Issuu on Google+

d un m ro te -G ys In S 13 w ion e Ne lect pag l Co —

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

A NEW RECYCLING GUIDELINE Learning The New IndustrySponsored Approach — page 8

CPMP No. 40069240

An EcoLog Group Publication

New Waste Hauler Training Guideline — page 23 p 01 swr oct-nov 13 cvr nl pg 01.indd 1

13-11-07 9:30 AM


THE POWER OF

EXPERIENCE

35 TPH Single Stream System

1

Balers

Powerful team

5 Industry-proven companies

Screens

67 Innovative patents worldwide

Optical Sorters

150 Years company experience

Air Classification

400+ MRF installations internationally

Intelligent Motor Controls

We h a v e t he e xp e rie nce t o d r i v e the r e s ul ts y ou d e m a nd , tr us t th e l ea d er.

CALL 888.837.5065 OR VISIT www.theCPgrp.com

GET THE POWER™

p 02 swr oct-nov 2013 ad p 02.indd 2

13-11-07 9:30 AM


Solid Waste & Recycling

CONTENTS October/November 2013 Volume 18, Number 5

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

COVER STORY

RECYCLING: A NEW GUIDELINE

8 Cover art by Charles Jaffe

Everyone agrees we should be recycling more, and that the industrial, commercial and institutal (IC&I) sector especially needs to divert more of its stuff from disposal. But there’s no standard for what counts as truly “recycled”. Until now. by Clarissa Morawski

DEPARTMENTS

FEATURES COLLECTION: IN-GROUND SYSTEM

Editorial

The EarthBin from Progressive Waste Solutions. by Guy Crittenden

Organic Matters

26

IC&I Waste

32

Regulation Roundup

34

Waste Business

35

Products

39

News

42

Ad Index

45

Blog

46

Up Front 13

MRF EQUIPMENT: ROBOTICS Robotic systems to sort materials at recycling plants. by Guy Crittenden

17

DIVERSION: CARPETS & MATTRESSES Report from our Waste 2 Product & Energy conference. by David Nesseth

SPECIAL SECTION

19

6

NEXT EDITION:

WASTE HAULING

Ontario Guideline C-12 holds implications for transwaste collection and trans portation companies. — pages 23

In-ground System, pg. 13

4

December 2013/January 2014 PRODUCT SHOWCASE: Annual Buyers’ Guide & Directory Editorial: Municipal recycling. IC&I waste diversion. Transportation equipment. Transfer stations. Roll-off containers and bins. WEEE. Space closing: November 19, 2013. Artwork required: November 21, 2013.

Dutch Recycling, pg. 26

Robotics sortation, pg. 17

October/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 3

p 03 swr oct-nov 2013 conts p 03.indd 3

13-11-07 9:46 AM


EDITORIAL

Ex B

by Guy Crittenden “Much of the argumentation is like the chateau generals in World War One fighting the last war.”

EPR hoopla in BC and Ontario

O

ne could be forgiven for being confused by the different reports flying around concerning new legislation and programs in British Columbia and Ontario that assign responsibility for end-oflife management of packaging and products to their producers. The reports — which are contradictory at times — concern Ontario’s proposed Bill 91, Waste Reduction Act (which has gone to second reading and committee) and BC’s Recycling Regulation that was updated in May 2011 to include packaging and printed paper. Multi-Material British Columbia (MMBC) is implementing a funding program in that province. The proposed changes introduce “individual producer responsibility” (IPR) for discards into the marketplace. IPR is a version of “extended producer responsibility” (EPR) that’s popular with conservationists because it holds producers accountable for their wastes, and prevents them from contracting out their responsibilities to stewardship collectives, which may charge consumers an advanced recycling fee and allow “business as usual” to continue. One problem with the policy discussion is that’s “inside baseball” with the general public. Years ago it was confusing enough to the average person to decide whether incineration was a bad thing, or what they can throw in their blue box. Nowadays, understanding whether a visible “eco fee” should (or should not) be charged at the point of purchase is pretty much the sole purview of full-time consultants. When Ontario introduced the blue box in the 1980s it was widely adopted across North America because it satisfied a convergence of different agendas, allowing the beverage industry to rebrand it’s throwaway bottles and cans as “recyclable,” and the public to assuage its guilt by recycling things like cans and bottle, while they continued to consume, consume, consume (and generate and more more waste year over year). Municipal managers enjoyed their expanded responsibilities overseeing the new programs. The problem was (and remains), who pays for it all? And was the focus on recycling really the “right answer to the wrong question”? Activists like Helen Spiegelman of BC SPEC have argued for years that the municipal waste infrastructure represents a subsidy to industrial inefficiency. Years ago when — as part of an urban sanitation movement — the utility model that worked well for treating municipal drinking water and sewage was applied to solid waste, producers were disengaged from the costs and environmental impacts of their products and packaging. Predictably, over time they manufactured more and more “disposable” products and switched to cheap “one way” packaging materials. Unfortunately, much of the argumentation over BC and Ontario’s new IPR plans is like the chateau generals in World War One fighting the last war, charging their calvary against machine guns. Municipal recyclers are clinging to their roles, and are suspicious of the cash being offered by industry. Some Ontario industry reps — hoping to maintain the status quo “shared cost” recycling system — have misrepresented the MMBC program as some kind of disaster. Lost in the bickering is the fact that IPR is re-framing a basic ques-

On September 17, EPR Canada released its 2013 report card ranking product stewardship programs across the country. (See page 46 for article.) Photo left to right: Joanne St Goddard (RCO), Megan Armstrong (BC), Marie Dussault (Quebec), Duncan Bury (co-founder EPR Canada).

tion. Instead of asking, “How can we recycle more?” IPR really asks, “What would a sustainable economy look like?” Forcing producers to internalize their costs (the thinking goes) will encourage them to find the most efficient way to lower the end-of-life management costs of their products and packaging. The Holy Grail of IPR is, of course, “design for the environment” (DfE) and closed loop (“cradle-to-cradle”) production and distribution of goods. Inspired ‘cuz they’re paying for it, producers will reinvent products so they never become waste in the first place or (at least) choose sustainable materials that are easy to recycle. Plastic laminates that are vexing to separate and recycle may be “out”; fibrous packaging harvested from eco-certified forests and plantations may be “in.” The current focus on who will pay for recycling distracts us from what is nothing less than the re-invention of the economic system — an attempt to protect the public interest, the environment, and engender real sustainability. We must hope that the policymakers make some much-needed changes to the legislation. (For instance, Ontario’s proposed Waste Reduction Authority should not be involved in setting fees between producers and municipalities.) But we also hope they have the fortitude to see this thing through in the face of opposition from private interests. Let’s face it, multinationals can often outspend and outlast elected officials. What goes down in the next few months in BC and Ontario will be hugely telling as to whether or not we’re going to see real IPR in the near future! Note: Readers are directed for detailed analysis of these IPR issues in a recent series of blog posts from contributing editor Usman Valiante, available via the home page at www.solidwastemag.com Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine. Contact Guy at gcrittenden@solidwastemag.com

4 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

p 04-05 swr oct-nov 2013 editl p 04-05.indd 4

13-11-07 9:47 AM

Ple the


Exclusive Sales and Service for BOLLEGRAAF, LUBO and TITECH

t e visit us a m o c e s a Ple po! n Waste Ex ia d a n a C the 9 Booth 152

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 1,780 highly efficient and profitable plants.

Van Dyk Baler Corp. and Lubo USA, DBA:

VDRS.com ● 203-967-1100 ● 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 Recycling Machinery

p 04-05 swr oct-nov 2013 editl p 04-05.indd 5

13-11-07 9:47 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 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. 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. © 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent. Print edition: ISSN-1483-7714

Online edition: ISSN-1923-3388

LETTERS Perspectives on the Otter Lake Landfill Dispute

My editorial “The Otter Lake Landfill Dispute: Stealing defeat from the jaws of victory?” in the last edition (August/September 2013) triggered a lot of reaction, judging by the letters we received and calls from people in Nova Scotia, who were apparently very happy with it. (At least, those opposed to recent actions of the Halifax Regional Municipality. Readers will recall that the HRM is holding “consultations” on the idea of potentially changing how residual waste is landfilled at the facility, which currently requires pre-treatment (stabilization) as per a host community agreement. So, our Up Front news section in this edition is devoted to reproducing some of those letters, which shed additional light on what’s happening with the situation.

— ed.

Dear Editor,

Thanks for making this article a best seller in our troubled community. It nailed all of our concerns which hopefully will encourage others outside our city and province to comment on. I enjoy reading every issue of your magazine as it covers so many interesting topics. It truly emphasizes that those of us who are working hard to protect our environment by improving services are not alone. September 19 will be our first community consultation (town hall meeting) where the public surrounding Otter Lake Landfill is invited to express their views. Hopefully the press will be all over this one and accurately report what was said. All meetings will be recorded. We do have a Facebook page which Ken Donnelly manages and is open to the public to comment on. “Like” us if you can. Over 600 residents attended the last meeting and we hope to double the number this time. Thanks again for you interest in our community.

Bob Angus

Director, CMC Chairman, Glengarry Homeowners Association

Dear Editor,

Please find attached a letter I sent the councilors of the Halifax Regional Municipality. It reads this: I was a member of the Original CSC, which devised the solid waste strategy that permitted the siting of the Otter Lake Landfill. I attend most of the meetings over the 13 months that it took to hammer out the strategy. I have also attended a few of the current meetings which it seems HRM has initiated as a means of satisfying the requirement for public consultations before they implement the changes that staff have already decided upon. The original consultation meetings were controlled by the stakeholders and were often passionate, intense affairs. Everyone was allowed the opportunity to voice their opinion and propose their ideas of how they felt the system should function. All proposals were subject to examination and questioning with the proponents on hand to defend their ideas. No wonder it took 13 months to arrive at a solution that was acceptable to all parties. The current meetings are far different. HRM is controlling them and clearly trying to sell their message rather than determine what the public wants. The agenda is predetermined and consists of a lengthy propaganda presentation by HRM staff of the conclusions an engineering (Stantec) report that was commissioned by staff and which appears to have been written for the sole purpose of supporting staff’s preconceived proposals regarding changes to the current system. When Citizens attempt to questions the findings of this report their questions are either ignored or the questioners told to be quite and allow the agenda to proceed. The consulting firm that is “facilitating” these meetings on behalf of HRM then skill-

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 October/November 2013

p 06-07 swr oct-nov 2013 upfront p 06-07.indd 6

13-11-07 9:47 AM


UPFRONT

LETTERS fully herds the participants off to separate tables where they are directed to discuss the topics that were chosen by HRM. These discussion topics such as “what do you appreciate most about the current system” seem to be designed to direct attention away from the contentious issues such as why HRM is contemplating reneging on its promises to the Host Community and the inaccuracies and faulty logic in the Stantec report. Wikipedia defines Public Consultation as: “A regulatory process by which the public’s input on matters affecting them is sought. Its main goals are in improving the efficiency, transparency[1] and public involvement in large-scale projects or laws and policies. Consultation (a two-way flow of information and opinion exchange) as well as participation (involving interest groups in the drafting of policy or legislation).” It took 13 months of exhaustive consultations to develop the strategy that permitted the siting of the landfill. The CSC consultations of 1995 clearly meet the definition of a public consultation. Wikipedia has also defined what HRM is doing: “Ineffective consultations are considered to be cosmetic consultations that were done due to obligation or show and not true participatory decision making.” Unfortunately for it’s citizens HRM, it seems clear, has this time chosen to hold “ineffective consultations” to support the decisions that staff has already made. How can HRM believe that they can mandate that major changes to the system that was implemented based on the strategy will be concluded after one month of consultations? How can they call these meetings public consultations when the public is not allowed to ask questions and interest groups are told they should step aside and remain quite. The citizens of HRM are prepared to discuss improvements to the plan but the current so called “public consultations” is not fostering this. As one of the citizens said in a meeting in Porter’s Lake, “There are ways that the effectiveness of the waste/resource plan can be improved but we never get to discuss them as we are constantly having to defend the host community from HRMs proposed breach of their promises regarding the safeguards that were put in place to protect the host community.” This seems to be developing into a battle of David vs Goliath. With HRM having all the taxpayer funding available to arm themselves with engineering and PR firms and the host community as represented by the CMC and concerned citizens relegated to the use of a sling and a stone. In order for the Public Consultations to be true Consultations: • They must allow the public, including the interest groups the opportunity to speak freely and to air their views on the matter. No one should be told to stay quiet. • Not be restricted solely to subjects that HRM wishes to discuss. • Have the authors of the Stantec report available to answer questions regarding the data and methodology used to prepare their report and to explain their conclusions. • Fund the CMC so that they may commission their own independent review to either support or refute Stantec’s report. • Extend the process beyond the one-month period that was arbitrarily determined to the time that is necessary for a true public consultation with every citizen having the opportunity to speak his or her mind on the subject. • Sincerely

Philip R. Phaneuf

phaneufp@gmail.com

Dear Editor,

Re: Resolving the Otter Lake Dispute

Your editorial “The Otter Lake Dispute” in the August/September issue of Solid Waste and Recycling is well researched and timely. The fundamentals underlying the dispute are to be found in HRM’s decision, in the 1990s, to cancel the contract for an energy-from-waste facility to be built in Dartmouth (the wrong side of  Halifax harbor) and to accept a consultant’s recommendation to try out an unproven waste disposal process promoted as “stabilized landfill.” HRM proceeded to purchase an 80 hectare uninhabited site on the western edge of Halifax, called Otter Lake. The site provided acreage for nine landfill cells and the required waste processing infrastructure. The Otter Lake complex was officially opened in October 1998, with much fanfare and high expectations.  From day one HRM’s waste diversion accomplishments were over shadowed by the dismal failure of the stabilized landfills. Over the years, Otter Lake’s waste processing costs and environmental concerns escalated to the point where HRM was forced to bring in a consultant to study the problems and recommend remedial initiatives. HRM’s consultant recommended that HRM’s interest in converting residual waste to energy (a viable option) be deferred to some time in the future, that HRM should apply to the Ministry of the Environment to lower the landfill environment protection standards, and that HRM should apply to the ministry to allow the landfill cell lift  (height) to increase up to 15 meters on existing and future cells. These recommendations will not solve the dispute and Otter Lake’s cost and environmental problems will progressively worsen. The stabilized landfill cells have generated high construction and maintenance costs, exacerbated wind blown refuse, produced high levels of noxious landfill gas requiring complicated gas control procedures, produced excessive volumes of toxic leachate that require off-site disposal and forced high front-end processing costs. In your editorial you concluded with the adage “if it ain’t broke, why fix it?.” HRM officials know only to well that Otter Lake is “broke” and has to be “fixed.” The consultant brought in to assess the situation has failed to recommend the obvious and sensible fix. The obvious waste management strategy for Otter Lake is to construct an EFW facility to convert residual waste to energy. An energy-from-waste facility will eliminate future costly landfills and their health and environmental liabilities, generate a significant revenue stream from the sale of electrical and thermal energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 150,000 tonnes per year, extend the lifecycle of Otter Lake by over 50 years, eliminate the need to expand the site, embrace the principles of resource conservation, enhance waste diversion programs, provide high-tech job opportunities, and attract new industry seeking low cost energy. In summary, an energyfrom-waste facility will drastically reduce HRM’s overall waste management costs and bring many benefits to the community. Municipalities across Canada, who are currently served by energy-from-waste facilities, and municipalities who are well advanced in their plans to build new EFW facilities, speak highly of the benefits accruing to their communities. Otter Lake is an exceptionally fine site for an energy-from-waste facility. HRM has a unique opportunity to defuse the  current dispute and move forward with an energy-from-waste facility and again claim to have one of the best managed integrated waste management systems in Canada.

Ed. K. McLellan

Peterborough, Ontario October/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 7

p 06-07 swr oct-nov 2013 upfront p 06-07.indd 7

13-11-07 9:47 AM


COVER STORY

by Clarissa Morawski “Nearly all the processors talked about the importance of the waste management hierarchy.”

Building a

Recycling Guideline T

his August, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) posted a Notice of Intent to work on the development of a new guideline, SPE-750 — Recycling Process, Audit and Verification Guideline for Ontario. These guidelines will be a warm welcome by those in the waste management industry who for years have been frustrated by insufficient recycling standards and minimal enforcement. As it currently stands, not everyone in the game is playing the same because there is no one enforcing the rules. Such lack of enforcement, particularly when it comes to on-site audits and mass-balance reporting of downstream processors, can create unfair competition for those fully adhering to the rules. The problem was so severe that in 2009, the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) wrote a letter to the Ontario Ministry of Environment stating: “Without a common set of environmental standards for processors those who have invested in operating to high environmental standards — whether operating as service providers to EPR programs or generally operating in the waste diversion service market — are put at a competitive disadvantage to those that have not made such investment but are still allowed to receive waste (and in some cases simply dispose of that waste while claiming it as diverted).” 2009, Submission to MOE. When it comes to selecting the right service provider and performing the necessary due diligence, most municipalities and commercial waste generators do not have the time or expertise to do this on their own. Nevertheless, this information is required, which is why they are in need of good standards and proper guidance. Governments and industry may not have the expertise to develop sound performance measurements, and so may just act in their own best interests. In his article “Death to Recycling Rates” Resource Recycling maga-

zine Editor Jerry Powell describes how some of the methodologies used to calculate recycling rates have become meaningless. He describes, for example, how Florida expanded its definition of recycling to include material sent to waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities. As a result, the recycling rate of Monroe County, Florida rose from 10 per cent to a whopping 167 per cent, despite no change in effort. Regarding the methodologies employed to calculate recycling rates, Powell maintains, “You’ll have to look far and wide to find an accurate rate,” and that “the level of hoodwinkery is mind-boggling.” This summer, CM Consulting worked with OWMA to develop a draft recycling guideline for the CSA. The draft will be reviewed by a CSA committee of experts, industry and government, and will be used as a foundation for the eventual development of a final CSA Recycling Guideline for Ontario. Among others, the final guidelines could be used by federal and provincial governments, municipalities and commercial generators across Canada.

PROJECT APPROACH The approach to this project was two-fold. First, interviews were conducted with a dozen processors and generators throughout Ontario to find out what they need in a guideline. Second, research was conducted into guidelines and standards used in other jurisdictions. The interview results were surprisingly consistent. The majority of the processors articulated the need for clear and consistent definitions on what constitutes collection, diversion, and recycling rates, and where energy recovery fits in. Everyone agreed there should be no “wiggle room” for interpretation and that the definitions should form the basis for all audits, target and goal setting, performance reporting, and analysis. Nearly all the processors talked about the importance of the waste

8 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

p 08-12 swr oct-nov 2013 cvr sty pg 08-12.indd 8

13-11-07 9:47 AM


COVER STORY

CSA PERSPECTIVE

An interview with CSA’s Megan McGarrity

M

egan McGarrity is Project Manager for the development of a Recycling Process, Audit and Verification Guideline for Ontario. (The project is funded by the Ontario Waste Management Association, OWMA). CM: Why do you think having the CSA develop the guideline is good for recycling? MM: CSA Group is pleased to be working with a diverse group of subject matter experts to facilitate the development of this new guideline. However, it’s worthwhile to note that CSA Group doesn’t write the content of standards or guidelines. It’s our CSA Group volunteer members, who are subject matter experts, who dedicate their time to develop the content of the documents, while CSA Group facilitates the process. In the Sustainability Program, we have 2,050 dedicated CSA Group members who participate on 92 technical committees that have already published 300 standards. These volunteer experts form a technical committee (TC) to develop standards using a “balanced matrix” approach, which means that each committee is structured to capitalize on the combined strengths and expertise of its members — with no single group dominating. The committee considers the views of all participants and develops the content of the standard by a consensus process that includes the principles of inclusive participation, and respect for diverse interest and transparency. Standards committee volunteers are selected to represent various interest groups most likely to be affected by a standard, such as business and industry, regulatory bodies, science and academia, labour, and consumer groups (as applicable). Once a draft standard has been developed, it’s submitted for a minimum 60-day

public review period and amended if necessary. CSA Group functions as a neutral third-party, providing a structure and a forum for developing the standard, but it is the committee members who write and update the standards. In the case of the Recycling Process, Audit and Verification Guideline for Ontario, it is not a standard but a guideline, yet CSA Group will follow a similar process and form a working group of members who come from various stakeholder backgrounds. CM: How does the CSA manage the various interests and their positions? MM: The CSA consensus process is the foundation for the development of CSA consensus standards, guidelines and information products. Our policies governing standardization and directives guide the application of our consensus-based approach to the development of standards and guidelines. To ensure a balance of representation, ensure that interests are represented and that the Work Group of subject matter experts can function efficiently, we apply a matrix of interest categories to the Work Group. The composition of the Work Group will be set with the objective of ensuring that all points of view relent to the subject matter are represented in reasonable proportion. CM: What are the next steps? MM: We’re currently recruiting subject matter experts to the Work Group. Once this process has been completed the development of the guideline can begin! Expressions of interest in participating in the Work Group can be directed to me, Megan McGarrity, at megan.mcgarrity@ csagroup.org or by calling 613-565-5151 x59224.

October/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 9

p 08-12 swr oct-nov 2013 cvr sty pg 08-12.indd 9

13-11-07 9:47 AM


COVER STORY

“This summer, CM Consulting worked with OWMA to develop a draft recycling guideline for the CSA. The draft will be reviewed by a CSA committee of experts.” management hierarchy and how it should be supported in law, standards, and tender selection criteria. In their view, operating standards should be applied uniformly to the entire material-category stream, irrespective of where it came from: a stewardship program, commercial generators, or imported. In addition, they believed that occupational health and safety and environmental management systems should be in place with downstream markets, both here and abroad.

Most noted that standard setting and monitoring and oversight activities should be undertaken by a non-vested organization, like the government or an independent agency of government. Finally, material tracking throughout the chain of custody gives processors the ability to report the accurate final disposition of the material sent to downstream processors. Customers and auditors can also run mass balance verification.

NEW

DISCOVERIES & DESIGN An abundance of resources offer valuable advice and ideas for devising a robust guideline. For example, the United Nations Environment Programme’s International Resource Panel has done extensive work in the area of metals recycling. It proposes a logical method to calculating recycling rates, which simply follows the flow of material as it passes through the recycling chain, capturing any losses to thermal treatment, non-functional recycling,

WITH

COMPOSTABLE

BAGS

Helping municipalities achieve their organic waste diversion goals FOR USE IN MUNICIPAL COMPOST PROGRAMS WHERE APPLICABLE. Febreze™ is a trademark of The Procter & Gamble Company, used under license.

10 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

p 08-12 swr oct-nov 2013 cvr sty pg 08-12.indd 10

13-11-07 9:47 AM


COVER STORY

and disposal. While originally conceived for metals, the approach and methodology could be adapted to all materials in Ontario and Canada. The consultants discovered a series of standards and certifications in use around the world for recyclers of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). In addition, in the United Kingdom, the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs is developing a Code of Practice for MRFs which will require them to have in place quality sorting systems to yield a minimum output level of contamination. The Code specifies requirements for reporting, auditing and verification. And, Wales and the United Kingdom governments, released guidelines on how to apply the waste hierarchy in 2011 and 2012. Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) makes it possible to develop a recycling hierarchy that can be used as guidance when determining what constitutes recycling and what does not. In short, the waste hierarchy clearly defines which end-of-life disposition options are most favorable in terms of environmental impact.

The “pyramid”-shaped hierarchy places prevention on top, followed by reuse and refurbishment, and then recycling. Recycling is broken down into two groups: “upcycling” and “downcycling”. Upcycling — also called “functional” recycling — ranks higher up on the hierarchy and is the process of converting waste materials into new or higher quality materials for increased functionality. It is recycling in a closed-loop system. Downcycling — or “non-functional” recycling — converts materials into new materials of

lesser quality and reduced functionality, which cannot be recovered following its next use as part of an open-loop system. For this reason, downcycling ranks lower on the hierarchy. Lower still is thermal treatment and landfill with gas recovery; the ranking of these to be determined in the Ontario context.

MEASUREMENT, REPORTING & STANDARDS The Ontario recycling guideline offers a new approach to calculating different recycling

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

October/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 11

p 08-12 swr oct-nov 2013 cvr sty pg 08-12.indd 11

13-11-07 9:47 AM


COVER STORY

“The guideline also contains provisions for due diligence when it comes to the selection of downstream processors by primary processors.” rates. For one, it distinguishes between collection, diversion from landfill, energy recovery, and actual recycling. It clearly defines what each term means, how differ, and explains how each of them can offer valuable insight into program performance and be useful for target-setting purposes. All the measurements are based on the flow of material through the recycling chain, and so can be verified through a mass balance approach, which takes into account all incoming and outgoing material. Mass balance is a useful tool for auditors to verify the accuracy of downstream reporting. The guideline also contains provisions for due diligence when it comes to the selection of downstream processors by primary processors. As well as calling for processors to require that their downstream vendors permit

scheduled and unscheduled audits of their facilities, it requires that those secondary processors be held accountable to the same requirements. With the proliferation of stewardship programs, operating standards have also emerged. Given the toxic nature of MHSW and WEEE, stewards have been forced to devise a standard that defines the operating requirements beyond what’s required under law. The standards are not low; in fact, the minimum operating requirements set out in Stewardship Ontario’s MHSW and the Electronics Product Recycling Association’s Recycler Qualification Program’s WEEE standards are considered quite high. The problem lies in the fact that they’re developed and overseen by the very companies that have to pay the bill. The guideline effectively builds a wall be-

tween those that bear the cost of the service and those that determine how best to handle the material from a human health and environmental safety perspective. Before the guideline is widely adopted, it needs to be kicked, picked, and prodded by industry, experts, and government to ensure that it’s strong and stands the test. It must be applicable to most materials and processors, and have minimal exceptions. But most important, it should provide a level playing that supports increased recycling and innovation in the waste diversion sector. Clarissa Morawski is principal of CM Consulting in Peterborough, Ontario. Contact Clarissa at clarissa@cmconsultinginc.com

12 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

p 08-12 swr oct-nov 2013 cvr sty pg 08-12.indd 12

13-11-07 9:47 AM


COLLECTION

A key advantage of the EarthBin design is that it allows for front-load servicing. This is crucial for tight locations like alleyways or dead-ends, and especially because the units can be emptied by conventional front-end loaders. Leachate is automatically removed every time the units are emptied.

Under Cover

Below-ground collection goes mainstream with Progressive Waste Service’s EarthBin

C

ollecting waste and recyclables below-ground in single or multiple streams has gradually gained acceptance over the past decade in North America. With the introduction of the new EarthBin™ (www.earth-bin.com) by Progressive Waste Solutions, it appears to be going mainstream. There are good reasons that below-ground waste collection is getting traction. Our cities are expanding and densifying, which puts demands on space. Parking lots are needed; parks are wanted. From developers to architects to city planners and dwellers, everyone is acutely aware of the cost of real estate. As such, moving waste collection underground makes sense. Beyond space economy, below-ground collection solves the perennial issues associated with waste and recycling collection such as odours, litter, illegal dumping and wildlife issues. For some time, Progressive Waste Solutions has provided belowground waste systems at the request of customers. Until the spring of

by Guy Crittenden “The main lock on the service lid is gravity based.”

escal2013, these systems were made wholly in Europe, but as demand escal ated rate, the company realized it could only meet ongoing market expectations by controlling the design, manufacturing, quality and costs of the systems themselves. The company decided to begin manufacturing their own product right here in Canada: the Earthbin was born. Taking control of the design allowed the company to enhance certain features of the below-ground system, like thickening the roto-molded outer well. The Earthbin itself, which fits into that well, is roto-molded out of one solid piece, thus giving double-wall containment between leachate and the environment.

LEACHATE AND THE ENVIRONMENT Each time the units are emptied, eliminating any potential liquid on parking lots and surrounding areas. ... continues on pages 14 & 16

October/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 13

p 13-16 swr oct-nov 2013 collection p 13-16.indd 13

13-11-07 9:50 AM


COLLECTION

Designed and manufactured in Canada, the EarthBin is comprised of durable components that will look good for years. The bin has a small above-ground footprint, storing the majority of waste materials underground/ The bin sits in heavy-duty well installed in the ground. The majority of the bin is made of thick dint- and rustfree polyethylene. This material provides superior impact resistance even in very cold temperatures, and can cleans easily. All metal parts are made from structural steel coated with hot-dipped galvanize, while fasteners are stainless steel, aluminum or galvanized. The steel band across the front further enhances durability as it supports the plastic bin during lifting and dumping. Lid components are made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE) with structural aluminum and steel parts inserted for additional strength (especially to resist snow loading and extreme temperature variations)

T

RADIO INTELLIGENT, COMMUNICATION AMÉLIORÉE…

SMART PTT, SMART RADIO...

« Ce n’est que le commencement » / “It’s just the beginning” g” Contact continu, n’importe quand, n’importe où Seamless Communication - Anytime,, Anywhere y ■ Couverture de la Ville Québec - à Windsor Connecting you from Québec - à Windsor ■ Zone de couverture étendue Wide Area Coverage ■ Rentable Cost Effective ■

MOBILE BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

www.mobilebusinesscom.com 800.637.1977 • 416.443.9555

METROCOM CANADA

www.smartptt.ca

Montreal • Trois-Rivières

Greater Toronto Area • Golden Horseshoe

www.metro-com.ca • 877.733.3400

14 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

p 13-16 swr oct-nov 2013 collection p 13-16.indd 14

13-11-07 9:50 AM


Got scrap tires to recycle?

Got liquid food and beverage waste or processing water to manage?

Take another look at Emterra We're not just about recycling, organics and garbage...

Emterra Tire Recycling

• Recycling collection, processing & marketing • Garbage collection & disposal • Organics collection & processing • Liquids processing • Tire recycling

Canadian Liquids Processors Limited

Find out more today:

We've got other waste solutions for you:

from any source including depots; 99% of used tires recovered for recycling

processes a wide range of liquid food and beverage processing waste, including processing waste water for environmentallyresponsible resource recovery

Emterra Environmental

recycling collection, processing, brokering and marketing; organics collection, garbage collection and disposal

p 13-16 swr oct-nov 2013 collection p 13-16.indd 15

www.emterra.ca www.emterrausa.com

13-11-07 9:50 AM


COLLECTION Earthbin also provides the best of both worlds: the benefits of below-ground collection with the speed and efficiency of front-load servicing. During the design of the EarthBin, attention was paid to every detail. Case in point, each unit has two user-lids (one front and one back) eliminating potential dead-space at the back of units. Both the servicing and user-lids have automatic locks, which prevents illegal dumping, product theft, vandalism and infiltration from urban wildlife. The main lock on the service lid is gravity based, automatically releasing when the unit is tipped for dumping and re-engaging as the unit is placed back into the well. With these key features and improvements, coupled with the infrastructure that Progressive Waste Solutions brings to the table, it looks like below-ground waste and recycling collection will soon be popular across the country and North America.

Walinga VC2336

6/11/07

N O W

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

Typical EarthBin installation.

2:36 PM

Page 1

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

16 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

p 13-16 swr oct-nov 2013 collection p 13-16.indd 16

13-11-07 9:50 AM


MRF TECHNOLOGY

ZenRobotics Recycler installation at Baetsen near Eindhove, in The Netherlands.

The Finnish Line Robots for recycling

T

here’s perhaps no better example of how the waste and recycling industry is becoming high tech, and not simply the collection and disposal business of yesteryear, that mechanization or, more specifically, the advent of robots. But hold on — before you imagine Wil Smith facing off with an android, the robots we’re talking about here are (to date) stationary, of the kind that have been use for decades in auto assembly plants. (ct:Italic>See photo.) It’ll be a few years yet before human-like robots will walk around picking up waste, sorting containers, and perform all kinds of manual work for us (though I believe that time is coming). A good example of the state-of-the-art today comes (not surprisingly) from Europe. ZenRobotics Ltd. (www.zenrobotics.com) produces a revolutionary system it calls the ZenRobotics Recycler. This company, based in Finland, has succeeded in bringing robots to work in the demanding waste management environment. All existing recycling methods and technologies now face a revolution.

by Guy Crittenden “The initial market of ZenRobotics is the sorting of C&D waste.”

“Robotic recycling is the most effective recycling method,” says Timo Haanpää, Communications Manager for ZenRobotics, “be the measure cost per tonne, tied capital, or upgrade paths.” ZenRobotics Recycler (ZRR) reclaims valuable raw materials from waste with the help of advanced machine-learning technology. The core of the ZRR system is an artificial intelligence-based brain, which controls a robot arm, based on the input of numerous advanced sensors (e.g., near-infrared cameras and 3D laser scanners). As a result, the system can identify and pick valuable objects from a stream of waste on a conveyor. Haanpää says the system is based on two decades of Finnish research into computational neuroscience; the product has no direct competitors , he states, and is currently being marketed in over 50 countries. The initial market of ZenRobotics is the sorting of construction and demolition (C&D) waste. There’s plenty of that: the EU alone produces October/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 17

p 17-18 swr oct-nov 2013 MRF tech p 17-18.indd 17

13-11-07 9:50 AM


MRF TECHNOLOGY

ZenRobotics worker finalizing the ZRR installation at Lassila & Tikanoja’s Kerava, Finland operation.

900 million tonnes of C&D waste annually. The ZRR system separates metal, wood, and stone fractions from the incoming waste. Thanks to the unique AI-based construction, the system can be upgraded in future to handle various other solid waste types, like different plastic fractions.

DEVELOPMENTS

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? Download our iPhone app

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

18CWRE13_SWR_halfpage www.solidwastemag.com ad_2.indd 1 October/November 2013

p 17-18 swr oct-nov 2013 MRF tech p 17-18.indd 18

One, the first overseas installation has been finished at Baetsen near Eindhove, in The Netherlands. This is also the firstever two-robot system. On April 8 the company closed a deal with Lassila & Tikanoja, one of the largest waste management companies in the Scandinavian and Baltic region. L&T is installing a ZRR system in one of the most modern recycling facilities in the area, 30 kms from Helsinki. ZenRobotics is currently seeking distributors in Canada and the United States for its technology. According to the company, in the 1990s many robotics giants tried, but did not succeed in developing systems capable of picking odd-formed objects, like waste. Traditional robot control just does not conform to the harsh real-life environment of waste management. Haanpää says the ZenRobotics technology succeeds because it’s based on the Finnish founders’ decades of research into computational neuroscience. Lassila & Tikanoja Ltd’s net sales in 2012 topped US $900 million. ZenRobotics recently signed a framework agreement that streamlines the ZRR ordering process for all subsidiaries of Suez Environnement subsidiaries globally.) The agreement does not contain exclusivity or ownership changes between the parties.) Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine. Contact Guy at gcrittenden@solidwastemag.com

2/12/2013 12:11:20 PM

13-11-07 9:50 AM


DIVERSION

Soft and Firm Markets

The slow road to recycling beds and carpets in Canada

S

imon Zysman and Richard White are somewhat incredulous businessmen. For years, both men have tried to eke a living out of recycling Canadian carpets and mattresses; two of the largest, most commonplace items found in landfills. But progress has been painstakingly slow. The businessmen work day in and out to divert these products while Canada’s provincial and federal governments watch on the sidelines. A lack of regulation has given manufacturers and retailers free reign to pump out and sell products with no accountability for a post-consumer existence.

Mattresses Zysman, managing consultant of Recover Canada (recovercanada.com), is a veteran in the business of mattress recovery, although at times it’s been more of a calling and a public service than a profitable enterprise. “They don’t call mattresses and box springs non-recyclable for nothing,” Zysman joked to a group of delegates at the May 29, 2013 Waste 2 Product & Energy cleantech conference hosted by Solid Waste and Recycling magazine in Toronto. Zysman laughs as he speaks, partly out of disbelief, partly out of frustration. He’s somewhat in awe that staple items as large as mattresses have gone unregulated in Canada for so long. With the ball in the manufacturers’ court, they choose the most cost-effective options for their products, not the most sustainable ones. Landfill is much cheaper than exploring Ontario’s current recycling regime, which means the manufacturing sector has an almost zero per cent diversion rate for its old beds. To a small extent, mattress retailers have begun to sponsor some mattress diversion initiatives, says Zysman, but those efforts only divert about seven per cent of discarded mattresses in Canada.

by David Nesseth “Recycling the carpet in one typical home saves the equivalent of 54 gallons of oil.”

As it stands, about 70 per cent of mattresses in Canada are either burned or landfilled. Zysman says that’s equal to approximately 50 million mattresses and box springs each year. In the U.S., that number skyrockets to 500 million! “The scavengers and illegal builders are the only game in town,” says Zysman, estimating that mattress scavengers actually divert as much as 25 per cent of discarded beds. Illegal mattress rebuilding diverts about six per cent. Zysman sees the scavengers as unheralded environmental heroes. Since 1996, Zysman’s Toronto-based company has diverted about one million mattresses from landfill. He focuses on rebuilding the old beds for the working poor, as well as replacing worn mattresses for military, institutional and post-secondary residential quarters.

Carpets If anyone can relate to Zysman’s plight of thankless, semi-successful recycling, it’s White, who also spoke at the Waste 2 Product & Energy cleantech conference. As President of Aspera Recycling (asperarecycling.com) — a carpet recovery company based in Toronto. White has watched massive numbers of carpets accumulate in landfills for decades. (He puts the numbers of carpets in North American landfills at about five billion pounds per year, or 2.2 billion kilograms.) Although only 20 per cent of those carpets can be recycled — or 800 million pounds — White says that’s typically not the case. About 95 per October/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 19

p 19-22 swr oct-nov 2013 diversion p 19-22.indd 19

13-11-07 9:51 AM


DIVERSION cent of carpets find a resting spot in landfills. White is proud, however, that his company has managed to divert more than five million pounds of Canadian carpet since Aspera was founded in 2011. Carpets have a fairly complex makeup of synthetic materials such as nylon, polypropylene and polyester. Plastic, however, is the largest component of a carpet, comprising as much as 62 per cent of the product’s total weight. “It all has to do with the purity of the product,” says White, in terms of profit margins from recycling textiles. To put it in perspective, White says that if all the carpets in one typical North American home were recycled, it would save the equivalent of 54 gallons of oil. White’s team first shears the carpets, removing the fibres that comprise

about 50 per cent of a carpet. These fibres can be sold to yarn manufacturers, White says. The rest of the carpet composite is backing, adhesives. Combined, these materials can be used to make new carpets, car parts, plastic lumber, fibre block flooring or flood containment systems. Carpet can also be used as an alternative fuel source. Currently, California is the leader in developing extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation for carpet manufacturers. The cost equals five cents per square yard sold, and appears on the customer’s bill of sale. Canada has been talking about EPR for carpets since at least 2009. Although no province has committed to any new policy, White estimates that by 2017, Quebec or British Columbia will finally have an EPR policy in place. It’s at the municipal level where the game is changing the most. Finally, Zysman is making money again in the old bed game. Thanks to a City of Toronto contract, he’s part of the process that picks up curbside mattresses at houses and apartment buildings. Zysman says he’s not privy to the financials surrounding the Toronto’s end of the contract, but says he’s certain the mattress recycling program is costing the city a lot more than if it landfilled the mattresses. “I applaud them for that,” says Zysman. While a carpet made from used carpet components may not even elicit a second thought from most consumers, the rebuilt bed market is quite another story. Bed bugs aside, Zysman says the idea of a rebuilt mattress is not a popular one with most consumers. “It has always been radioactive in the view of primary retailers — for good reason,” says Zysman, noting that thrift shops and used furniture shops are the only outlets. Rebuilt mattresses that use old mattress materials are surrounded by stringent laws to protect the public, which means that many mattresses are rebuilt illegally, or not up to spec. In Canada, illegal rebuilders divert about six per cent of mattresses from the waste stream. COME VISIT US AT Zysman’s company also makes money by providing mattress remediation services, particularly for the eradication of bed bugs, an AT THE CANADIAN WASTE & RECYCLING EXPO issue that has only grown in severity for major cities in recent years. Still, the recycling game remains an uphill battle. THIS IS WHERE THE NAME ON THE MACHINE MATTERS MOST. Whether you’re facing the need to clear some land, clean up after a storm or recycling “It is not an easy matter for a very small, strugwood waste, Vermeer and our global dealer network will be right beside you. We know the conditions you face are demanding — that’s why we make sure our gling enterprise, with only a single voice available equipment is up to the task. Our complete lineup of horizontal and tub grinders, trommel screens, compost turners and brush chippers were designed to take on to advocate successfully,” says Zysman. “The only your big challenges. So when it’s tough going out there, look to Vermeer — the obvious solution is to build the enterprise, and that trusted name for proven equipment and reliable support. should not be impossible, in the absence of wellorganized and motivated competitors.”

VERMEER HELPS SHRINK YOUR

WOOD WASTE AND COMPOSTING CHALLENGES.

BOOTH 2119

vermeercanada.com | (905) 793-9339

HEAD OFFICE BRAMPTON LONDON

(888) 980-5260 (800) 668-9065 (855) 351-9866

ATLANTIC EDMONTON SASKATOON

(902) 222-9679 (800) 809-5066 (306) 382-3249

VERMEER and VERMEER LOGO are trademarks of Vermeer Manufacturing Company in the U.S. and/or other countries. © 2011 Vermeer Corporation and Vermeer Canada, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

WINNIPEG CALGARY LAVAL

(866) 548-1866 (866) 809-6653 (800) 990-7919

Dave Nesseth is Environment Reporter with the EcoLog Group, a department of Business Information Group that publishes this magazine, in Toronto, Ontario. Contact Dave at dnesseth@ecolog.com

20 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

p 19-22 swr oct-nov 2013 diversion p 19-22.indd 20

13-11-07 9:51 AM


14 Million Rescued From Landfill Environment

Recycling milk containers part of BC’s routine For many British Columbians, recycling empty milk containers has become part of their regular routine. It’s an effortless choice that’s good for the planet; and while people are generally aware that recycling reduces waste, it’s still easy to underestimate the positive impact it has on the environment. For example, did you know that using recycled plastic uses less energy than producing plastic from new materials? Once they are turned into plastic pellets at the recycling facility, empty milk jugs are used to make not only new bottles, but also plastic buckets, pails, plastic lumber and many other items. Milk cartons, meanwhile, are made from a high-quality paper fibre which is broken down into pulp during the recycling process and then made into products like tissue paper and cardboard boxes. Every tonne of paper pulp recycled from cartons

saves approximately 17 trees, and in the past five years that the Milk Carton Recycling Program has been in place, the amount of paper pulp recycled was 1,450 metric tonnes. That is roughly equivalent to 24,000 trees!

More people than ever are recycling

According to the most recent data from 2012, the program is having a great deal of success as more and more people become aware of the options for recycling milk containers. 89% of Polycoat milk containers are recycled as tissue paper & cardboard

Plastic milk containers are recycled as buckets & plastic lumber

How to prevent milk containers from being trashed In 2012, milk container recycling in BC increased 5% over 2011. While that’s an encouraging number, there is still more work to be done. Recent research shows that BC residents say they dispose of 15% of milk containers in the garbage. You can help make a positive impact by bringing back your own empty containers, and by spreading the word to friends and family who don’t.

How to make it part of your routine You can help make the world a cleaner, better place by making one simple choice: instead of throwing away your empty containers, bring them to the Return-It Depot along with your bottles and cans for recycling. Since you didn’t pay a deposit when you purchased them, you won’t get a refund when you bring them back—but you will enjoy the satisfaction of making a lasting difference. TM

The volume of milk containers returned to participating

RETURN-IT DEPOTS TM

has tripled since 2006. 2006

2013

British Columbians are now aware of at least one type of milk container that can be recycled. To help accommodate this increased awareness and the resulting positive change in recycling habits, the number of Return-It™ Depots accepting milk cartons has grown to 165.

2013: milk container recycling hits new high This increase in numbers adds up to more milk containers being recycled than ever before. In 2013, Return-It™ Depots throughout BC have so far collected over 310,000 kg of milk containers, an increase of roughly 11% over the same period in 2012. That amounts to over 14 million individual containers annually. In fact, if you were to place them all side-by-side, they would cover over 1,500 km—the direct distance from Vancouver to the BC/Yukon border. While plastic jug recycling has seen a modest increase, polycoat container recycling has enjoyed substantial growth over last year—roughly a 15% increase according to the most recent data. While this steady rise in these numbers is an encouraging sign, too many milk cartons in BC are still finding their way to the trash. Thus, the task of raising awareness continues.

To find a Return-It Depot near you, call 1-800-330-9767 or visit return-it.ca/milk TM

ADVERTORIAL

CREATION DATE: 07/22/13 MODIFICATION DATE: July 29, 2013 5:05 PM OUTPUT DATE: 07/29/13 p 19-22 swr oct-nov 2013 diversion p 19-22.indd 21

CLIENT: ENCORP DESCRIPTION: Advertorial

Prod Mgr.:

13-11-07 9:51 AM


REST

ASSURED

YOU CHOSE BHS. When you buy BHS you buy guaranteed results. Our systems meet or exceed the toughest performance standards for throughput, recovery and uptime. We don’t just promise, we perform. See what the global leader can do for you.

What’s next. Oslund

BULK HANDLING SYSTEMS | Eugene, Oregon USA | 866.688.2066 | bulkhandlingsystems.com Nihot darker

Nihot

Nihot lighter

p 19-22 swr oct-nov 2013 diversion p 19-22.indd 22

13-11-07 9:51 AM


HAULING

by Guy Crittenden “The operator may be required to also provide the ministry with a list confirming the names of trained drivers.”

Driver Training Ontario’s proposed Guideline C-12

G

uideline C-12, “Training Requirements for Drivers of Waste Transportation Vehicles” was presented in the Fall of 2013 by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. This guideline amends Ontario Regulation 347 to include driver training requirements for carriers of municipal non-hazardous waste, similar to those already on the books for carriers of industrial liquid or hazardous wastes. Waste haulers of all kinds in Ontario are advised to make themselves aware of the details of Guideline C-12 and make sure their drivers’ training is in compliance! Ontario Regulation 347 under the Environmental Protection Act is meant to ensure that wastes are safely transported and managed from the point of generation to the ultimate processing and disposal site. The regulation includes definitions for different waste types and details the requirements for a range of waste management activities. The new proposed guideline deals with driver training. Regulation 347 (see paragraph 9 of subsection 16 (1)) requires drivers of waste transport vehicles to be trained in the following five areas: i) operation of the vehicle and waste management equipment; ii) relevant waste management legislation, regulations and guidelines; iii) major environmental concerns for the waste to be handled; iv) occupational health and safety concerns for the waste to be handled; and v) emergency management procedures. The responsibility for providing driver training rests with operators of companies involved in waste transportation. The guideline and procedure have been prepared to assist these carriers in the design and assessment of training programs given to their drivers. According to the ministry’s documentation, it can also “be used as a syllabus either by carriers or by specialized training organizations involved in the design and offering of effective training programs.” In the case of carriers of hazardous wastes, the guideline is not intended to require a training program in addition to the program specified under the federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act (TDGA) or the provincial Dangerous Goods Transportation Act. The two transport and environment training programs can be integrated into one program. Although training under TDGA is, for the most part, sufficient to ensure compliance with Regulation 347, training is required in the following additional areas to ensure full compliance: • relevant waste management legislation, policies and guidelines; • major environmental concerns for the wastes to be handled. For municipal wastes, liquid industrial wastes and for those hazardous

wastes not covered by the TDGA (such as leachate toxic waste and severely toxic waste), training programs should follow this guideline. Because of the fragmented nature of the waste management industry, programs will have to be tailored to meet the needs of individual companies. In some cases, it may be necessary for carriers to train beyond the areas identified by the guideline where there exists an important environmental or occupational health concern. Guideline C-12 is intended for use by operators of waste management systems in designing their driver training programs or in evaluating driver training programs offered by outside training organizations. It will be used by staff of the Ministry of the Environment’s Operations Division to communicate the required components of a driver training program to operators of waste management systems, and to evaluate applications for new or revised waste management system Environmental Compliance Approvals. It will also be used by them to evaluate compliance with driver training requirements.

Approves & administration In general, operators of companies transporting waste require an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) or a registration in the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR). No matter which type of authorization is required (ECA or EASR), if the system involves the road transportation of municipal waste, liquid industrial waste or hazardous waste, it’s subject to the driver training requirements set out in Regulation 347. When applying for either a new or a revised waste management system ECA for the transportation of waste, operators must provide writOctober/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 23

p 23-25 swr oct-nov 2013 waste hauling p 23-25.indd 23

13-11-07 9:51 AM


HAULING

ten confirmation that they have an acceptable driver training program in place, which addresses the five items in paragraph 9 of subsection 16 (1) of Regulation 347. At the same time, the operator may be required to also provide the ministry with a list confirming the names of trained drivers employed by the business at the time of application.

If the approval is issued after reviewing the application, conditions respecting driver training are typically incorporated in the ECA. All EASR-registered waste management systems must have a driver a training program as per paragraph 9 of subsection 16(1) of Regulation 347. In addition to this, O. Reg. 351/12 has requirements related to how the training program must be documented for EASR-registered systems. To demonstrate proof of training, all drivers of waste transportation vehicles must keep a copy of a certificate or other proof indicating that the driver of the waste transportation vehicle has received the training. (This requirement is from paragraph 4 of subsection 4(1) of O. Reg. 351/12.) The person registering a system in EASR is also required to retain a copy of the training materials used to train drivers. (From subsection 5(2) of O. reg. 351/12.) The training materials don’t need to be retained in each truck, but are required to be retained in a way that they may be made available to the ministry upon request (for instance, filed at the business’ office). The training materials include any written material or presentations given to employees to fulfill the training requirement whether prepared by the company itself or provided by a third party. The most upto-date training material should be retained and provided to the ministry if requested. Waste management systems that have an ECA or have registered in EASR will typically have a requirement for a certificate to be held in the waste transportation vehicle indicating that the driver has received training. This certificate should include at a minimum the following information: • the name of the driver; • the date that the driver received the training; and • the name of the organization or business that provided the training. This certificate can either be issued by the company itself or by a third party organization that provided the training. For companies conducting their own training, Appendix 1 of If you’ve never thought of Joseph Haulage for the transport of the guideline has a template that can be used solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste, then it’s time to think to generate a Certificate of Training. A driver should be able to demonstrate familiarity with again – and think big. With the addition of hazardous waste and the training content described in the ministry’s walking floor services, Joseph Haulage is pleased to offer new Guideline C-12 upon completion of the drivers lanes into Quebec and the United States – we carry the load! training program.

1-855-6-JOSEPH www.josephhaulage.com

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

24 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

p 23-25 swr oct-nov 2013 waste hauling p 23-25.indd 24

13-11-07 9:51 AM


Shuttle Floor

n n n n

Empties clean every time No drivers climbing over loads or into boxes No sweeping particulates Reduce cross contamination

1.888.995.1200 www.troutriverindustries.ca Page: thetroutrivertrailer

p 23-25 swr oct-nov 2013 waste hauling p 23-25.indd 25

13-11-07 9:51 AM


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

Retour Matras foam baling equipment. (All photos by Brajesh Dubey.)

by Paul van der Werf

Going Dutch Highlights from a tour of waste facilities in the Netherlands

R

ecently I had the opportunity to help organize a waste management themed trade mission to the Netherlands as presented by the Netherlands Consulate (Toronto). While comparing it to Steinbeck’s Travels with Charley would overstate its poignancy and comparing it to the movie Road Trip would (significantly) understate its seriousness, 12 Canadians bundled onto a tour bus to visit 15 waste management facilities and a major recycling conference over five days in September. Many in North America look at Europe and countries like the Netherlands as a shining light when it comes to progressive waste management. The Dutch are pointed to as an aspirational beacon for our own waste management systems, but from afar somehow seem to be just beyond our reach. A critical aspect of this tour, in my mind, was to help demystify Dutch waste management in a way that could help inform North American possibilities. The Dutch struggle, almost literally, with keeping their heads above water. With much of the country below sea level, this existential threat is kept at bay with Water Boards that provide governance and a network

“What has set the Dutch apart when it comes to waste management is central planning and enforcement.”

of dikes and pumps. This constant state of “red alert” has given them a talent to take very direct and decisive action in the face of crisis. And it was in fact a crisis that propelled them towards their progressive waste management system. In 1988 the Dutch were diverting only 16 per cent of their household waste from disposal, while they had 157 landfills with only four years of remaining capacity. Exacerbating that was the dioxins-induced issue of insufficient thermal treatment capacity. To combat this crisis, a national waste policy was created to move wastes away from landfilling to diversion and thermal treatment through a combination of measures, including landfill bans and landfill taxes. Strict environmental standards were also enacted to, among other things, improve thermal treatment from pollutant and efficiency perspectives. This top-down national policy, combined with public and private sector ingenuity, led to the innovation required to change their waste management system.

Trip highlights HVC (hvcgroep.nl) is a public waste management cooperative that encompasses 48 municipalities (and more than one million people) in

26 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

p 26-31 swr oct-nov 2013 organic matters p 26-31.indd 26

13-11-07 9:53 AM


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

Bundled foam at a Retour Matras plant. Cloth is also bundled and sent to India for recycling.

a number of provinces. This has allowed the critical mass to develop large-scale waste management infrastructure. For instance, they have about a million tonnes/year in incineration capacity at two locations. The electricity produced is sold back to partner municipalities at a reduced rate and onto the grid. Ultimately the cooperative generates enough electricity for 280,000 households. It also uses some of the heat for district heating at one location (and developing it at the other). It separates and recycles about 950,000 tonnes/year and composts about 150,000 tonnes/year. The VAR (var.nl/en/home/home.html), just outside of Apeldoorn, manages the city’s organic waste as well as providing other waste management services such as C&D recycling and the recycling of artificial turf. It operates a number of facilities in the Netherlands. Organic wastes are processed using a combination of (dry) anaerobic digestion and outdoor composting. The VAR currently manages about 240,000 tonnes/year (15 per cent of all organic waste processed in the Netherlands) of organic waste on-site, of which 60,000 tonnes/year is digested. Interestingly, it has been converting and retrofitting some of its tunnel composting facilities into dry AD facilities.

HVC waste-to-energy facility in Doordrecht, the Netherlands.

Orgaworld has two composting facilities in Ontario. Its Green Mills facility (orgaworld.nl/en/greenmills.html), while still in development, represents a future model of how to manage organic wastes. When completed, the facility will act as a one-stop shop for organic waste, with a processing method based on where the greatest value can be extracted. This will include a future de-packaging facility and processing options that include AD, bioethanol production, biodiesel production and composting (at one of their facilities such as the one we visited in Lelystad). Waste management in the Netherlands sometimes makes for some unlikely partners. Sortiva (sortiva.com) is a C&D recycling company that’s jointly owned by the municipal waste management cooperative HVC and a private waste management company. It has a fully automated C&D sorting facility that was commissioned in 2010. Large excavators feed the waste onto conveyor systems that leads into a system of trommel screens, optical sorters, magnets and eddy currents to break the materials clean wood, biofuel (wood), metal, plastic and aggregate materials. There’s no manual picking of any materials. Other notable facilities visited included Coolrec (coolrec.com) that processes about 300,000 tonnes/year at a number of facilities in October/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 27

p 26-31 swr oct-nov 2013 organic matters p 26-31.indd 27

13-11-07 9:53 AM


VAR, near Apeldoorn, operates a C&D recycling facility and re-processes some of these wastes into new products.

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

28 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

p 26-31 swr oct-nov 2013 organic matters p 26-31.indd 28

13-11-07 9:53 AM


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

“A common refrain throughout the week was that there was an oversupply of incineration capacity (about a million tonnes) as a result of overdevelopment and the current economic downturn.� the Netherlands (and beyond) and Retour Matras (retourmatras.nl) which has developed a mostly automated facility for the recycling of mattresses. The humanizing part of this story is that the Dutch are not superhuman and still face real challenges. I bet you’d be surprised to hear that Amsterdam only diverts about 18 per cent of its wastes (with the balance incinerated). They face the same challenges that any large and very densely populated city faces, with little to no room for containers to divert SSO or paper wastes.

A common refrain throughout the week was that there was an oversupply of incineration capacity (about a million tonnes) as a result of overdevelopment and the current economic downturn. This has led to the importation of wastes from other countries (e.g., the UK, Italy) and is creating waste diversion worries because of the downward pressure on incineration tipping fees (from past highs of 120 euros/tonne to possible new lows of 40-50 euros/tonne). Without intervention there is a distinct possibility that recyclables could be pulled into the excess incinerator capacity.

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 October/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 29

p 26-31 swr oct-nov 2013 organic matters p 26-31.indd 29

13-11-07 9:53 AM


LI

BLE TR BLEED TRIM LIVE

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

Retour Matras facilities feature a modular design that can be replicated. Production is ramped up by adding shifts.

The Dutch realize they may be heading towards another waste crisis that could impact their carefully crafted policy of prevention and diversion first, and then incineration. There’s now some discussion about implementing a tax on incineration. What has set the Dutch apart when it comes to waste management is

central planning and enforcement. Their policies, which include quantitative drivers such as landfill taxes and landfill bans, have been so successful that they had to suspend their landfill tax! (So little waste is being landfilled that it costs more to administer the tax than revenues coming in.) This, in turn, has sent strong signals to the marketplace to innovate and invest; the market responded in kind by developing facilities and new technologies and processes that have helped the Dutch achieve their current successes, and which should see them through current and future challenges. NOTE: Please see blog posts for additional details at solidwastemag.com Paul van der Werf is President of 2cg Inc. in London, Ontario. Contact Paul at 2cg@sympatico.ca

Rehrig provides the small details, so you can see picture. the

©2013 Rehrig Pacific Company

big

Let our technology experts show you a Complete Asset Management Solution Rehrig Pacific’s C.A.R.T.S. Program manages and tracks every container asset in inventory to deliver measurable results to your bottom line. Visit our website or scan the QR code and download our white paper, “There is More to Collection than Just Carts” to see how.

Come see us at Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo

Booth #2410

* C.A.R.T.S. customers have reported a 90% retrieval rate on lost/ stolen containers

Introducing our most advanced 95 gallon Roll-out Cart. Contact Rehrig for advantages and details.

Container Management Programs • Asset & Service Tracking • Route Auditing & Reporting • Premium Waste & Recycling Containers Phone: (800) 421-6244 Email: info@rehrigpacific.com Web: www.rehrigpacific.com

A FAMILY TRADITION OF GROWTH, SERVICE AND INNOVATION

30 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

001258_C p 26-31 swr oct-nov 2013 organic matters p 26-31.indd 30

13-11-07 9:53 AM


LI

BLE TR BLEED TRIM LIVE

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 p 26-31 swr oct-nov 2013 organic matters p 26-31.indd 31

4/12/11 2:45:08 PM 13-11-07 9:53 AM


I C & I WA S T E

by Diane Blackburn “The total cost for the project was reduced from $65,000 to just over $23,000.”

The Refinishing Touch Restoration of hotel furniture

F

or frequent business travelers who find themselves in an endless series of hotel rooms, the furnishing and décor of the space has probably never left any lasting impression (unless, of course, it was highly unsatisfactory). A bed, dresser, TV cabinet, chair, desk… you only need the essential elements of utility and comfort to satisfy the need for work and rest. The very function that hotel furniture serves also demands that it be upgraded or replaced more often that most of us would imagine. Today, hoteliers have an option other than replacement. The Refinishing Touch is on the job and making a big difference in the bottom line of hotels that need to spruce up their rooms cost effectively. It’s now possible, thanks to this company, to not only give wood furniture a facelift, but also to refurbish leather using Embrace™ — a new ecofriendly leather recently added to the commercial (upholstery) lineup at Touch Textiles, the parent organization’s fabric division.

The Refinishing Touch (www.therefeinishingtouch.com) is based in Alpharetta, Georgia and was founded in 1977. ISO-certified, the company and is a leader in what it calls safe, environmentally sustainable “furniture asset management services.” As a bonus for their world-class public and private clientele, The Refinishing Touch performs its refurbishing services onsite, thereby minimizing disruption, downtime and inconvenience, all of which translates into significant benefits to the bottom line. The Refinishing Touch has an impressive list of clients from the hospitality industry: Hyatt, Wyndham, Marriott, Hilton, IHG and Starwood. Recently, the company announced a preferred vendor partnership with Fairmont Raffles Hotels International (FRHI), a provider of luxury accommodations across 139 worldwide properties. On a somewhat higher echelon, they also count among their clients The White House, The Kennedy Centre for the Performing Arts, the United States Congress, Department of Justice and Defense, the Military and the Coast Guard.

Examples Hotel furniture takes a beating: scuffing, scratching, desk edges worn down, armoires outdated, chair seats flattened and faded by a thousand posteriors. Enter The Refinishing Touch with a solution for every wear and tear situation. Desks take on a new life when refitted with protective rubber T-moldings and treated with a non-toxic, non-flammable, VOC-free color finish. Presto! Onsite and in short order the desk is reborn. A desk preservation project, contracted by Hilton Garden Inn Columbia/Northeast Hotel, and completed onsite, saved the facility $46,000 when compared to the purchase of new assets. When leather chairs hit the skids, it’s a very sad sight; but with the newest textile in their extensive Touch Textiles inventory, The Refinishing Touch can replace old hide with new Embrace leather, a reclaimed product that’s re-worked into a beautiful upholstery material. Candlewood Suites in Killeen, Texas was in sore need of chair replacement. Clients were complaining and something needed to be done. To buy or not to buy? That was the question. The Refinishing Touch’s specialists took 68 lounge seats, 63 desk chairs as well as seven 32 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

p 32-33 swr oct-nov 2013 ic&i waste p 32-33.indd 32

13-11-07 9:52 AM


I C & I WA S T E

Before and after images from The Refinishing Touch.

side chairs and restored them to their original lustre using Embrace while reducing the hotel’s expenditure by an estimated 64.3 per cent. The total cost for the project was reduced from $65,000 to just over $23,000. Let’s take a look at the concept of recycled leather from the 3Rs point of view. First, discarded leather is collected from traditional manufacturers of clothing, shoes, furniture etc. and put through a series of scouring processes to achieve a consistently even texture.  Then it’s cleaned to allow a uniform, natural color for the finished product.  Then the leather is combined with a polyurethanefinished fabric. After a second “wash” to enhance the softening, the product — now environmentally safe and clean — is ready for an eco-friendly face finish with cellular, PVC-free polyurethane. The final product, trademarked Embrace, has all the finest characteristics of leather: colour, lustre, hand-rubbed layered tones and dimensional grains (minus the environmental impacts associated with leather production. Embrace, a product of Culp Inc. (www.culpinc. com) is a long-wearing and cost-effective solution for commercial clients. The Refinishing Touch is a certified Culp dealer and, with this option to replace worn out leather with a new recycled product, the company has gained a competitive edge. Should The Refinishing Touch cast their eye north of the border, I hear that our Prime Minister’s residence at 24 Sussex Drive is desperate for refurbishing... and Canadian taxpayers love a good deal!

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

October/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 33

p 32-33 swr oct-nov 2013 ic&i waste p 32-33.indd 33

13-11-07 9:52 AM


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

by Rosalind Cooper, L.L.B. “Alberta’s waste strategy is to align and harmonize Alberta’s approach with that of other provinces.”

Judicial Changes Across Canada New Alberta recycling reg Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development has announced a proposed recycling regulation in conjunction with the objectives set out in Alberta’s waste strategy entitled “Too Good to Waste.” The proposed regulation contains several changes. The existing eight recycling regulations in the province will be consolidated into a single Designated Materials Recycling Regulation. In addition, the implementation will be delayed of extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs for two material categories (packaging and printed paper, and household hazardous waste) to allow these programs to be developed and put in place. Further, environment fees will be eliminated from the regulation. The electronics program will be expanded to include new products such as small appliances, audio/visual equipment, telecommunication equipment and power tools. In addition, the used oil recycling program will be expanded to include other automotive fluid containers, and the current environmental fee on containers will be increased. The government plans to conduct consultation sessions with respect to several of these proposed changes, which are intended to reduce waste, streamline the regulatory framework and shift end-of-life management costs from taxpayers to those parties that generate and use designated products. One of the objectives of Alberta’s waste strategy is to align and harmonize Alberta’s approach with that of other provinces and to support the development of the EPR program as set up by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). In developing its waste strategy, the Alberta government concluded that 80 per cent of material currently sent to municipal landfills could be recovered.

Quebec electronics recycling reg The Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife and Parks has decided that certain electronic products must be included in a waste electronics and electronic equipment (WEEE) recovery and reclamation program. The added products include electronic games, audio/ video devices, digital music players, digital cameras, GPS and some accessories. Those companies that market products containing components referred to in the regulation must implement a program to recover and reclaim those components. The program must include management of recovered products in the order set out in the regulation, with reuse of the product being the most desirable objective, followed by recycling.

Auto wastewater sludge Regulation 347 is Ontario’s general waste management regulation and sets out requirements relating to the management of various waste materials.

Recently, the Ministry of the Environment posted notice on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry of an amendment to Schedule 1 of Regulation 347. Schedule 1 contains a listing of hazardous industrial wastes. The amendment eliminates wastewater treatment sludge generated by the automotive industry in the manufacturing of motor vehicles from Schedule 1. The reason for the exclusion is to harmonize Ontario’s standards with the US EPA, which has delisted this material as a hazardous waste. While this means that this material will no longer be considered a hazardous waste, automotive manufacturers will still be responsible for properly charactering and managing this material under Regulation 347. In addition, waste disposal sites accepting the waste and waste management facilities processing the waste will still be required to be approved under Regulation 347.

On-farm AD facilities The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food have proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation 267/03 to allow more on-farm anaerobic digestion (AD) facilities with the option to be regulated under the Nutrient Management Act instead of seeking a renewable energy approval or environmental compliance approval under the Environment Protection Act. The proposed revisions would permit on-farm anaerobic digestion facilities to increase the quantity of off-farm materials that can be used from 25 to 50 per cent without the need to obtain approvals. While the proportion of off-farm material treated could increase to 50 per cent, the annual limit of 10,000 cubic metres and daily limit of 200 cubic metres for these materials would be continued. Further, nutrient management strategies approved under the Nutrient Management Act would still be required. Concerns relating to this proposal have come from the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) and the Compost Council of Canada (CCC), which believe that increasing off-farm materials could increase safety risks and result in a lack of environmental standards. However, the government states that it has set out enhanced environmental requirements to ensure facilities are properly managed. Odour impacts have been considered and certain amendments are proposed to address concerns including increasing the minimum retention time from 20 days to 35 days. There will be minimum setback distances to odour receptors such as neighboring residences. With respect to noise impacts, engineers will be required to consider how to design the facility to minimize noise, and delivery of off-farm materials would have restricted hours to mitigate concerns arising from deliveries and unloading activities. Rosalind Cooper, LL.B., is a partner with Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP in Toronto, Ontario. Contact Rosalind at rcooper@tor.fasken.com

34 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

p 34 swr oct-nov 2013 regrndup p 34.indd 34

13-11-07 9:52 AM


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

by John Nicholson “Norfolk County Council that passed a resolution stating it is not a willing host to the biogas facility.”

Biogas Facilities Are they the new “wind turbines”?

B

iogas facilities have been around in Canada for decades, mainly to treat sludge at wastewater treatment plants. There’s now a trend in this country to use anaerobic digestion (“AD” — the method used to produce biogas) on agriculture residuals, food waste, and even source-separated organics (SSO). One of the accelerators for the interest in biogas is various provincial government incentive programs, including: BC’s carbon tax and FortisBC’s opt-in RNG program; Quebec’s $200 million funding for municipal anaerobic digestion; and, FIT programs implemented by Nova Scotia and Ontario. Under Ontario’s FIT program, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) guarantees renewable energy produces a set rate for a 20-year period.

For qualifying biogas facilities, the price ranges from 10.4¢ to 19.5¢ per kilowatt-hour, depending on the size of the facility and its location (i.e., a farm biogas facility that produces less than 100 kW of electricity would receive 19.5¢ per KW-hr). There are an estimated 300 biogas facilities across Canada (including anaerobic digesters used to treat biosolids at wastewater treatment plants); this is a drop in the bucket compared to Germany with over 7,000.

Advantages Biogas generation involves the anaerobic digestion of organic material (i.e., farm or food waste). The anaerobic digestion process (the eating

“Changing the face of waste”

Minimizing costs and maximizing diversion is the essence behind creating a sustainable environmental solution. We create innovative programs that lead the industry and provide a partnership approach to your waste and recycling needs.

Head Office location: 322 Horner Ave. Toronto, Ontario M8W 1Z3 Ph: (416) 253-0400

www.canadafibersltd.com October/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 35

p 35-37 swr oct-nov 2013 waste bus p 35-37.indd 35

13-11-07 9:53 AM


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

Turbine array at a biogas plant. Photo courtesy of Capstone.

It’s important to note that biogas generation is different from wasteto-energy (WTE). Food and farm waste naturally degrade either aerobically or anaerobically, regardless. An anaerobic digester merely captures the energy potential from natural degradation and puts it to good use. As a renewable fuel source, the advantage biogas has over wind or solar is that it can be easily stored for on-demand use. The other advantage is that it solves two problems at once: organic waste management and energy needs. In Germany, the world leader in biogas development, the biogas industry has contributed $1 billion of direct investment to that country’s economy and created over 46,000 green jobs. The Canadian Biogas Association estimates similar economic opportunities exist in Canada.

Challenges of the organic material by microorganisms in the absence of oxygen) produces methane and carbon dioxide (biogas). The biogas can be combusted to generate heat or run a generator to produce electricity. It can also be used as a fuel in vehicles. 1 3/25/13 10:10 AM Page 1 EDDYAD_SW&R4_13_Layout

There are definite challenges in developing a biogas facility. Jennifer Green, Executive Director of the Canada-based Biogas Association, lists sourcing feedstock, getting grid connection, and environmental approvals among the challenges. She also says it’s import-

Superior Recovery of Aluminum “Fines” 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

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

36 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

p 35-37 swr oct-nov 2013 waste bus p 35-37.indd 36

13-11-07 9:53 AM


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

ant to properly site a facility to limit concerns about nuisance issues like removing large projects (such as the Erie Biogas project) and deodour. (However, a properly designed and managed facility should not veloping a new competitive procurement system. have nuisance issues.) With all the positives seemingly surrounding further development John Nicholson, M.Sc., P.Eng., is a consultant based in Toronto, of biogas sector in Canada, it’s hard to imagine who would be against Ontario. Contact John at john.nicholson@ebccanada.com an industry that produces renewable energy, creates green jobs, and boosts the economic fortunes of the rural and agricultural committee. Nonetheless, there are opponents. The rural municipality of Norfolk County in southwestern Ontario is mainly a farming region previously known as Ontario’s tobacco belt. It’s also the location of a growing battle over a proposed biogas facility planned by Erie Biogas Regeneration. The proposed site of the biogas facility is the location of a former Bick’s pickle plant northeast of the town Delhi. The controversy over this particular proposed facility is most likely the planned feedstock — green bin waste from the City of Toronto — and its proximity to neighbours (approximately 500 metres). Townsfolk have started an opposition campaign to the proposal. One of the nearest neighbours to the proposed facility started a petition citing concerns about odours, water contamination, emergency response, and property values. There are currently over 200 signatures on the petition. Opposition to the proposed Erie Biogas Regeneration facility includes the Norfolk County Council that passed a resolution stating it is not a willing host to the biogas facility. Patrick Forbes, Manager of Erie Biogas Regeneration, confirmed that the project is going Unsurpassed PURITY ahead despite local opposition. He believes that is Our Primary Focus once local politicians and neighbours become whether it is a Retrofit educated about biogas and their concerns about nuisance issues are addressed, opposition will to an Existing System turn to support. or a New System Design. “We are willing to take local politicians and neighbours on a tour of successful biogas facilities to help with the education process,” says Forbes. In order for the Erie Biogas Regeneration VISIT US AT CWRE IN MONTREAL, BOOTH #1715 project to move ahead, it will need to apply and TO DISCUSS A BLUE SOLUTION! receive a FIT contract from the OPA. However, the OPA is currently in the process of mak1 877 362-3281 • sales@machinextechnologies.com ing changes to the FIT Program which includes

What is Your Answer to The Green Fence?

THINK BLUE!

machinextechnologies.com

October/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 37 VD-7074_pub greenwall_4,5X7,5.indd 1

p 35-37 swr oct-nov 2013 waste bus p 35-37.indd 37

2013-10-01 08:34

13-11-07 9:53 AM


OWMA REPORT

Executive of the Year

Celebrating excellence at a special awards luncheon

T

he Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) is gearing up for the inaugural Canadian Waste Management Awards ceremony, taking place November 21 at the 2013 Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo in Montreal. The awards luncheon, hosted by the OWMA and national partners, will honour leaders in the Canadian waste management field. Altogether three “Executive of the Year” awards will be presented, in the categories of small, medium and large corporations. “It’s the industry’s way of recognizing outstanding individuals who have played a key role in the growth of the waste sector services industry in Canada,” says OWMA’s Director of Finance and Member Services, Michele Goulding. Submissions for the award are open to all private sector waste management professionals. Applications are then reviewed by a committee comprised of representatives from the OWMA, national partners and individuals in the waste management sector.

The goal, says Rob Cook, OWMA CEO, is to recognize excellence and accomplishment at all levels. “These are companies, groups or individuals that demonstrate tremendous vision and commitment,” notes Cook. “The Canadian Waste Management Awards reward them for their excellence, entrepreneurship, innovation and perseverance.” Tickets for the 1st Annual Canadian Waste Management Awards luncheon are available for purchase, as are Gold, Silver and Bronze sponsorship opportunities. The luncheon will take place 12:00 noon to 1:30 p.m. on November 21 at the Palais des congrès in Montreal. For more information and to reserve your tickets, please visit www.owma.org or www.cwre.ca For sponsorship information, contact Michele Goulding at 905-791-9500.

38 www.solidwastemag.com Ocotober/November 2013

p 38 swr oct-nov 2013 owma report p 38.indd 38

13-11-07 9:54 AM


PRODUCTS

Screening buckets extend compacts range

A

LLU Group Inc. introduces the new DL Screening buckets designed specifically for use with compact base machines such as miniexcavators, small wheel loaders, skid steers and backhoes. One bucket allows you to change screen sizes ranging from 5/8 inch, 1/4 inches and two inches just by changing out the screen and hammers. The DL Screening bucket is engineered to screen, mix, aerate and load top soil, peat and compost. The core of the new bucket is the unique top screen where the screening ham-

mers spin between the screen comb. This design makes the buckets clog-free, ensuring good production and throughput even with wet materials. Additionally, the new bucket doesn?t require a case drain line for operation, making the bucket simple: attach and start screening. To ensure maximum performance and durability, the bucket?s frame was designed and modeled using finite element analysis (FEA) engineering. The material weight is carried by the top screen comb so the drums and bearings

have less impact under the load. The screening blades and top screen comb are changeable when worn or when changing size adjustments, which helps keep operating costs low. The buckets are available in three models appropriate for use with various sizes, ranging from lightweight mini excavators and small wheel loaders up to compact excavators weighing 19,800-26,000 pounds and small wheel loaders weighing 8,800-17,600 pounds. Visit allu.net

Metal processing process

R

evolutionizing ferrous processing in the scrap metal market, the EriezŽ CleanStream™ process provides best-in-class metal recovery rates and grade improvement with the help of three powerful Eriez products: the PokerSort, P-Rex Scrap Drum Magnet and Shred1 Ballistic Separator. Via the CleanStream Process, the PokerSort extracts troublesome ?pokers? from the shred at an early stage. All potential ferrous material is then recovered when it passes through the P-Rex Drum, a magnet with a powerful circuit (that?s up to 40 percent stronger than older electro drums and offers improved ferrous recovery by one to two percent). The P-Rex is also capable of moving large spherical objects at twice the distance. Finally, materials move on to the Shred1 Separator, which pro... continues on page 40

October/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 39

p 39-41 swr o-n 2013 prods p 39-41.indd 39

13-11-07 9:54 AM


PRODUCTS

... continued from page 39

duces low copper content #1 Shred (MSA defines #1 Shred as? <.17 per cent), a premium deliverable to the steel industry. The separator uses ?ballistics? to automatically separate high-grade, iron rich ferrous from mixed metals and waste. It utilizes a high speed conveyor belt and subjects the material to forces that push different materials into different trajec-

tories. The result is that the smallest and purest items are pulled from the natural trajectory of the larger and less pure ferrous and ferrous composite items such as meatballs, tires, etc. Toward the end of the CleanStream Process, the most pure ferrous items are transported to the #1 Shred chute and move to the stacking conveyor. There is no hand picking required at this stage. Material that is not collected into the #1

+

Shred chute goes to one of two other collection chutes.? The second fraction is larger sized ferrous items and lower grade ferrous including meatballs and wiring harnesses, as well as some waste.?This stream represents the remaining 20 to 30 percent of the original stream and proceeds to the hand picking stations.? Since the CleanStream Process has reduced the volume, the hand picking stations can be equipped with slower and narrower belts and now require fewer picking personnel, saving time and money. Visit eriez.com/Markets/Index/ Cleanstreamprocess

The Power of 2 Provides: Highest Efficiency Composting & Lowest Electrical Use 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

New material handler

T

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

he new Terex Fuchs® MHL360 E material handler offers the company’s exclusive “Blue Evolution” approach to machine design to continually improve machine durability, increase operator comfort and reduce exhaust emissions. Featuring a six-cylinder, 254-hp (190 kW) turbo-charged engine, the MHL360 E offers more power than the D Series, while improving fuel consumption and meeting stringent Tier 4i emissions standards. The engine and hydraulic system of the new MHL360 E material handler efficiently work together to offer fluid load cycles, resulting in faster operating cycles at increased efficiency. The high-performance hydraulic system features a separate slewing circuit, allowing machine swiveling to quickly start and stop. Offering simultaneous swiveling and lifting functions with precision, the handler is more responsive to operator commands, even when handling heavy loads. Controls inside the spacious cab have

40 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

p 39-41 swr o-n 2013 prods p 39-41.indd 40

13-11-07 9:54 AM


PRODUCTS

been updated to improve operator efficiency and comfort. At 23 per cent larger than previous designs, the Wide Video Graphics Array (WVGA) colour display includes an improved high resolution and high contrast screen with an antiglare shield and scratch-resistant coating. The handler?s hydraulically height-adjustable cab offers a maximum eye-level elevation of up to 20.1 ft (6.1m) above ground level and independent forward movement up to 7.2 ft (2.2 m). Visit terex.com

Rotary waste shredder

V

ecoplanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s VAZ 1800 industrial shredder was designed to process a wide range of wastes for reclamation, recycling, and RDF applications. These include MSW, C&D waste, plastics, carpet, wood, medical waste, paper, and cardboard. The VAZ 1800 features a larger rotor diameter and taller feed ram that dramatically improves the throughput and overall processing efficiency of bulky scrap materials, and other large dimension waste products.

The VAZ 1800 features true dump and run operation, so entire containers of waste can be fed into its hopper. The hopper, on a VAZ 1800, has a volume capacity of 10.25 cubic yards and a 70x82-inch in feed opening. Its

25-inch diameter rotor has 84-126 cutting inserts, is powered by a 150-200 HP motor, turns at 125 rpms, and is fed by a 10 HP two speed hydraulic feed ram. Visit vecoplanllc.com

Returningâ&#x20AC;Ś

with an all new date and exciting new format! Join us in 2014 for an enhanced conference program giving you the latest information on HazMat Management and Site Remediation. The newly improved tradeshow space is geared to boost supplier - customer interaction in a fresh new way.

New Date!

February 19-20, 2014 International Centre Toronto, Canada www.sitesandspills.com Produced by:

Sponsored by:

Top 5 Reasons YOU should attend: 1. Participate in the only event of its kind in North America that combines HazMat Management and Site Remediation 2. Stay ahead of the curve and discover new products and technologies 3. Draw from lessons learned in 2013 in the world of emergency preparedness 4. Network with industry leaders and engage in interactive demonstrations 5. Simplify your job with the aid of innovative products and services featured in the Exhibit Hall.

Mark Your Calendar and Register Today! www.sitesandspills.com October/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 41

p 39-41 swr o-n 2013 prods p 39-41.indd 41

13-11-07 9:54 AM


NEWS

Metro Vancouver flow control Despite opposition from waste haulers, Metro Vancouver council is a step closer to enacting a ban on exporting waste outside city boundaries. On October 3, 2013, Metro Vancouver’s zero waste committee voted 6-2 in favour of the proposed waste flow bylaw, for which the industry term is “flow control.” If enacted, the bylaw would ban haulers from using outside waste locations such as the Abbotsford transfer, where some haulers pay $70 per tonne to dump rather than $107 per tonne charged by Metro Vancouver at inregion transfer stations. Some within the waste industry suggest that the proposed bylaw would create a monopoly within Metro Vancouver. But the bylaw is backed by recycling companies that claim the municipality’s source separation policies have been a bonus. Without the imposition of flow control rules, the recyclers argue that

the separation policies would be undermined. (Metro Vancouver previously imposed bans on dumping various recyclables.)

Molok’s Marja Hillis makes W100 ranking Marja Hillis, CEO of innovative waste container company Molok North America Ltd., ranks No. 84 in the annual W100 ranking of Canada’s Top Female Entrepreneurs, produced by magazines Profit and Chatelaine. Rankings are based on the size, growth rate and profitability of the women’s businesses. “It’s been a challenging ride from the time I first came to Canada 16 years ago to start a business, to where we are now,” Hillis said in an October 15, 2013 statement to media, speaking about the W100 ranking. “Even though W100 is celebrating the top 100 female entrepreneurs in Canada, I can honestly say that behind this all is an amazing group of dedicated employees without whom none of this would be pos-

Marja Hillis

sible,” added Hillis. “I’m looking forward to keeping the momentum going and having a great time with my team while doing it!” Hillis and team’s Molok Deep Collection

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.

How does your program look ? Customized waste & recycling solutions

www.chevylane.com P 905-295-7224

42 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013 BC metro vancouver 3.375 x 4.875.indd 1

p 42-44 swr oct-nov 2013 news p 42-44.indd 42

13-08-14 5:41 PM

13-11-07 9:55 AM


NEWS

system is the original semi-underground waste solution that revolutionizes the way waste and recyclables are collected. Developed with the end user in mind, the system offers a clean, safe and efficient collection point for a variety of waste types. The container’s vertical, semi-underground design allows the waste to compact, increasing container capacity, and the lower temperatures underground prevent odours and pests. Visit molokna.com

BHS regional sales manager

and components for the solid waste, recycling, waste-to-energy, and construction and demolition industries. Visit bulkhandlingsystems.com

Solid Waste Group Leader/Senior Staff Cole Engineering Group Ltd. is looking for dynamic energetic accredited professional - engineers or planners with 7 - 10 or more years’ experience – to lead and expand its solid waste management group. Some international project involvement on a short term basis is anticipated. Strong communications, business development, technical and project management skills are required. Cole is a growth oriented, forward looking, dynamic, and progressive employee owned consulting firm. In building the practice you will be assisted by one of the industries leading solid waste management consultants. Sound planning and design support is available through the other established Cole Business Units. The positions are based in Cole Engineering’s Markham or Mississauga Ontario offices to suit the candidates’ preference. Excellent salary, performance bonus and equity participation are available to the individual with the expertise, energy and skills required to build the practice.

Rich Reardon

Sorting system and component company Bulk Handling Systems (BHS) has named Rich Reardon to the position of Regional Sales Manager. Reardon will oversee BHS, Nihot and NRT product sales in the U.S. Southwest through Texas, as well as Western Canada. He has more than six years of experience with BHS in a sales leadership function. Headquartered in Eugene, Oregon, BHS is a leader in the innovative design, engineering, manufacturing and installation of sorting systems

Contact Geoff Love: Loveenvironment@rogers.com Cell: 647-248-2500

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. October/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 43

p 42-44 swr oct-nov 2013 news p 42-44.indd 43

13-11-07 9:55 AM


NEWS

Progressive merges U.S.Canada operations, restructures management

Progressive Waste Solutions has merged its U.S. and Canadian operations as it restructures personnel within the Vaughan, Ontario-based company. The company will align into two groups: Operations and Strategy, and Business Development. “Progressive Waste Solutions has evolved 3,000 Staff in 100+ Offices to the point where we can merge our U.S. and Canadian operations into a single leadership Proudly serving Municipal and IC&I clients since 1976 • Solid/Hazardous/Demolition Waste Management, Recycling, Diversion structure that will allow us to better leverage • Composting, Digestion, Waste to Energy, Biosolids/Biogas Utilization • Air Quality Monitoring & Modelling, Permitting/Auditing Compliance our size and scale to improve our strategic and • MRF’s, Reuse/Recycle for HHW, WEEE, and Durable/Bulky Wastes operational execution,” said Joseph Quarin, ...and much more! www.CRAworld.com • 1-800-265-6102 Vice Chairman and CEO of Progressive Waste Worldwide Engineering, Environmental, Construction, and IT Services Solutions, speaking in an October 10, 2013 statement to media. Progressive Restructuring: • Tom Brown, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Operations, has provided notice of his retirement effective November 30, 2013. William (Bill) Hulligan, with a new website to match our new name President and Chief Operating Officer, and Joseph Quarin, Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, will assume direct responsibility for the U.S. operations until January 1, 2014; • Dan Pio, previously Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Canada, has been appointed to the newly created position of Executive Vice President, Strategy and Business Development, effective immediately, reporting to Joseph Quarin; • Kevin Walbridge, VP, Canadian Operations, Project1 11/13/06 10:28 AM Page 1 will assume responsibility for the Canadian region, effective immediately. Beginning in January 2014, Mr. Walbridge’s role will expand and he will assume the role of Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for the company’s consolidated U.S. and Canadian operations, reporting to Joseph Quarin. • Bill Hulligan will retire from his role as President and Chief Operating Officer and become a Senior Advisor to Joseph Quarin and the Company effective January 1, 2014; • Joseph Quarin will assume the President’s role and become President and Chief Executive Officer effective January 1, 2014; • Ian Kidson continues in his role as Chief Financial Officer, but also becomes Executive Vice President, effective January 1, 2014. Visit waste360.com

The AMRC is now the MWA...

www.municipalwaste.ca

44 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

p 42-44 swr oct-nov 2013 news p 42-44.indd 44

13-11-07 9:55 AM


Advertisers’ Index Company

Page #

2cg/Paul van der Werf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 AMRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 BDP Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Bulk Handling Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Call2Recycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Canada Fibres Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 28 Chevy Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Clorox-Glad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Cole Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Conestoga-Rovers & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 CP Group, The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Cummins Westport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Drive Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Emterra Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Encorp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Environmental Business Consultants (J . Nicholson) . . . 44 Eriez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Integrated Municipal Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Company

October/November 2013

Page #

Joseph Hauling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Keith Walking Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Liebherr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Machinex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Mack Trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Mobile Business Communications Limited . . . . . . . . . . 14 Ontario Waste Management Association . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Paradigm Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Pen Plast, Environmental Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Progressive Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Rehrig Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Sites & Spills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Trout River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Trux Route Management Systems Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Van Dyk Recycling Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Vermeer Canada Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Vulcan On-Board Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Walinga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

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. 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

October/November 2013 www.solidwastemag.com 45

p 45 swr oct-nov 2013 ad idx p 45.indd 45

13-11-07 10:00 AM


BLOG

B+

by Barbara McConnell “Over the remaining three years of the report card, commitment alone will earn fewer points.”

2012 EPR Report Card

BC and Quebec Canadian lead in policies and programs

I

n its second report card on the progress that Canadian federal, provincial and territorial governments are making toward their commitment to implement extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies and programs, EPR Canada named the Provinces of British Columbia and Quebec as the high scorers for 2012 activities, each tied with a B+. The announcement took place at the Conference on Canadian Stewardship held in Toronto in mid-September. EPR Canada presented certificates of achievement to government representatives Meegan Armstrong of the B.C. Ministry of Environment and Marie Dussault of the Quebec Ministere du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs. Each year, EPR Canada asks the federal, provincial and territorial governments to complete a questionnaire that reflects best practices in three categories: commitment, implementation and accountability. The plan is to produce a report card over five years, starting with 2011. BC achieved the high score in the 2011 EPR Report Card. “EPR Canada is recognizing and promoting the steps that these governments are taking to fulfil EPR commitments,” says EPR Canada co-founder, Duncan Bury. “In particular, we’re pleased to highlight the leadership that’s taking place throughout Canada in establishing best practices that others can follow.” In the second reporting year, all jurisdictions returned responses but two: Environment Canada and Nunavut. “We continue to be impressed that governments respond voluntarily

2012 EPR REPORT CARD RESULTS The 2012 EPR grades for each jurisdiction are:

British Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba Ontario Quebec New Brunswick Nova Scotia Prince Edward Island Newfoundland and Labrador Federal Government Yukon Northwest Territories Nunavut

2012 Grade*

2011 Grade

B+ D D B C+ B+ C C C+ CF Not scored Not scored Not scored

AC CBC+ BCBC+ CF Not scored Not scored Not scored

*EPR Canada re-weighted scores in 2012 to reflect a logical progression in the adoption of EPR policies, programs and practices. The re-weighting may have resulted in the allocation of a lower overall grade than achieved in 2011.

to a survey that places their actions and progress under scrutiny,” Bury says. “In responding, they invite praise and criticism, but in the spirit of helping to advance EPR, we received insightful and candid responses that have allowed us to measure progress from 2011 and to identify notable developments anticipated for 2013 and beyond.” Due to the unique challenges faced by the territories, EPR Canada does not allocate a score to the Yukon, the Northwest Territories or Nunavut (though both the Yukon and NWT submitted completed questionnaires). In the report card, EPR Canada notes that the Territories are showing progress toward putting EPR programs in place. EPR Canada assessed and graded each jurisdiction’s submission based on their response to a set of questions that reflect best practices for the development and implementation of EPR policies and programs under three categories: Commitment: Indicators that each government, as a member of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) is following through on its commitment to adopt the principles of extended producers responsibility in compliance with the CCME Canada-wide Action Plan on EPR, and is developing EPR policies and programs. BC scored highest in this category. Implementation: Examples of how each government is implementing policies and practices to support producer performance. Quebec scored highest in this category. Accountability: Indicators that each government has mechanisms in place to measure and report on producer performance. BC scored highest in this category. For the 2012 survey questionnaire, EPR Canada introduced a progressive weighting of the scores assigned to each category to acknowledge the important evolution of EPR in Canada from stewardship to partial EPR and then full EPR. Stewardship programs involve government roles in designing, operating and paying for programs while producers pay none or part of the costs. Full EPR involves having producers design, operate and finance end-of-life product and packaging programs. Over the remaining three years of the report card, commitment will earn fewer points and implementation and accountability will earn more as governments make progress in the development of EPR programs. EPR Canada is a not-for-profit group comprising volunteer members who have been involved with stewardship and EPR in Canada since its introduction in the 1980s. The report card can be found on its website www.eprcanada.ca Barbara McConnell, APR, is Principal of McConnell Weaver Strategic Communication in Milford, Ontario. Contact Barbara at mcweav@kos.net Geoff Love, President of Love Environment in Stratford, Ontario, contributed to this article. Contact Geoff at loveenvironment@rogers.com

46 www.solidwastemag.com October/November 2013

p 46 swr oct-nov 2013 blog p 46.indd 46

13-11-07 9:55 AM


“WE DON’T HAVE TO MAKE SACRIFICES WITH MACK NATURAL GAS TRUCKS.” DAN PIO PROGRESSIVE WASTE SOLUTIONS Mack not only set the standard for the refuse industry—we’ve raised it with our natural gaspowered TerraPro™ trucks. Canada’s largest waste and recycling fleet, Progressive Waste Solutions, needed trucks to satisfy both ends of their environmental and economic spectrum. So they chose Mack. Now with a growing fleet of over 100 NG TerraPros, they can deliver environmentally friendly solutions without compromising uptime. With Mack, Progressive Waste Solutions proves that the best results don’t require sacrifice.

To learn more about how Mack natural gas trucks can improve your business, visit MackTrucks.com.

p 47-48 swr oct-nov 2013 ad p 47-48.indd 47

13-11-07 9:56 AM


Progressive solutions for a greener Canada At Progressive Waste Solutions, we are committed to finding new ways to deliver solutions that not only meet the highest standards of environmental care but transform waste into opportunity: • Building material recovery facilities to divert recyclable materials from landfills • Using new technology at landfills to convert methane gas to energy • We are shrinking our environmental footprint through our growing fleet of collection vehicles powered by natural gas • Facilitating environmental awareness programs, initiatives and scholarships in our communities across Canada

A cleaner community is our business, a greener Canada is our goal.

www.progressivewaste.com

p 47-48 swr oct-nov 2013 ad p 47-48.indd 48

13-11-07 9:56 AM


Swr2013octnov01