Environmental and Health Impact of Canada’s Health Care System,” Coalition Notes, newsletters, and the “Building Green Hospitals Checklist.”

The coalition also operates the Coalition Q&A Listserv, and distrib­ utes the free weekly Canadian Green Health Care Digest.

Early on, the coalition established a relationship with the OHA whereby the “Green Lane” for products and services was conceived as an environmental showcase at the annual OHA “HealthAchieve” confer­ ence and trade show in Toronto.

Over 13 years, the coalition has forged relationships in every ma­

32 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2013

p 32-33 swr aug-sept 2013 ic&i waste p 32-33.indd 32

13-08-29 9:07 AM

I C & I WA S T E

Canadian Coalition for Green Health Care display.

jor healthcare sector in its call to action for increased environmental responsibility, in­ cluding such things as: development and implementation of best practices; reduction of toxins; and, better management of routine hospital waste (to name just a few items).

In a recent a best practices case study, the coalition’s communications manager and founding member, Kent Waddington, “took a bite out of organic waste” and probed the com­ plex issues surrounding better handing of hos­

pital organics, and the wildly varying support services that can affect the ability of a health­ care facility to even consider the viability of a food waste program. The report can be read or downloaded from the coalition website, greenhealthcare.ca Composting is the new frontier, and com­ plements the push to improve the quality of hospital food, so that good nutrition is at the top of the client care hierarchy.

An early adopter, St. Michael’s Hospital in

Toronto, has composted its 22 tonnes/month of organic waste for more than 15 years.

Once you set your sights on composting, it’s a short hop to vermiculture. At the Ross Memorial Hospital in Lindsay, Ontario, food is grown locally. Then there’s the flourishing vegetable and flower garden of the Glengarry Memorial Hospital in Alexandria. A side bene­ fit of Ross Memorial’s red wiggler (worm) program is that patients in continuing care therapy help tend the garden as part of their recovery.

Green teams are popping up like mush­ rooms in hospital facilities everywhere.

It would be hard to top University Health Network’s 600+ member green team, the heart and soul of environmentalism at UHN. Any employee can sign on as a green team member, and all staff do their part to reduce waste and conserve resources.

Healthcare is turning the corner on 3Rs; with the Canadian Coalition for Green Health Care at the epicenter of sustainable change, the road to green has a guiding light.

Diane Blackburn is Events Manager for the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) and produces the RCO’s annual Waste Minimization Awards. This column regularly profiles finalists and winners from that awards program, and others across Canada.

Contact Diane at events@rco.on.ca

Leaner, Greener, Cleaner— Natural Gas Delivers

New maintenance facility guideline now available

Lower fuel cost. Diesel-like performance. Quieter trucks. Up to 20% lower greenhouse gas emissions Talk to the Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance about how natural gas collection trucks can work for your fleet.

Contact Alicia Milner at (613) 564-0181 or Alicia.Milner@cngva.org.

August/September 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 33

p 32-33 swr aug-sept 2013 ic&i waste p 32-33.indd 33

13-08-29 9:07 AM

OWMA REPORT

by Rob Cook “Congratulations go to Grand Prize Winner, Mark Smith of Waste Management of Canada.”

2013 Truck Driving Championship

T

he 2013 OWMA Truck Driving Championship had 51 drivers registered to participate in one of the best anticipated events ever.

This year’s event was held at the Miller Waste Systems Facility in Pickering, Ontario — a superb facility, great course, and an excellent day for all drivers and guests.

The drivers competed in four categories (Front End, Rear Loader, Special Services, and Roll Off) for the honour of being “Waste Industry (Ontario) Truck Driving Champions” and continuing on to represent their companies at the Ontario Championships being held on July 12-14, 2013 in Brantford, Ontario. The OWMA is very proud to have the support and sponsorship from members and local community companies.

The OWMA would like to recognize the efforts of the committee members and their companies who work very hard all year long to ensure a smooth operation, an appropriate location and a fair competition.

Special thanks to: Bill O’Meara (Miller Waste Systems, Markham), Craig Nelson (Sandhill Disposal & Recycling, Caledon), Devin Reesor (GFL Environmental Corporation), and Milt Hiles (BFI Canada Inc.) as well as the many other volunteers who show up to lend a hand.

Congratulations go to Grand Prize Winner, Mark Smith of Waste Management of Canada Corporation in Stoney Creek and to our Rookie of the Year, Johnny Corner of Progressive Waste Solutions in Barrie.

Congratulations also to the other drivers who will move on to the provincial championships.

Next year’s OWMA Truck Driving Championship will be held June 7, 2014. Mark your calendar!

Rob Cook is CEO of the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) in Brampton, Ontario. Contact Rob at rcook@owma.org

34 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2013

p 34-35 swr a-s 2013 owma report p 34-35.indd 34

13-08-29 9:07 AM

EVENT REPORT

Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo And the Canadian Waste Sector Symposium

3,000 Staff in 100+ Offices

Proudly serving Municipal and IC&I clients since 1976 • Solid/Hazardous/Demolition Waste Management, Recycling, Diversion • Composting, Digestion, Waste to Energy, Biosolids/Biogas Utilization • Air Quality Monitoring & Modelling, Permitting/Auditing Compliance • MRF’s, Reuse/Recycle for HHW, WEEE, and Durable/Bulky Wastes ...and much more!

At the 2012 event in Toronto, Ontario: Jessica Wilkinson (left), Technical Manager with the RCO’s “3RCertified” Waste Diversion Certification Program and Jodi Houston (right), Outreach Manager with the RCO’s Take Back the Light program for fluorescent bulbs, from the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) in Toronto, Ontario. rco.on.ca

www.CRAworld.com • 1-800-265-6102 Worldwide Engineering, Environmental, Construction, and IT Ser vices

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

www.municipalwaste.ca Jean-Christophe d’Anjou (standing under truck), Sales Rep with Ari Hetra Lifting Systems in Levis, Quebec. ari-hetra.com and groupencs.com

R

eaders should plan to attend the 2013 Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo that takes place this year November 20-21 at the Palais de Congres in Montreal, Quebec.

The Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo is the premier trade show event for waste management professionals from the municipal and commercial side of the business, including everything from collection and disposal to recycling plant or composting facility operation.

Be sure to register also for the 2013 Canadian Waste Sector Symposium, which will be held as part of the expo, with overlapping dates from Monday, November 18 through Wednesday, November 20.

The symposium includes waste facility tours, over 30 workshop sessions, several networking opportunities, and evening cocktail receptions, plus free entrance into the Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo.

For information about the Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo, call 1-403-589-4832 or email info@cwre.ca or visit www.cwre.ca For information about the Canadian Waste Sector Symposium, contact Michele Goulding at 1-905791-9500 or email mgoulding@owma.org or visit www.canwastesectorsymposium.ca

Project1

11/13/06

10:28 AM

Page 1

August/September 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 35

p 34-35 swr a-s 2013 owma report p 34-35.indd 35

13-08-29 9:07 AM

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

by Rosalind Cooper, L.L.B. “The proposed legislation requires all-in pricing; separate ‘eco fees’ are no longer permitted.”

Bill 91

Understanding Ontario’s proposed Waste Reduction Act

O

n June 6, 2013, the Ontario government introduced Bill 91 for first reading. Bill 91, also known as the Waste Reduction Act, 2013 proposes to replace the existing Waste Diversion Act, 2002 and is intended to reduce waste generation, increase waste diversion, and promote recycling in the province. The government cites the current statistic of 25 per cent diversion from landfill as the rationale to modify the existing diversion regime.

The proposed legislation establishes “individual producer responsibility” (IPR) whereby individual producers are responsible for achieving environmental outcomes set by the government on a product-byproduct basis; the costs of waste diversion are shifted from the municipal tax base to producers. (See Cover Story, page 8.)

The proposed legislation is also intended to ensure consumer protection by requiring all-in pricing for designated wastes, and also creates a new agency called the Waste Reduction Authority that’s responsible for enforcing the legislation.

Program details

The proposed legislation requires all-in pricing; separate “eco fees” are no longer permitted. Any seller displaying waste diversion costs that are embedded in the price of a product must convey those costs in a transparent and accurate manner in the final advertised or displayed price of the product. There’s a prohibition against any false or misleading information with regard to recycling costs.

The Waste Reduction Authority has a number of functions, including the receipt and storage of information from producers and intermediaries, and performance evaluation of producers’ actions. The Authority has the ability to take graduated compliance and enforcement measures against producers and intermediaries who perform poorly, and will be able to conduct inspections, issue compliance orders, and issue monetary penalties for non-compliance with the legislation.

The Authority will maintain a registry of producers and intermediaries to report on waste amounts and compliance matters. The Authority will also facilitate the resolution of disputes between producers IPR and municipalities related to municipal compensaUnder the proposed legislation, each producer of a tion, and develop methodologies to determine comproduct or package that ends up becoming a desigpensation for designated waste. Financing for the nated waste is responsible for meeting waste reducAuthority will be obtained from fees and administration requirements for collection, reduction, reuse tive penalties. and/or recycling established by the government.

The legislation creates several new offences for Each producer is also required to meet certain serproducers and intermediaries including: non-payment vice standards. of fees; failure to register with the Authority; failure Options are available for producers in terms of to fulfill responsibilities to collect designated waste meeting these requirements. They may do so on their from municipalities; non-compliance with waste reown, or by joining with others, including intermediduction and service standards; non-compliance with aries. “Intermediary” is a term defined by the legislation as an organization that’s operated, controlled An example of packaging, in this case plastic compliance orders; obstruction of an employee or agent of the Authority; non-compliance with inteor managed by producers and that broker, arrange or and aluminum foil T-disks plus a paperboard grated pricing; and, providing false or misleading facilitate waste reduction services on behalf of pro- box, associated with a single-serve instant information. ducers. Producers are also permitted to deal directly coffee machine, that could require special One of the most significant criticisms of the with waste management service providers. There is management in Ontario’s new producer responsibility regulatory scheme.

Ontario waste reduction regime is that it’s inconsisno requirement for a producer to work with interPhoto by Guy Crittenden tent with the programs in place in several provinces mediaries. across Canada, and that this has created difficulties for producers that Producers and intermediaries have dual responsibilities for meeting have operations across the country and so must deal with different rewaste reduction and service standards: these responsibilities are set out porting and remitting obligations. Since some of these provinces have in a service agreement between producers and intermediaries. Both are regimes similar to that proposed by the new legislation, the new legislarequired to register on the Waste Reduction Registry and submit reports. tion helps harmonize Ontario’s regime with these others.

Reports can be prepared on behalf of a producer (and one report can include information for more than one producer).

Rosalind Cooper, LL.B., is a partner with Fasken Martineau Municipalities can register to receive compensation for collection of DuMoulin LLP in Toronto, Ontario. Contact Rosalind at designated wastes, which compensation is based on agreement between rcooper@tor.fasken.com producers and municipalities. Producers must collect the designated waste from the municipality unless they have agreed otherwise.

36 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2013

p 36 swr aug-sept 2013 regrndup p 36.indd 36

13-08-29 9:06 AM

Advertisers’ Index Company

Page #

August/September 2013

Company

Page #

AMRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Environmental .Business .Consultants .(J . .Nicholson) . . . .35

BDP .Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Environmental .Fracking .Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Cdn .Natural .Gas .Vehicle .Alliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Eriez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Call2Recycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 City .of .Toronto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Conestoga-Rovers .& .Assoc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Cummins .Westport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Canadian .Waste .& .Recycling .Expo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, .28 .

Mack .Trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Ontario .Waste .Management .Association . . . . . . . . . . 5, .37 Paradigm .Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Paul .Van .der .Werf .(2CG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Trux .Route .Management .Systems .Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Van .Dyk .Recycling .Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Drive .Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Vulcan .On-Board .Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

El-En .Packaging .Co .Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Walinga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Emterra .Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Walker .Industries . . . . . . . . . .1 . .3/25/13 . . . . . .10:10 . . . . AM . . . Page . . . . 13 EDDYAD_SW&R4_13_Layout 1

Superior Recovery of Aluminum “Fines” CANADIAN WASTE MANAGEMENT AWARDS 2013 EXECUTIVE OF THE YEAR LUNCHEON CEREMONY Join us at the 2013 Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo as we celebrate the 1st Annual Canadian Waste Management Awards.

Independent tests show Eriez’ Eddy Current Separators throw aluminum “fines” nearly 20% farther than other top selling brands. This extra distance is critical to improving separation and recovery.

Now stocking 1, 1.2, and 1.5 meter machines. Optional features include feeder, feeder support framework, separation shroud and controls. Eriez… improving metal recovery

The Canadian “Executive of the Year” Award is to recognize outstanding individuals who play a key role in the growth of the waste sector services industry in Canada. (Criteria and application can be obtained at www.owma.org).

Thursday, November 21st, 2013 Palais des congres de Montréal 159 St. Antoine West, Montréal 12:00 noon – 1:30 pm Ticket Price $80.00 includes HST Table of 8 $600.00 includes HST

Reserve your tickets now!

Visit the OWMA website

www.owma.org or www. cwre.ca Questions – please contact Michele Goulding 905-791-9500

NOW

STOCKING 3 SIZES the 1.5-Meter Eddy as shown is just $

109,305

SGS Findings

NEARLY

20%

FARTHER

ERIEZ Competitor

THROW

See the SGS report online!

Visit Recovery.Eriez.com

August/September 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 37

p 37 swr aug-sept 2013 ad idx p 37.indd 37

13-08-29 3:16 PM

BLOG

by Usman Valiante “Reduction in recycling costs should be the result of innovation and not the crushing weight of a producer purchasing monopoly.”

Where do eco-fees come from?

Why, from government, silly!

T

he political fixation on “doing something about” eco-fees is akin to fretting about a lingering cough while ignoring the underlying pneumonia that is its cause. If eco-fees are the symptomatic “cough” then government product stewardship policies that restrict or lessen competition between producers in end-of-life product management are the causative “pneumonia.”

Let’s consider two producers of widgets: Producer X and Producer Y. In the free market Producer X can collect and recycle its recyclingfriendly widgets for $3/unit while Producer Y spends $5/unit to collect and recycle its less eco-friendly widgets.

Along comes the helping hand of government, which sanctions the creation of the Widget Stewardship Agency (WSA). The government allows widget producers to sign up with the WSA collective, which then assumes the subscribing companies’ obligations and liabilities. The WSA sets a widget recycling eco-fee of $4/unit that each subscribing producer pays on each widget it supplies into the market.

Company X now has two options: 1. Go along with all other widget producers party to the WSA and transfer its legal liability for widget recycling to that agency, while passing on the $4 widget eco-fee (exclusive of the product price) down its supply chain via the retailer to the consumer; or 2. Forgo subscription to WSA, recycle its own widgets and have the $3/unit recycling cost eat into its profit margin (recognizing that no retailer is going to set their point-of-sale systems up to levy a special $3 eco-fee just for Producer X).

Simply stated, Producers X’s choices are to go along with other producers in passing on of a fixed $4/unit separate eco-fee or, alternatively, forgo $3/unit in profit margin. What choice do you suppose it will make?

Of course producer Y will be happy to pass along the $4/unit eco-fee: it’s less than the actual cost of processing Y’s harder-to-recycle widgets.

Oh, and X’s competitive advantage is lost in the process.

This is an example of what is essentially stewardship agency-based eco-fee “price-fixing” — the less recyclable widget is subsidized while the competitive advantage of the more recyclable widget is lost. Plus, the consumer loses because no producer has any incentive to compete and innovate in order to bring the costs of widget recycling down.

Of course, as the sole buyer of widget recycling (WSA is a buying monopoly or “monopsony”) the WSA can squeeze down recycling service provider prices at a whim.

Where the government allows the WSA to set and enforce environ-

mental standards, WSA can cut costs by simply ignoring the environmental standards and squeezing down what’s paid to recyclers.

There should be no surprise that under this “fox guarding the henhouse” approach widgets end up being processed in poor conditions in South Asia or that more sophisticated recycling service companies are unwilling to invest (because their less diligent counterparts become more competitive through WSA sanctioned corner-cutting).

Conversely, in a competitive producer market, with environmental standards set and maintained by an impartial third party, reduction in widget recycling costs is the result of innovation and not the crushing weight of a producer purchasing monopoly. In a free market, recyclers compete for producers’ widget recycling business by reducing costs through innovation in recycling practices and technologies. And companies like X and Y have an incentive to make their widgets longer lasting, reusable, or at least easily recycled. (Because they’re paying for it.)

So, if people are nonplussed or angered by eco-fees, there’s a simple solution: preserve competition between producers in how they discharge their end-of-life recycling obligations. Make each producer individually accountable for the environmental outcomes associated with their endof-life widgets. And don’t shield widget producers and widget recyclers from Canada’s competition laws.

After Ontario’s eco-fee controversy in the summer of 2010, Professor Don Dewees and I called for such an approach. Ontario’s draft Bill 91, the Waste Reduction Act (WRA) is supposedly directed at achieving this outcome. The draft bill is out for public comment. (See Cover Story, page 8, and Regulation Roundup, page XX.) While the WRA’s integrated pricing requirement purports to, “… promote the reduction of environmental impacts by requiring the integration of the environmental protection costs of products …” existing eco-fees are not the product of a competitive producer market and, as such, the integrated pricing requirement could be seen as little more than hiding a tax.

Whether the WRA, perhaps with modifications, will truly achieve the objectives of IPR remains to be seen. This will be the subject of future columns, in print and on this magazine’s website, plus a special report planned for the fall.

by Usman Valiante is Principal of Corporate Policy Group in Orangeville, Ontario. Contact Usman at valiante@ corporatepolicygroup.com

38 www.solidwastemag.com August/September 2013

p 38 swr aug-sept 2013 blog p 38.indd 38

13-08-29 9:06 AM

Standing out from the rest

Largest fleet of natural gas-powered waste collection trucks in Canada Starting October 2012, Emterra Environmental will have close to 60 natural gas-powered waste and recycling trucks operating in Winnipeg, Manitoba – it’ll be the largest fleet in Canada and the largest

in a cold weather climate in the world. Emterra is transitioning to natural gas because the trucks run quieter, burn cleaner and cut emissions by 20%, helping achieve healthier, more sustainable communities.

Emterra Environmental is an Emterra Group family company www.emterra.ca To find out more about Emterra, call 905-336-9084, #130

p 39-40 swr aug-sept 2013 ad p 39-40.indd 39

13-08-29 9:06 AM

Exclusive Sales and Service for BOLLEGRAAF, LUBO, TITECH and WALAIR

Solutions for sorting Single Stream Commercial Waste Construction & Demolition Municipal Solid Waste

Waste to Energy/Fuel Balers Presorted Plastics E-Waste

Selecting a recycling system requires trust. Since 1984 VAN DYK Recycling Solutions has led the North American Market by building over 2,400 highly LMÄJPLU[ HUK WYVÄ[HISL WSHU[Z

Van Dyk Baler Corp. and Lubo USA, DBA:

VDRS.com Ɣ 203-967-1100 Ɣ info@vdrs.com W E O R I G I N AT E , O T H E R S I M I TAT E

Exclusive North American Sales & Service for Bollegraaf, Lubo, TITECH and Walair Recycling Machinery

p 39-40 swr aug-sept 2013 ad p 39-40.indd 40

13-08-29 9:06 AM