Solid Waste & Recycling June/July 2014

l fil tem nd ys 1 La ng s e 2 i g pp pa ca —

Solid Waste & Recycling Canada’s magazine on collection, hauling, processing and disposal June/July 2014

ELECTRONIC WASTE Special report on WEEE programs across Canada — page 8

CPMP No. 40069240

An EcoLog Group Publication

Medicine Hat switches to CNG collection vehicles — page 18 01 swr june-july 2014 cvr nl pg 01.indd 1

14-06-25 11:46 AM

NOTHING WASTED Save money while helping the planet. Now that’s an opportunity you can’t afford to waste.

Discover how to start saving on fleet fueling with natural gas today. www.cleanenergyfuels.com

Canada Contact: (604) 838-9538 ijohnstone@cleanenergyfuels.com

02 swr june-july 2014 ad p 02.indd 2

14-06-19 1:55 PM

Solid Waste & Recycling

CONTENTS June/July 2014 Volume 19, Number 3

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

COVER STORY:

PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP: E-WASTE

8 Cover art by Charles Jaffe

Diversion of waste electronic and electrical waste (WEEE) is gaining traction across Canada with multiple programs in different jurisdictions. However, the devil is in the details and our experts find areas for improvement.

by Clarissa Morawski & Samantha Millette

FEATURES

DEPARTMENTS

WASTE-TO-ENERGY: CEMENT KILNS Lafarge optimizes the process for turning waste into fuel.

by Anne Kershaw

Editorial 16

CNG VEHICLES: MEDICINE HAT The City of Medicine Hat, Alberta switches to natural gas vehicles.

by John Komanchuk

18

LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY: CAPPING SYSTEMS LiteEarth innovative system for capping landfills.

by Cassie Holman

21

Up Front

4 6

IC&I Waste

14

Organic Matters

23

Waste Business

25

Regulation Roundup

26

OWMA Report

27

Ad Index

29

Blog

30

NEXT EDITION: August/September 2014 Bonus Distribution: Official Show Guide — Compost Council of Canada Conference Editorial: Organics management in Canada • Spotlight on TerraCycle • IC&I plastics recycling pilot • Demolition waste • CNG vehicles • Bins & bags Space closing: August 7, 2014 Ar twork required: August 14, 2014

Waste-to-energy, pg. 16

CNG vehicles, pg. 18

Landfill technology, pg. 21

June/July 2014 www.solidwastemag.com 3

03 swr june-july 2014 conts p 03.indd 3

14-06-20 9:14 AM

EDITORIAL

1

by Guy Crittenden “An astounding 10 billion pods will be used this year, enough to circle the Earth 14 times!”

Mothers of Invention

Taking on cumulative effects, one teacup at a time

A

n article published on April 10, 2014 by the Canadian Press drew toxins up to 10,000 times background levels. These items are eaten by my attention to a matter that’s dear to my heart on multiple levsmall sea creatures and biomagnify toxins up the food chain as larger els. The article concerns the tea and coffee company Mother Paranimals devour smaller ones.) kers, which has debuted a recyclable single-use tea “pod” to the market, I used to divide my time between a Toronto apartment and a winter with a coffee version to follow sometime in the future. The pods (someski condo I rented to visit my kids in Collingwood. I had a Keurig in one times called “K-cups”) are those small thing-a-ma-doodles one inserts place and a Tassimo in the other. When I moved to Collingwood fullin single-serve automated coffee makers such as those time and consolidated everything, I gave the Keurig to a girlfriend and branded Keurig or Tassimo. kept the Tassimo.

I first heard of these devices from a girlOne day I was in the grocery store and stumbled upon one friend who’s also a dental hygienist. Her of those “As Seen on TV” product displays. I didn’t hesitate to coworkers were excited about the arrival of a buy the small refillable K-cup (a collection of them actually) Keurig in their office a few years ago, and she designed for use with the Keurig. This assuaged my guilt eventually gave me one as a present. Thus about wastefulness for that device, as I started refilling the began my reliance on a new level of ultrareusable pods with my own ground coffee. convenience where my morning java is conBut I still felt bad about the Tassimo, for cerned. Living alone, it always seemed which no similar reusable pod product wasteful to brew a whole pot of coffee just exists. Then fortune solved my problem: the for myself, but I confess the real reason I Tassimo simply stopped working! I was came to fetishize my Keurig was the convenforced to use my coffee bodum (sometimes ience of popping in the pod, pressing a button called a French press). That temporary soluand, Voila! producing a steaming hot cup of tion has become permanent: I have to boil coffee minutes later. water in a kettle and wait a few minutes for After some time I began to feel guilty the grounds to settle, but there’s no filter to about the wastefulness of the coffee pods, throw out — only wet grounds that I mix into my which I intuitively knew weren’t acceptable garden soil. in my Blue Box. The pods are made of plastic The Mother Parkers pods are designed for recycwith a printed metallic paper top glued on firmling. This is a very positive step for a waste stream ly. You don’t need to be a recycling equipment exthat’s bigger than people realize and growing. Yet one pert to know separating these items is difficult. So, into the waste has to ask, Why use “recyclable” pods in the first place, bin they went, along with their damp coffee grounds content. when reusable ones exist? Or one can simply revert to a In doing this, I contributed to the probFrench press or conventional drip coffee Reusable K-cup: a better choice than recyclable. lem of cumulative effects. My own permaker? I accept that the single-serve desonal consumption of these disposable vices are useful for, say, making a friend a items wasn’t substantial, but added to the waste from other people it cappuccino once in a while. But their use often or every day, even with represents a real problem. An astounding 10 billion of the pods will be recyclable pods, is a great example of a manufactured waste problem, used this year, and that number is growing. That’s enough to circle the that we don’t need in the first place.

Earth 14 times!

Now I’m looking closely at the other areas in my daily routine where That’s a lot of nonrenewable metal and plastic (derived from petrolmy wastefulness — small in itself — may be contributing to cumulative eum) resource being thrown away. It’s also the sort of thing finding its effects. Reducing my environmental footprint is likely about changing way into the environment where it degrades the world’s oceans. (Note lots of small things, not just the big ticket items. the issue here isn’t just bottle caps and other debris filling the bellies of fish and sea birds; the oceans are now fogged with microscopic plastic Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine. Contact Guy at particles that act like rafts for micro-organisms. The plastic concentrates gcrittenden@solidwastemag.com

S

M sy cu ah so op se an

N

1 m

4 www.solidwastemag.com June/July 2014

04-05 swr june-july 2014 editl p 04-05.indd 4

14-06-19 1:56 PM

% 110

EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS

Machinex vs Industry

M ac hi ne x

ipment ecycling Equ R y lit a u Q • uality • Superior Q ipment E Recycling qu ent tter Equipm • Cookie Cu & Design ngineering • Custom E Solutions • Turnkey ologies orting Techn • Latest S Solutions Innovative • Creative ate d Purity R • Unmatche ness • Responsive Equipment • Superior e Access Maintenanc

� �

MRF Su pp lie rs

�

� � � � � � � �

� �

SUCCESS IS THE ONLY OPTION!

Machinex commitment is to exceed all customer expectations and system requirements. In this ever-changing market, Machinex offers custom and flexible solutions to help insure that customers remain ahead of the competition. With Machinex, you can count on custom solutions that are designed specifically for the project at hand as opposed to a standard, cookie cutter approach. The results can be seen, and heard, through both company research and development and testimonials from customers and industry leaders alike.

NOW THAT’S RESULTS!

1 877 362-3281 | sales@machinextechnologies.com machinextechnologies.com

04-05 swr june-july 2014 editl p 04-05.indd 5

Experience Results

14-06-19 1:56 PM

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 Tim Dimopoulos Executive Publisher 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: $53.95 (add applicable taxes) per year, $87.95 (add applicable taxes) for 2 years, single copy $10.00. USA: 1 Year $56.95, single copy $10.00. Foreign: 1 Year $87.95, single copy $10.00.

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

Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to: Circulation Department, Solid Waste & Recycling 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 De­ part­ment of Canadian Heritage. © 2014 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 Dear Editor,

While reading the online article “Colorado on track with paint recycling Bill,” I couldn’t help but wonder why a state pursing paint recycling isn’t also pursuing the bottle bill. It just seems senseless that Colorado hasn’t taken this action yet. Bottles are more plentiful and more relevant to the average Coloradan, so I would think it should also be focused on.

In a state full of environmentally mindful citizens, I can only imagine the explanation is some sort of powerful special interests that don’t want the “burden” of actually seeing to the recycling of their used products.

Colorado is failing to be a leader in the environmental movement with a dismal 14 per cent recycling rate. Bottle Bills in other states have been shown to increase recycling rates significantly. Progress on paint recycling should also be accompanied by progress on the bottle bill. Increasing the recycling rate will improve the state’s environmental health.

Sincerely,

Chris Kehiayan

[”Powerful special interests” Chris? That’s the understatement of the year! We have the same situation in Canada. Industry has successfully diverted the conversation toward “how can we recycle more?” and away from “what would the most sustainable system look like.” Why? Because many of their products shouldn’t be on the market in the first place. But that’s just my opinion... — ed.]

Neil Hastie to lead BC stewardship organization

N

eil Hastie, the former head of product stewardship corporation Encorp Pacific, has been named development director and spokesperson for StewardChoice Enterprises Inc., a new challenger in British Columbia’s burgeoning stewardship industry.

Hastie’s role will be to help the development and implementation of the proposed recycling plan from StewardChoice, which may begin as early as 2015. StewardChoice will, in the most cost-effective way, support producers who are obligated under the BC Recycling Regulation to recover at least 75 per cent of the packaging and printed paper materials they introduce to the BC market. Hastie will also be looking for new opportunities to work Neil Hastie with waste management companies to expand areas of service in B.C. He will play a significant role engaging with recycling organizations, municipalities and NGOs to find solutions to enhance the recovery of recyclable material in BC. Visit stewardchoice.ca

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

For more information, visit www.fsc.org

6 www.solidwastemag.com June/July 2014

06-07 swr june-july 2014 upfront p 06-07.indd 6

14-06-23 10:39 AM

UPFRONT WASTE INDUSTRY VETERAN WINS LIBERAL SEAT IN ONTARIO

L

ong-time waste industry veteran Arthur Potts is the new Member of Provincial Parliament for the Ontario riding of Beaches-East York in Toronto, Ontario. Liberal candidate Potts, 57, defeated longstanding NDP incumbent Michael Prue in the June 12, 2014 election.

Potts was a municipal affairs consultant for some 20 years, during which time he also served as president of BioWaste Treatment Technologies from 2008 to 2013. The company utilized the ArrowBio Waste Treatment Process, a mechanical/biological approach to diverting municipal waste from landfill while recovering recyclables and methane gas for energy. Potts co-founded Woodwaste Solutions, a waste management firm that specializes in waste wood reuse and recycling. The firm employs more than 30 people. Potts also assisted with creating a deposit-return system for liquor and wine bottles and helped to expand the scope of waste paper fiber accepted in curbside recycling programs.

Arthur Potts (right) with fellow MPP elect Han Dong.

Enerkem waste-to biofuel facility

E

nerkem Inc. (enerkem.com) has officially inaugurated its first fullscale municipal waste-to-biofuels and chemicals facility in Edmonton, Alberta. The plant uses new technology to utilize waste instead of fossil sources for the production of chemicals and liquid transportation fuels.

This project is a collaboration between Enerkem, the City of Edmonton and Alberta Innovates — Energy and Environment Solutions. The pioneering facility will have a production capacity of up to 38 million litres per year, will help Edmonton increase its residential waste diversion rate to 90 per cent, and is expected to generate net economic spending in the local area of nearly $65 million annually.

The start-up of the biorefinery follows a rigorous commissioning plan that’s nearing completion. Biomethanol production will begin progressively during the startup. A module converting the biomethanol into advanced ethanol will be added by the end of 2015.

W

Plug In!

hen advancements in mobile technology put internet-enabled smartphones and tablets into the hands of more than one of two Canadians, software applications or “apps” designed to display information on mini-screens literally exploded onto the social scene. This made apps extremely suitable to deliver waste and recycling information to people 24/7 on their mobile devices.

“The thing about technology, though, is that it never stops innovating. Around every corner, there’s a new development that solves a problem,” notes Creighton Hooper, president of Municipal Media Inc., the first out of the gate with the comprehensive “what goes where” my-waste® app for municipal solid waste education and outreach.

Those innovations enabled Municipal Media to jump from offering the “mywaste” technology in an app format to adapting the popular features in a plug-in for municipal websites.

“The plug-in is a game changer for municipalities and haulers that depend on Municipal Media’s “my-waste®” plug-in outreach tools to educate and engage residents,” Hooper says. “Their websites are their most effective educational asset. It’s the first place residents think of when they need information about waste and recycling.”

The plug-in adapts the best of the app features like the “What Goes Where” search tool, the downloadable, personalized collection schedules and the reminder function, and makes them better. A range of reminders can be set depending on preferences and downloaded to Outlook, iCal and Google Calendar.

Even more engaging is the notification system that allows municipalities and haulers to send out information by email, Twitter, Facebook and text alerting residents in real time to emergency changes in service or reminding them of special waste collection events. Residents choose what and how they want to receive this information to avoid spamming issues.

Visit my-waste.com June/July 2014 www.solidwastemag.com 7

06-07 swr june-july 2014 upfront p 06-07.indd 7

14-06-19 1:56 PM

COVER STORY

by Clarissa Morawski & Samantha Millette “Currently, the only province that requires independent, certified auditing of processors and reported program performance is Alberta.”

Waste Electronics Management in Canada P

Shortcomings and opportunities for improvement abound ainting an accurate picture of the total scope of the electronic waste problem is like playing a game of Whac-A-Mole: the only thing that’s constant is change. Each year, millions of new electronic gadgets are produced and sold, rendering those from five, seven, or twenty-five years ago obsolete. We own more electronics in different formats than ever before, and each of these devices has a shorter life span than its predecessor.

Sometimes obsolescence is measured in months.

Apple’s familiar iDevices illustrate this phenomenon. Every time

the company launches a new product, it shows faster sales growth than the previous device. Within two years of its launch, the iPad exceeded 55 million units sold worldwide. Apple’s CEO Tim Cook sums up this growth: “To put it in context, it took us 22 years to sell 55 million Macs, about five years to sell 22 million iPods, and about three years to sell that many iPhones … it’s on a trajectory that’s off the charts.”

As a result of our never-ending appetite for the latest and greatest gadgets, waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is now one of the world’s fastest growing waste streams. From smart toasters to smart

RARE EARTH ELEMENTS

S

everal metals are not yet a significant part of the electronic waste stream but are certainly going to be a larger part of the e-waste conversation in the future. Every iPhone or iPad, and most of the other smart phones and tablets that are dominating the sales of personal computing electronics today, contain many of the elements called “rare earths.”

The amounts of these elements in today’s mobile devices are miniscule. This circumstance, combined with the fact that most of these devices are still in use today, means that the recycling industry has not yet found a way to make it economically viable to recycle these rare-earth materials.

According to SIMS Recycling Solutions President Steve Skurnac, “Rare earths come in very minute concentrations in electronic scrap,” which means that recyclers need a high volume and super efficient processes to recover any reasonable amount of rare earths from electronics. The technology just isn’t there to make it economically feasible for most recyclers.

Right now, most of these devices are still in use, either by a first or subsequent owner. But as the technology gets increasingly desirable with more functionality, many are replacing their devices with new ones that are much faster than their previous device. Some companies are now offering to replace mobile devices each year.

Worldwide, smart phone sales are expected to reach over a billion by 2015. In Canada, a report by the Media Technology Monitor, a research product of the CBC, estimated that, as of

8 www.solidwastemag.com June/July 2014

08-13 swr june-july 2014 cvr sty pg 08-13.indd 8

14-06-19 2:03 PM

COVER STORY

phones, our waste has become a highly complex heterogeneous mix of an evergrowing assortment of plastic resins, heavy metals and toxins requiring safe handling at the end of their useful life.

In 2004, Alberta became the first Canadian province to establish a program for the proper end-of-life (EOL) management of WEEE. Since then, nearly all provinces have followed suit. (Today, New Brunswick is the only province without a WEEE program). Despite this progress many challenges remain, in particular in relation to recycling standards, performance measurement and export control.

STANDARDS So, in terms of WEEE management, how does Canada fare?

In Canada, to become an approved electronics recycler under any of the industry-led provincial WEEE programs, the primary recyclers’

operations — as well as those of all downstream recyclers — must meet the requirements of the Electronics Recycling Standard (ERS). The ERS is managed by the Recycler Qualification Office which operates under the Electronic Products Recycling Association (EPRA) — a national non-profit entity created by Canada’s electronics industry.

In December 2012, the International Sustainable Development Foundation commissioned a report aimed at better understanding how leading certifications and standards for WEEE management stacked up against those of the Institute for Electronic and Electrical Engineers (IEEE).

The IEEE’s 1680-series standard is considered the de facto standard for sustainable desktop computers and serves as the verification requirement for the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool used by manufacturers.

While Canada’s electronics recycling standards were found to meet

Rare earths are not uncommon at all but are not usually found in concentrations that lend themselves to extraction.

autumn 2012, 26 per cent of the population owned a tablet, more than five times the number that owned one when a similar study was done in the spring of 2011.

What all this means is that, with demand for these devices skyrocketing, demand for rare earth elements is going to increase as well. Many of these elements are not actually rare, but expensive and difficult to extract. Not only are rare earths in high demand for electronic devices, they’re also needed for emerging technologies such as hybrid vehicle batteries. They’re also difficult to recycle and to replace with a substitute material.

But the primary reason that the entire rare earth group of elements is on the list of critical raw materials is that production is dominated by China, which has imposed export restrictions and quotas. These not only could, but already have, disrupted world supply.

So we have materials that are highly sought after but extremely difficult to obtain, yet there are millions of minuscule amounts of them in our pockets and purses. The need to recycle these materials may define electronics recycling in the future.

June/July 2014 www.solidwastemag.com 9

08-13 swr june-july 2014 cvr sty pg 08-13.indd 9

14-06-19 2:03 PM

COVER STORY

BEST PRACTICES FOR MANAGING WEEE

W

hile Canada has made remarkable strides in managing WEEE, opportunities abound for improvement. Here are some noteworthy examples:

Scheduled audits should be augmented with a series of spot audits. Qualified auditors familiar with the particular complexities and challenges of WEEE are required.

E-WASTE LANDFILL BANS: When properly designed, phased in, and implemented, WEEE landfill bans can play a huge role in diverting WEEE from the waste stream. Bans could be outright material exclusions or requirements for presorting or pre-treatment. One approach would restrict the amount of WEEE allowed in landfills; in this case, loads exceeding the allowable amount of banned material would be denied entry or be subject to a hefty fee. Another approach would ban WEEE from landfill altogether. Regardless of how a ban is implemented, the penalty must be set at a high enough level to serve as an effective deterrent. Examples of Canadian municipalities with e-waste bans in place include the City of Waterloo, North Bay, and the Nanaimo Regional District in BC.

MASS-BALANCE ACCOUNTING: All incoming and outgoing material must be accountable to a mass balance check. This requires balancing all inputs and outputs and provides an opportunity for reconciliation to ensure that no WEEE is unaccounted for.

INDIVIDUAL PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY (IPR): Individual producers should be responsible for the end-of-life management of their products and packaging. When producers are able to pass their stewardship obligations (and legal liability) onto a third-party, as is the case under the current regime, there’s little incentive to design products for the environment (DfE).

GOVERNMENT-SET STANDARDS: In order to eliminate the inherent conflict of interest that exists when industry is able to set its own rules, standards should be developed, implemented, and enforced by government agencies.

MEANINGFUL PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Traditional performance metrics provide limited insight into two aspects of resource sustainability critical for the electronics recycling industry: (1) recovery of economic and environmental value; and (2) reduction of emissions from end-of-life management practices. Performance measures that relate to the efficiency of the actual recycling process and to the final destination of material (e.g., recycling rate, greenhouse gas emissions avoided) should be utilized to offer further insight into how these programs are performing in respect to environmental objectives.

PROVINCE-WIDE STANDARDS: To ensure that all WEEE is managed properly, conformance to the Electronics Recycling Standard (ERS), and other standards set by the Recycler Qualification Office, should be made a requirement in an operator’s Environmental Compliance Approval. (Currently, the ERS is applicable only to recyclers managing WEEE that has been approved under an EPRA-operated stewardship program.)

IMPROVED EXPORT CONTROL: The exact volume of e-waste exported from Canada is unknown. This is mainly due to the fact that under the current materials tracking system, WEEE can be declared under a variety of codes and labels; what may be considered “hazardous goods” in one country, for instance, may not be considered hazardous in another. To resolve this issue, federal agencies (such as Statistics Canada and Canada Border Services Agency) should work together to develop and implement specific harmonized tariff codes for WEEE (e.g., codes for material destined for recycling, for reuse, etc.). It should also be made incumbent on the exporter (i.e., Canadian recyclers and/or processors) — not the importing country — to prove that exported WEEE items are functional.

THIRD-PARTY AUDITS: Auditing must be on-site and performed on a regular basis.

A Waste Reduction EXPEDITION EVENTS • Tours: Chateau Environmental Programs / Guided Nature Walk • Gala Banquet • Rs of Excellence Awards • Exhibits and Networking Opportunities

o

CONFERENCE & AGM October 1-3, 2014 The Fairmont Chateau Lake Louise

• ICI and C&D Waste Diversion • Extended Producer Responsibility • Recycling at Sporting Events

Keynote Speakers • “Just Eat It” Filmmakers • The Carbon Farmer

SESSIONS • Waste - The Big Picture • Food Waste

REGISTRATION, EXHIBIT or SPONSORSHIP INFO:

403.843.6563 info@recycle.ab.ca www.recycle.ab.ca

10 www.solidwastemag.com June/July 2014

08-13 swr june-july 2014 cvr sty pg 08-13.indd 10

14-06-19 2:03 PM

COVER STORY

similar criteria as others, they continue to fall short in several key areas.

For starters, unlike the US e-Stewards and R2 standards, the ERS does not require that recyclers be certified by an accredited certification program, or that audits be conducted by an independent third-party. Currently, the only province that requires independent, certified auditing of processors and reported program performance is Alberta.

The ERS is also deficient when it comes to addressing WEEE originating outside of a provincial stewardship program. While it specifies that e-waste may only be exported to countries legally permitted to accept the material, the standard is silent with regards to how “non-program material” should be treated. Imported and commercial WEEE that finds its way into Canadian operations is governed only by a set of rules outlined in provincial laws, which vary by province.

Also at issue is the fact that most programs (except those in Alberta) approve the RQO standards as part of their stewardship plan; this means that, ultimately, stewards are in control.

The lack of government-set standards makes maintaining a level playing field among recyclers — one that encourages competition while ensuring environmental protection — difficult.

The implications of an uncompetitive market can be seen in Ontario.

In 2011, Ontario Electronic Stewardship (OES) changed the weighting of environmental performance in the allocation of WEEE to processors. Essentially, OES’s new processor selection criteria increased the emphasis on cost competitiveness to 55 per cent of the total score (up from 30 per cent) while reducing recycling efficiency to 20 per cent (down from 50 per cent). As a result, the fees paid out to processors declined significantly.

While such cost declines could be attributable to a number of factors, such as improved commodity markets, they’re more likely the result of OES shifting its selection criteria from one that emphasized the importance of a high recycling rate to one that prioritizes costs, with little regard for material quality.

MEASURING PERFORMANCE

Currently, the performance of most provincial WEEE programs is measured on indices of program results, such as the collection rate.

Programs with high collection rates are considered a success, while a low collection rate is assumed to represent an inefficient recycling program.

This notion is problematic for several reasons, chief among them is the fact that weight (mass) is one of the main factors that affects the calculation of collection rates, which is a weak indicator of environmental impact.

Tonnage only reveals how much material is diverted from disposal, but this has no direct

+ 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

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

It’s often said you can’t improve what you don’t measure.

June/July 2014 www.solidwastemag.com 11

08-13 swr june-july 2014 cvr sty pg 08-13.indd 11

14-06-19 2:03 PM

COVER STORY

Rich country.

relationship with environmental goals; it says nothing about the composition of WEEE (e.g., toxicity, recycled content, etc.), and offers no information on the types or amounts of recovered materials.

Further complicating the issue is that the size and weight of collected materials is constantly changing. The trend towards product light-weighting and miniaturization, and producing multi-functional

How does your program look ?

Poor country.

devices, suggests that the tonnage of WEEE collected over time may actually decrease.

www.chevylane.com

Customized waste & recycling solutions

P 905-295-7224

12 www.solidwastemag.com June/July 2014

08-13 swr june-july 2014 cvr sty pg 08-13.indd 12

14-06-19 2:03 PM

COVER STORY

Lastly, mass-based metrics provide no information as to what happens to material after it’s collected. Is WEEE being managed in a way that protects human health and the environment? Are valuable components, such as gold and silver, recovered or simply discarded? Current performance metrics, for the most part, are silent on these issues.

To make matters worse, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to track down those responsible for shipping these wastes as a complex smokescreen of brokers, shipping agents and other intermediaries has become standard practice.

THE EXPORT MESS

Most Canadians (whether from government, business, or the general public) would agree that while we have made significant strides, there’s still a long way to go. Ensuring that all the facilities that handle our ewaste, whether in Canada or abroad, maintain high operating standards with independent, certified auditing is paramount.

As Canadians, we should do what it takes to make sure the system in place works as intended and that no one (today or in the future) is harmed by our e-waste.

Despite clear commitments to the contrary, evidence suggests that WEEE containing hazardous materials continues to be exported from Canada to developing countries.

How does this continue to happen?

The primary problems concern definition and enforcement. Both the Basel Convention and the Canadian Export and Import of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Material Regulations forbid export of hazardous waste for disposal, but they allow for shipments of electronics to be exempted from regulation if they’re sent for “reuse.”

Ostensibly this policy is good as it encourages reuse and provides a channel for poorer countries to get expensive electronic goods at low prices.

The problem is that it remains fairly simple for a shipper to claim that a shipment is designated “for reuse” even when this may not be the case.

CANADIAN WASTE MANAGEMENT AWARDS 2014 EXECUTIVE OF THE YEAR CEREMONY 





   

 

Join us at the 2014 Canadian Waste To Resource Conference at the International Centre in Toronto on Wednesday, November 19th, 2014 as we celebrate the 2nd Annual Canadian Waste Management Awards. This inaugural event is being hosted by the Ontario Waste Management Association and our national partners.

SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES Gold Sponsor - $2,500

Sponsorship includes: Exclusive sponsorship recognition at the event, 2 full tables of 8 guests, company logo displayed on all advertising materials, onsite posters and materials, and onsite at the luncheon.

Silver Sponsor - $1,500

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 is attached).

Sponsorship includes: Sponsorship recognition at the event, 1 table of 8 guests, company logo displayed on all advertising materials, onsite posters and materials, and onsite at the luncheon.

Please join us in celebrating these unique individuals in the categories of small, medium and large corporations (three awards)

Sponsorship includes: Sponsorship recognition at the event, 4 tickets for luncheon, company logo displayed on all advertising materials, onsite posters and materials, and onsite at the luncheon.

Wednesday, November 19th, 2014 Holiday Inn Toronto Airport 970 Dixon Road, Toronto 6:00 pm – 8:30 pm

WHERE DOES E-WASTE GO FROM HERE?

Clarissa Morawski is Principal of CM Consulting in Peterborough, Ontario. Contact Clarissa at clarissa@cmconsultinginc.com Samantha Millette is Research Analyst with CM Consulting. Contact Samantha at samantha@cmconsultinginc.com EDDYAD_SW&R4_13_Layout 1 3/25/13 10:10 AM Page 1

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

Bronze Sponsor - $1,000

Please contact Michele Goulding at 905-791-9500. to book your sponsorship.

the 1.5-Meter Eddy as shown is just $

109,305

SGS Findings

NEARLY

20%

Ticket Price $80.00 includes HST Table of 8 $600.00 includes HST

FARTHER

ERIEZ Competitor



Buy your tickets now! Visit the OWMA website

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

THROW

See the SGS report online!

Visit Recovery.Eriez.com

June/July 2014 www.solidwastemag.com 13

08-13 swr june-july 2014 cvr sty pg 08-13.indd 13

14-06-19 2:03 PM

I C & I WA S T E

by Diane Blackburn “Reuse or redeployment is always explored before any other options are on table.”

There’s Gold in Them Thar Hills!

E-waste gold, that is...

T

he original quotation (1849) is actually a misquote from Dr. M.F. Stephenson as he tried to persuade miners to remain in the town of Dahlonega, Georgia (site of the first major US gold rush in 1828) rather than head west to the California gold fields. What Dr. Stephenson actually said was “There’s millions in it.”

Today, as mountains of e-waste pile up in processing facilities everywhere, the gold extracted is just one of many precious metals that comprise the innards of modern electronics. And so, savvy entrepreneurs have followed the money trail to become e-waste barons. Just as the Gold Rush was not a guaranteed route to riches in the 1800s, however, e-waste proven challenging for some who chose to stake their claim in the world of complex waste processing.

One of the success stories in this new industry is FCM Recycling, a Quebec-based company that set up shop in Lavaltrie in 1991 — a prescient move given that the explosion of cell phones into the mainstream was only a few years off.

The launch of “personal cellular service” changed the face of communications forever and precipitated a torrent of digital electronics and the subsequent waste that grows greater every year. Who could have im-

agined that previously sensible consumers would wantonly replace their electronics every time a newer, feature- loaded model hit the market?

But what of the hazardous metals, chemicals and treated plastics also found in electronics? E-waste processing is more than just a quick route to profitability; it’s also about correct handling of the “nasty stuff” and how reputable companies manage to the highest environmental standards. (See Cover Story, page 8.)

FCM operates under ISO 9001 and 14001 management systems and will soon have R2/RIOS certification. They’re also members of Electronic Product Stewardship Canada (EPSC) and subject to that organization’s audit process delivered by the Recycler Qualification Office (RQO). With six provincially-compliant locations operating, FCM’s credentials offer clients full assurance that all wastes are handled safely and responsibility. They can also provide secure data destruction to those requiring the service. With a commitment to regulatory compliance, FCM has set their sights on achieving “zero landfill,” a large challenge given that not all the components in the make up a flat screen, computer or cell phone are conveniently recyclable.

Plastics, of course are the “not so easily recycled” byproduct of ewaste dismantling. Undeterred, FCM established its own plastics division with a testing lab, headed up by Dr. Mahmood Mehrabzadeh. Now, with a better understanding of the complex waste and how it can be reintegrated into the manufacturing cycle, the company anticipates that this division will be fully operational by September 2014 in a South Eastern Ontario location. All manner of plastics will be salvaged, then shredded, reformulated and turned into new raw materials for re-integration into the electronics manufacturing stream. Akin to virgin plastic, these materials will also find other manufacturing uses outside of the electronics industry.

At FCM, every customer deserves a unique solution but the one common denominator for all client programs is that the 3Rs hierarchy is applied first. Reuse or redeployment is always explored before any other options are on table.

With six facilities, FCM is able to reduce not only their own carbon foot-

FCM Recycling’s Dr. Mahmood Mehrabzadeh.

14 www.solidwastemag.com June/July 2014

14-15 swr june-july 2014 ic&i waste p 14-15.indd 14

14-06-19 1:57 PM

I C & I WA S T E

print but that of their clients, who appreciate local access to e-waste services. Reduced packaging and densified materials reduce fuel and shipping costs and finding the closest approved downstream handler is a priority. The goal is to keep clients satisfied with easy-to-access recycling services that are efficient, ethical and economically sound.

FCM understands that education and community outreach will shape the next generation of recycling role models and waste responsible citizens. Previous association with The Boys Scouts of Canada and Big Brothers and Sisters has helped raise funds and awareness for these youth focused organizations. Current outreach initiatives include institutional and municipal client events, lunch-and-learn sessions and Walinga VC2336

6/11/07

N O W

2:36 PM

facility tours that connect the consumer product being recycled with the resultant commodities.

According to Chris Karambatsos, V.P. of Business Development and Compliance, “That visual always drives home the message that e-waste is not garbage.”

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

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

June/July 2014 www.solidwastemag.com 15

14-15 swr june-july 2014 ic&i waste p 14-15.indd 15

14-06-19 1:57 PM

WA S T E T O E N E R G Y

by Madelaine Tricanico “If it’s going to lower your costs, lower your emissions and create value to your local community, then why not?”

Biomass and the Cement Industry Innovation at Lafarge’s plant in Bath, Ontario

A

major Canadian cement company is focusing attention on its Bath, Ontario plant where it’s exploring the use of low-carbon fuels as a substitute for coal and other traditional fuels.

Through its novel approach to transitioning to local, renewable biomass fuels, Lafarge Canada Inc. is leading the way for other industries seeking a more environmentally sustainable future.

The cement industry is the third largest consumer of coal in Ontario: in Canada alone it produces two per cent of the world’s carbon emissions. As concerns over carbon emissions and their impact on the environment have grown, so has Lafarge’s role in actively pursuing new, innovative solutions to reduce its environmental footprint.

“Ontario took the bold step to eliminate the use of coal for the generation of electricity. Lafarge is taking a similar bold step to rethink how to wean itself from fossil fuels,” says Dr. Andrew Pollard, professor of Mechanical and Materials Engineering at Queen’s University and contributor to the Cement 2020 project.

With its 2013 launch of Cement 2020, a low-carbon fuel project, Lafarge is aiming for future sustainability while also enhancing its relationship with the community on a social, economic and environmental level. Recognizing the cement industry’s adverse effects on the environment, Lafarge has acted ambitiously in transforming the Bath plant into a case study for this project. However, the company is not alone in striving for a sustainable future. Lafarge is collaborating with a team of multi-discipline researchers and experts from various organizations who are working towards a common goal: to develop biomass initially as a 30 per cent fuel substitute to coal and, in the future, possibly 100 per cent.

Among the many participants in the project, Queen’s University is working with Lafarge to attain the scientifically sound research needed to reach its goal. The work in exploring low carbon fuels — which is unprecedented and comes with environmental benefits — was funded

by Ontario Centres of Excellence (OCE) through its Technical Problem Solving program.

“This is a great example of how industry and academia can work together to solve an industrial challenge and create a breakthrough solution that benefits the community and the environment,” says Dr. Tom Corr, President and CEO of OCE. “We were pleased to be able play a role in supporting this exciting collaboration.”

Local, reusable materials can be repurposed as fuel, creating a sustainable alternative to traditional fuels. However, there are risks as well as benefits. To ensure operational safety, as well as safety systems and standards for fuel storage, Geoffrey Leslie, a Queen’s MSc student and participant in the Cement 2020 project, has intensely researched fuel properties essential to preventing dust explosions or spontaneous combustion using heat flux sensors and measurement equipment.

Low-carbon fuels have lower lifecycle emissions than coal. By using this alternative to coal, Lafarge is in fact decreasing the “carbon cost” of cement. The close-to-home nature of the fuels is also a major plus.

At Lafarge’s cement plant in Bath, Ontario: (left to right) Robert Cumming, Environment and Public Affairs Manager, Lafarge Canada; Queens University MSc Student, Geoffrey Leslie; OCE Business Development Manager, Samira Afrand; Lafarge Plant Manager, Richard Sebastianelli; and, Queen’s University Professor, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Dr. Andrew Pollard.

“They’re very much tied to what the local economy is doing,” says Leslie. “Taking landfill products like construction and demolition wood and finding uses for them is a great way to address landfill problems.

Low-carbon fuels really do solve a lot of problems.”

“What is world leading here is the emissions testing and comparative lifecycle assessment,” says Robert Cumming, Environmental and Public Affairs Manager, Lafarge Canada.

“We’re contributing very comprehensive information that will change the worldview of low-carbon fuel and encourage others to adopt it faster. If it’s going to lower your costs, lower your emissions and create value to your local community, then why not?”

Leslie notes that Lafarge’s leadership on this front will benefit a wide range of industries.

“This is research that can be applied by others,” he says. “It will help promote the use of low-carbon fuel and increase awareness of the benefits in terms of utilizing local waste and carbon reduction.”

For more information on the Cement 2020 project visit cement2020.org Madelaine Tricanico is a writer working in Marketing and Communications at Ontario Centres of Excellence (OCE) in Toronto, Ontario. Contact Madelaine at madelaine.tricanico@oce-ontario.org

16 www.solidwastemag.com June/July 2014

16-17 swr june-july 2014 waste 2 energy p 16-17.indd 16

14-06-19 1:58 PM

COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS

FLEET SOLUTIONS

If your fleet isn’t using natural gas, you’re wasting a precious resource.

Your money.

Natural gas is the only fuel that has actually dropped in price over the past decade.

And that means if you’re using anything else, you’re throwing good money away.

With annual at-the-pump savings of up to 50 per cent, now is the perfect time to convert to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). As the appetite for low-cost,

low-emission alternatives to diesel and gasoline continues to grow, so do the advantages of switching to a fuel that reduces costs, burns cleaner and helps you win and retain customers.

For more information, please contact Stu Owen by phone at 519-885-7404 or by email at sowen@uniongas.com.

A member of our dedicated CNG team will meet with you and answer your questions. If you’d like, Union Gas will provide a FREE, first-cut assessment of natural gas as a fuel for your fleet.

© Union Gas Limited 02/2014 UG20130143

16-17 swr june-july 2014 waste 2 energy p 16-17.indd 17

14-06-19 1:58 PM

CNG VEHICLES

Energy-Efficient Municipal Collection The City of Medicine Hat, Alberta’s compressed natural gas project

T

he City of Medicine Hat is located in the southeast corner of Alberta, and has a population of 61,180 (as of 2012). Medicine Hat inherited its name from the native word “Saamis” which means medicine man’s hat, and the naming of the city derives from several exotic legends.

According to the city’s welcoming guide, in 1883 the Canadian Pacific Railway stopped to build a bridge across the South Saskatchewan River and a tent town was born. With the arrival of the railroad came the North West Mounted Police. They maintained law and order among the railway workers and First Nation’s people of the area and made Medicine Hat a law-abiding town. Today Medicine Hat is known as Canada’s sunniest city with more than 2,500 hours of sunshine a year, yielding the longest growing season in Alberta (120+ days per year).

The city has been a natural gas producer for over 100 years, with fields in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Rudyard Kipling once described the City as having “all hell for a basement” given the gas fields throughout the area. Today the gas is provided to residents and businesses and also serves as the feedstock for the city’s electrical generation.

One of city council’s strategic priorities is for the substantial integration of natural gas vehicles into the city’s fleet. In February, 2012, council approved a budget for the implementation of a compressed natural gas (CNG) project. The rationale for the decision includes environmental considerations, including the reduction of harmful emissions of

by John Komanchuk “Clean Energy has been contracted to supply the CNG station, and anticipates commissioning in the fourth quarter of this year.” greenhouse gases (CO2, NO2, CH4), carbon monoxide, and smog-related emissions. Council also wishes to reduce toxic and carcinogenic pollutants (e.g., benzene, acetaldehyde), volatile organic compounds and particulate matter that affects air quality and human health.

A “well-to-wheel” comparison indicates that CNG is environmentally superior compared with other transportation fuels.

The rationale for the decision also includes economic considerations, including the cost savings of using CNG rather than diesel. CNG prices have been lower and less volatile than diesel or gasoline, which provides more cost certainty (which is important for municipal planning).

Social considerations include the benefit that residents and operators will enjoy from the fact that CNG vehicles are much quieter than diesel buses or trucks. The reduced cost of operating CNG vehicles and all

18 www.solidwastemag.com June/July 2014

18-20 swr june-july 2014 CNG vehicles p 18-20.indd 18

14-06-23 10:41 AM

CNG VEHICLES

Five Labrie CNG solid waste collection vehicles have been ordered and will arrive this summer. By 2017, 19 buses and 15 solid waste collection vehicles will operate on CNG in addition to light duty vehicles.

CNG SHRED TRUCK Alpine Shredders’ 720 STAK CNG

A

lpine Shredders Limited of Kitchener, Ontario has introduced the industry’s first shred truck powered entirely by cleaner-burning compressed natural gas (CNG). The 720 STAK CNG includes a Peterbilt 382 chassis powered by a Cummins Westport ISL G engine offering power characteristics similar to diesel engines while operating cost-effective low-carbon fuel.

CNG is domestic, abundant, and on average about 50 per cent less expensive than diesel. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, over 90 per cent of the natural gas used in North America is domestically produced. CNG is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, which means less engine maintenance and longer engine life. The US EPA certifies CNG usage can result in up to 30 percent less greenhouse gas emissions. Additional benefits include quieter engines and simplified emission systems.

Average diesel prices are almost double CNG diesel-gallon-equivalent.

Visit alpineshredders.com

720 STAK CNG is the industry’s first CNG-powered shred truck.

June/July 2014 www.solidwastemag.com 19

18-20 swr june-july 2014 CNG vehicles p 18-20.indd 19

14-06-19 1:58 PM

TRUCKS • Front End • Roll Off • Rear End • Sideloader

CONTAINERS • FEL • R/O • Lugger • Environmental

OTHER • Service • Parts • Compacters • Pandora

Contact: Pierre St. Amand c. 519.546.7366 p. 1.855.446.9946 f. 289.429.1394

e. pierre@binzzinc.com w. binzzinc.com

Distributed By:

7065 Twiss Road, Campbellville, Ontario, L0P 1B0

Medicine Hat will install a CNG gas fuelling station similar to the one depicted here from Emterra’s recycling facility in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The station is supplied by natural gas specialty equipment provider Clean Energy (cleanenergyfuels.com).

these considerations will contribute to the sustainability of Medicine Hat’s public transit and solid waste operations.

Components There are a number of components to Medicine Hat’s CNG project.

A station site is currently being developed (servicing, grading, paving) at 10th Ave. SW, adjacent to the airport. This station will supply CNG fuel to buses and waste and recycling collection vehicles.

Clean Energy has been contracted to supply the CNG station, and anticipates commissioning in the fourth quarter of this year.

Six new “Flyer” CNG buses and five Labrie CNG solid waste collection vehicles have been ordered and will arrive this summer. By 2017, 19 buses and 15 solid waste collection vehicles will operate on CNG in addition to light duty vehicles.

Upgrades to the maintenance and bus storage facility will be required to safely store or work on CNG units. Upgrades to the solid waste storage facility are also required for the storage of CNG waste collection vehicles.

Medicine Hat anticipates additional training programs for its mechanics and the vehicle operators, and will invest in the development of standard operating procedures to ensure the safe operation and maintenance of the natural-gas vehicles.

It’s a lot of change but the city looks forward to financial savings to make it worthwhile and achieving a more environmentally-sustainable footprint.

John Komanchuk is CNG Project Manager for the City of Medicine Hat, Alberta. Contact John at johkom@medicinehat.ca 20 www.solidwastemag.com June/July 2014

18-20 swr june-july 2014 CNG vehicles p 18-20.indd 20

14-06-19 2:15 PM

LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY

by Chuck Fleishman “Bonding synthetic turf to the EDPM reduces its exposure to UV.”

Synthetic Grass Geomembrane Composite An advanced landfill capping solution from LiteEarth™

W

hen a landfill reaches its final grade, an intermediate or permanent closure system is installed to isolate the waste from the environment. Many factors must be considered when designing a closure method: gas production and containment, erosion concerns, slope stability, differential settlement of waste, water runoff, installation and maintenance costs, the surrounding community, and many more environmental and logistical implications.

For final closure of a landfill, soil caps have traditionally demonstrated some vulnerability to interface issues, erosion and weather-related events that can lead to failure (plus substantial maintenance requirements).

These limitations and older technology, among other considerations, prompted the development of LiteEarth™. The innovative new capping system is an exposed synthetic grass-geomembrane liner engineered to address the technical, environmental and logistical challenges that face the waste management industry, particularly in the areas of long interim and final closure.

In addition to municipal solid waste, LiteEarth is also suitable for

coal ash deposits, soil erosion control, surface mining locations, and more.

The LiteEarth system consists of four major components. The first is the ethylene polymer diene monomer (EPDM) geomembrane liner

The synthetic grass is adhered to a woven carrier geotextile, which is then factory bonded to the 45 mil EPDM liner with an industrial grade adhesive.

June/July 2014 www.solidwastemag.com 21

21-22 swr june-july 2014 landfill techn p 21-22.indd 21

14-06-19 1:58 PM

LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY

— the barrier component of the product — which has been used successfully worldwide as an environmental barrier liner for more than 40 years. EPDM is impermeable and highly resistant to weathering.

The second component is synthetic grass is manufactured in an ISO 9001 quality control facility a that uses a woven primary backing for added stability, multi-axial tensile strength, and enhanced tear and puncture resistance properties.

Next is a high-performance butyl adhesive splice is used for seaming, which offers strong peel, shear and temperature performance.

Lastly, one of several anchoring methods includes trenchless earth anchors that are quick and easy to install and tested to withstand category IV hurricane winds.

Putting it all together, the synthetic grass is adhered to a woven carrier geotextile, which is then factory bonded to the 45 mil EPDM liner with an industrial grade adhesive for permanent welding of the components. The result is a lightweight, impermeable, single composite that provides a cost-effective, durable, aesthetically-pleasing and environmentally-friendly solution for long-term landfill closure.

Installation LiteEarth is easy and efficient to install, eliminating repeat site visits to apply layers of capping materials and the associated labor. The composite is delivered to a job site in pre-manufactured size and length specifications, 15 feet wide by up to 300 feet long rolls, and installed over a prepared subgrade, drainage geocomposite or a cushion geotextile.

The product is seamed using a high-performance butyl adhesive splice, offering an easy “seam and go” process. Unlike the fusion welding of thermoplastics, the splicing method is performed without the need for generators and welding equipment. A thin coat of primer is applied to two overlapping panels, before a 7-inch wide butyl adhesive strip is placed between the primed surfaces. The two are then joined under slight pressure, creating a strong and durable seam that is impermeable to both water and air. This method of seaming has a 30-year track record of success for EPDM. Each of the components as well as the system of LiteEarth have been tested. For landfills that may go through a significant amount of settlement, the flexibility and durability of the cover material is an important property. EPDM has been tested to perform under extreme temperatures and weather conditions, and offers greater puncture resistance, better linear dimensional performance and better multi-axial elongation than LLDPE, which has been used in alternative capping methods. Further, bonding synthetic turf to the EDPM reduces its exposure to UV, extending its lifetime performance well beyond exposed EPDM covers.

BENEFITS Carbon Footprint: Reduced carbon footprint compared to traditional landfill covers.

Erosion Control: No infill and no soil design prevent erosion and other issues associated with traditional closures.

Clean Water Runoff: Generates clean and predictable water runoff, helping to curb water pollution.

Operational Flexibility: When differential settling occurs, LiteEarth can easily be repaired to accommodate earth shifts. Since this surface system is simple and visible, additional waste can be added and the system seamed with no impact to the overall integrity or initial environmental protection.

Performance Benefits: Wrinkle resistant due to better thermal stability, and addresses issues of soil erosion, lack of vegetation growth, slope failure, hippos and gas release.

Economical: Offers significant cost savings over 50+ years versus traditional Subtitle D, while also providing airspace benefits at full elevation and side slopes.

Simple in Design: Monolithic liner replaces multiple layers that minimizes on-site construction and installation issues.

Chuck Fleishman is Director of LiteEarth in Austin, Texas. contact Chuck at cfleishman@liteearth.com

22 www.solidwastemag.com June/July 2014

21-22 swr june-july 2014 landfill techn p 21-22.indd 22

14-06-19 1:58 PM

O R G A N I C M AT T E R S Grinding incoming brush.

Saskatoon’s Composting Program I

was impressed with spring conference put on by SWANA Northern Lights and the Saskatchewan Waste Reduction Council (SWRC) that highlighted waste diversion in the province, other parts of the country and places abroad. (See my blog posts from the event at solidwastemag.com) Saskatchewan has implemented some curbside recyclable collection programs and continues to grow a number of EPR programs.

I last wrote about composting in Saskatchewan in the February/ March 2006 edition of this magazine and much has changed. According to the Saskatchewan Waste Reduction Council website, as of July 2013 there were about 130 locations in the province to drop off leaf-and-yard waste. These are mostly at small landfill locations and depots. The larger more urban centres have larger depots (in some cases dedicated solely to leaf-and-yard waste and in other cases accepting a range of materials).

Findacomposter.com reveals that there are about 10 composting facilities in Saskatchewan, primarily in larger urban centres. While a number of communities offer backyard composter programs, organic waste diversion is very much focused on composting leaf-and-yard waste.

The City of Saskatoon has composted leaf-and-yard wastes since 1999, starting with a small site at its landfill. In the early 2000s it worked with the SWRC, which provided technical assistance, to help it start a standalone depot system.

In 2006 Saskatoon set up its first standalone depot devoted specifically to receiving and composting leaf-and-yard waste. The McOrmand Road Compost Depot is a 10-acre tract on the east end of the city. The depot has a long-term lease from the city (which owns the land). In 2007 Saskatoon opened the 15-acre Highway 7 Compost Depot on the city’s west side. Again, it has a long-term lease from the city.

by Paul van der Werf “Saskatoon accommodates between 45,000 and 50,000 vehicles per year at its depots.”

Both depots receive and process a wide range of leaf-and-yard wastes including grass, leaves, branches and logs. Due to Dutch Elm disease, elm is not allowed at the depots.

The city doesn’t have scales at its depots and so has used a combination of volume and densities to estimate annual tonnages, which have been steadily increasing. In 2008 the city diverted an estimated 4,000 tonnes, which skyrocketed to an estimated 15,000 tonnes by 2009 (and for the last three years to an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 tonnes/year, although that has included materials from land clearing and grubbing).

Saskatoon accommodates between 45,000 and 50,000 vehicles per year at its depots. It collects license plate and customer type information (i.e., residential versus commercial) to help keep track of depot usage.

Residents can drop leaf-and-yard wastes at no charge but commercial vehicles are charged an annual fee to use the depots. ($200 for the first vehicle and $50 per vehicle thereafter.)

The city contracts out all work and regularly put out tenders for gate attendants, loader operator, screening and wood grinding.

The gate attendants (three at each depot) manage traffic and leafand-yard waste drop off at each site; they also collect vehicle data and June/July 2014 www.solidwastemag.com 23

23-24 swr june-july 2014 organic matters p 23-24.indd 23

14-06-19 1:59 PM

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

fees as well as keeping the sites clean. Customers are expected to empty their own bags.

The loader operator is responsible for helping to keep the depots clean and (importantly) transferring (on-site) the leaf-and-yard waste for composting. The composting pads at both sites are on the ground with drainage directed to on-site ponds. The wastes are composted using an open windrow system (150-200 feet). The ground brush (4-inch minus) from the previous season (i.e., ground in winter) is mixed with incoming leaf-and-yard waste. Then three buckets of ground brush is mixed to one bucket of leaves/grass to create “high porosity” windrows (to help make up for infrequent turning). Windrows are turned two to three times over the course of the season (basically moved to a new position and re-mixed).

Experiments have been conducted adding moisture to the windrows by conveying water from ponds using a “trash” pump, but to date operators have found that the high porosity of the windrows doesn’t absorb the leachate very well.

The city is investigating ways to improve the efficiency of its composting operations and is currently planning to tender for a compost turner (self propelled but pulled behind a loader or tractor).

Screening of product is undertaken in the summer (of material received the previous summer and fall) and fall (early summer material).

Over the last year 7,500 m3 was screened.

The composting process takes about one year. The Parks Department historically takes most of the compost produced (2,000-4,000 m3).

Since 2008 Saskatoon has provided compost free to community gardens (300-500 m3/year). It also markets compost back to residents through “Compost Sale Weekends” ($5.00/20 litres compost; $5.00/40 litres mulch). It’s investigating setting up bulk sales of this compost.

Composting of food waste in the province is very much focused on backyard composting at the moment. Saskatoon holds an annual Master Composter workshop, provides rebates for compost bins and (in conjunction with SWRC) offers Master Composter home visits.

Paul van der Werf is President of 2cg Inc. in London, Ontario. Contact Paul at 2cg@sympatico.ca

Natural gas.

Good for driving innovation.

From tractor-trailers and delivery trucks to transit and waste haulers, FortisBC works with local fleet operators to put natural gas-fuelled vehicles on B.C. roads. Saving operators up to 50 per cent* in fuel costs, natural gas also helps to improve air quality.

For financial incentives, visit fortisbc.com/ngt or email ngt@fortisbc.com. *Based on comparison of fuel costs of diesel and FortisBC Rate 6 (fuelling station) from 2000 to 2011.

FortisBC uses the FortisBC name and logo under license from Fortis Inc. (14-041.1 01/2014)

24 www.solidwastemag.com June/July 2014

23-24 swr june-july 2014 organic matters p 23-24.indd 24

14-06-19 1:59 PM

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

by John Nicholson “Exner’s technology combines German technology along with custom modifications to other equipment.”

ZAP!

Companies bring solutions to electronic waste in Canada

T

he electronics industry is one of the most innovative sectors in business. Improved devices that are faster and cheaper along with new products appear almost weekly. Consumers can barely keep up. A negative side effect of the constant innovation in the sector is the accumulation of waste electronics and electrical equipment (commonly referred to as “WEEE” or simply “e-waste”) as consumers are drawn to shiny new baubles that are faster, sleeker, and more powerful.

The result of Canadians’ obsession with electronic gadgets and equipment is that, on average, each person generates 24 kg of e-waste per year. In addition to the volume, the problem is that this waste often contains heavy metals and other pollutants that should be kept out of the environment.

There are signs the electronics producers have a growing commitment to actively manage e-waste. Examples of partnerships between electronics industry and e-waste recyclers abound.

Partnerships The top three vendors of computers in the world — Dell, Lenovo, and HP — all have arrangements with e-waste recyclers.

Dell recently signed a partnership agreement with Newlight Technologies under which the company can provide carbon-negative packaging for its products. Starting in the fall of 2014, Dell will sell its products using Newlight’s AirCarbon packaging that’s a thermoplastic material derived using a biocatalyst that converts carbon into plastic.

AirCarbon is produced by the taking the methane and carbon dioxide from renewable biogas facilities (i.e., landfills or anaerobic digesters) and polymerizing them into plastic. The company claims that production of its thermoplastic can significantly out-compete oil-based plastics on price.

Dell recently signed a partnership arrangement with Wistron GreenTech to recycle the plastic from its computers. Wistron GreenTech turns plastics from recycled electronics back into new computer equipment.

Computer manufacturers have also focused their attention at ensuring proper e-waste recycling in the developing world. Dell just launched a large-scale e-waste recycling facility in east Africa. HP is collaborating with partners in Kenya to create a e-waste recycling centre that will create hundreds of green jobs and protect worker health and the environment.

Globally, certification programs for e-waste recyclers are expanding; these verify claims of proper recycling, worker health and safety, and en-

vironmental protection. Programs include EL Environment certification, R2/RIOS, e-Stewards, and Canada’s Recycler Qualification Program.

Canadian innovators & trends The e-waste recycling sector has grown exponentially in recent years as a result of government and industry programs. With the growth of the industry has come innovation.

An example of an innovative Canadian e-waste recycler is Exner E-Waste Processing Inc. located in Morden, Manitoba. The company has been in operation since 2010 and utilizes technology developed and engineering by its President, Hubertus Exner, and Vice President, Paul Wegner. Exner’s technology combines German technology along with custom modifications to other equipment including a shredder, hammer mill and a screening machine. The result is a fast, efficient, and clean process for metal recovery.

Back in 2011, Mississauga, Ontario could claim to be the home of the “world’s most technologically advanced e-waste recycling facility.”

The claim was made by Sims Recycling Solutions officials during the opening of the facility. Company officials made the claim based on the fact that the multi-million dollar facility had three significant innovations over a typical facility: a cathode ray tube recycling line that was fully mechanized and produced zero-waste; an advanced metals recycling technology that recovered more metals; and, an advanced plastic separation technology.

According to research conducted by Professor Josh Lepawsky at Memorial University in Newfoundland, the global e-waste trade is in a state of flux. According to Lepawsky, developing countries are now shipping more e-waste by weight to developed countries than vice versa.

The backward practices in developing countries of recycling the ewaste is giving way to new, state-of-the-art e-waste recycling facilities with advanced pollution controls. Attero Electronics Asset Management Company in New Delhi, India, is an example of an advanced e-waste recycling facility in a developing country.

The global shift in e-waste flows is a result of the increasing view of e-waste as a valuable commodity both for extracting metals and manufacturing new materials. The recent trends in e-waste recycling signals a bright future for e-waste recyclers in Canada.

John Nicholson, M.Sc., P.Eng., is a consultant based in Toronto, Ontario. Contact John at john.nicholson@ebccanada.com June/July 2014 www.solidwastemag.com 25

25 swr june-july 2014 waste bus p 25.indd 25

14-06-19 1:59 PM

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

by Rosalind Cooper, L.L.B. “SO argues that it should pay at least $15 million less than its full 50 per cent.”

Hearing Aid

Inside Ontario’s Blue Box funding battle

T

he Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the City of Toronto have combined forces and are challenging funding for the Blue Box program by Stewardship Ontario (SO) through an arbitration process. The challenge is based on a provision of the Waste Diversion Act, 2002 that the parties are interpreting quite differently, resulting in significant cost differences.

As any reader of this magazine knows, the Blue Box program is intended to divert waste from landfill by recycling materials such as paper, plastic and packaging. Municipalities across Ontario have run such programs for approximately 30 years. SO is an industry group that represents companies that make or import paper, products and other materials that go into curbside recycling bins. Many of the stewards are small- and medium-sized businesses, but SO is mostly operated by the large consumer product manufacturers and retail corporations.

Between them AMO and Toronto represent over 90 per cent of Ontario’s Blue Box programs and 99 per cent of the municipal residents they serve. AMO alone represents 211 Blue Box programs that serve more than 400 municipalities.

The funding scheme The Waste Diversion Act, 2002 provides that a waste diversion program developed under the Act for Blue Box waste must provide for payments to municipalities, to be determined in a manner that results in the total amount paid to all municipalities being equal to 50 per cent of the total net costs incurred by those municipalities (as a result of the program).

AMO and Toronto argue that, as a result of this provision in the Act, stewards have been required to pay for half of the costs of the Blue Box program since 2003, but that they have not met this obligation. They decided to refer to the issue to arbitration to obtain an interpretation of the obligation of SO under the Act to contribute to “net costs” incurred by municipalities (as a result of the Blue Box program).

The dispute brings into focus the question of whether the funding scheme, which was intended to split the costs of the program equally between stewards and taxpayers, is operating as intended, or whether municipalities are bearing a disproportionate share of the funding requirements. In this regard, municipalities state that SO has always paid closer to 46 per cent of the costs, thereby placing a greater burden on taxpayers (which was not the intent of the regulatory scheme).

Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) confirmed that municipal net costs

for operating the Blue Box program in 2012 were $228 million. Based on this, SO’s obligation under the Act should have been $114 million.

SO argues that it should pay at least $15 million less than its full 50 per cent obligation under the regulatory scheme based on financial models of what recycling should cost. Municipalities argue that the regulatory scheme is based on real costs, not modelling or theoretical costs, and that costs have been rising.

The real dispute SO has argued for some time that municipalities should be more efficient in managing the Blue Box programs and that it shouldn’t pay such high fees to operate these programs.

In the past, the disagreement over costsharing has been resolved by negotiation, whereby the parties would agree on industry’s share of costs based on cost data reported by municipalities, recycling market rates and other factors. However, in 2013 the two sides were unable to come to an agreement. The dispute referred to arbitration involves determining steward obligations to municipalities for 2014.

The dispute is based on wording of the Waste Diversion Act, 2002 and whether “net costs” means the real dollars spent by the municipalities in operating and improving the Blue Box program, or whether (as SO argues) this gives the municipalities a licence to undertake initiatives or programs that aren’t cost-efficient, knowing they’ll only fund half of those costs.

While many have focused the issue on whether the stewards should be required to pay their “fair share,” the real question for taxpayers is whether the Blue Box program is operating as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. Taxpayers are paying (at least) 50 per cent of the costs of the recycling program and if it can be run more efficiently that directly benefits them.

The question arose as to whether the hearing should be public or private. The arbitrator concluded that an open and transparent hearing would serve the public interest and concerned a potentially significant amount of taxpayer money. The hearing itself will run throughout the summer with a decision expected in the fall.

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

26 www.solidwastemag.com June/July 2014

26 swr june-july 2014 regrndup p 26.indd 26

14-06-19 1:59 PM

OWMA REPORT

by Rob Cook “Ministry inspectors issued 2,287 orders and 58 stop work orders.”

The Blitz Safety investigations yield results in the waste & recycling sector

Safety blitz's can help prevent accidents like this dramatic rollover that spilled the truck's contents and could have caused injuries.

E

very year, in our neighbourhoods and in our workplaces, preventable accidents needlessly occur. According to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, the injury rate increased by more than 12 per cent from 2010 to 2011 for industrial sector workers involved in recycling and waste management activities.

As a result, and along with the Ontario Ministry of Environment’s proposed waste reduction framework, the Ministry of Labour conducted its first ever safety blitz of the recycling and waste management sector during the months of November and December 2013.

The blitz included inspection of facilities dealing with municipal solid waste, scrap metal, printed paper and packaging, municipal hazardous or special waste, tires, waste electronics and electrical equipment, wastewater treatment, textiles, wood and glass. The inspectors targeted workplaces: • Known to have a high-frequency of injuries related to recycling and waste management; • Where hazards are known or suspected to be present; • Where complaints regarding non-compliance have been received; and • Where there is a history of non-compliance.

During the two-month long blitz, labour ministry inspectors conducted 830 field visits to 610 workplaces; they issued 2,287 orders and 58 stop work orders. On average 3.75 orders were issued per industrial workplace (considered above average by the ministry). The infractions

ranged widely, from failure to maintain equipment in good condition, failure to take every precaution reasonable in circumstances, and failure to provide information, instruction and supervision. The top three orders issued include: failure to ensure annual inspection of lifting devices; failure to guard pinch points and moving parts; and, failure to ensure materials are safely transferred, placed or stored.

For workplace safety within the sector the completion of comprehensive workplace assessments (of both vehicle and pedestrian traffic) is critical. The movement of vehicles in close proximity to pedestrians has been assessed as one of the most hazardous activities at most worksites — with reversing likely the most hazardous.

When assessments are conducted, it’s important to ensure compliance with all relevant requirements including: • Barriers, warning signs or other safeguards for the protection of all workers in an area where vehicle or pedestrian traffic may endanger the safety of a worker; • Competent signal persons for equipment moving materials or other vehicles where line of sight is an issue; • Securing unattended vehicles against accidental movement.

In addition, employers should consider the establishment of best practices for mobile material handling equipment such as: • Policies to restrict or separate pedestrian and/or vehicular movement in high travel routes; June/July 2014 www.solidwastemag.com 27

27-28 swr june-july 2014 owma report p 27-28.indd 27

14-06-19 2:00 PM

OWMA REPORT

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

www.municipalwaste.ca

3,000 Staff in 100+ Offices

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

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

Project1

11/13/06

10:28 AM

Page 1

• Signage, including surface markings, to delineate either pedestrian or vehicle use; • Driver and pedestrian visibility enhancements such as: no obstructions or install aids such as mirrors, alarms for both pedestrians and drivers and reflective garments (e.g., CSA Z96, ANSI/ISEA 107, or European National Standard EN-471); • Awareness training for drivers, pedestrians and other on-property workers on company policies, procedures and programs; • Personal signalling devices (e.g., pedestrian hand-held horns); and • Adequate space allowances to allow for safe turning and/or backup, etc.

The results of the labour ministry blitz will almost certainly lead to additional actions by the ministry to further ensure safety in the sector. The waste management sector poses many potential risks to employees and it is important we all put safety first.

The OWMA’s Safety & Trans­por­ta­tion Committee continues to develop best management practice guides to assist members like the ones developed for Cold & Heat Stress, Bin Safety Guideline, and the Ergonomics Safety Alert. Over the next year, the committee will also focus on finding more ways to ensure improved safety in the sector including a public awareness campaign and providing more opportunities for training. Regular updates on best practices are also provided through the association’s weekly newsletter.

The committee has also been working with Jonah Schein, the MPP for Davenport, on potential legislation to help protect collection workers. Similar legislation has been moved forward or proposed in Michigan, Alabama, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Georgia and New Jersey. If you’re interested in more information on what you can do to put safety first and/or want to join the OWMA Safety & Transportation Committee please email info@owma.org By putting safety first and working together we can stay safe.

Rob Cook is CEO of the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) in Brampton, Ontario.

Contact Rob at rcook@owma.org

There are lots of resources available to assist the sector that OWMA has included on its website at owma.org/Issues/ SafetyTransportation.aspx

28 www.solidwastemag.com June/July 2014

27-28 swr june-july 2014 owma report p 27-28.indd 28

14-06-20 9:15 AM

Advertisers’ Index

June/July 2014

Company Page # 2gc/Waste Management Consulting Services . . . . . . . . 28

Company Page # Mack Trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

BDP Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Marathon Tech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Binzz Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Municipal Waste Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Chevy Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Clean Energy Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Conestoga-Rovers & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Environmental Business Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Eriez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 FortisBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

MMM Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Ontario Waste Management Association . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Paradigm Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Recycling Council of Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Trux Route Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Heil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Union Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Kilmer Brownfield Equity Fund L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Van Dyk Recycling Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Machinex Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Walinga Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Brownfield redevelopmenT projecTs involve more Than jusT science That’s why our experts in financial risk analysis, urban policy, feasibility studies, planning and environmental engineering

Compressed Natural Gas & Infrastructure Consultants Marathon is North America’s leading CNG consulting firm dedicated to providing technical and financial analysis and support services for CNG infrastructure projects.

Marathon has extensive experience in the design of CNG fueling stations and garage modifications for the refuse market.

Marathon is pleased to offer the following CNG specialized consulting: • • • • • •

Feasibility Analysis Concept and Detailed Design Support for CNG Stations Maintenance and Storage Garage Upgrade Analysis for CNG Vehicles Bid, Construction and Commissioning Period Support CNG Station Technology, Design and Operations Training Programs Operational Support

Let Marathon be your CNG expert!

Marathon Corporation Contact: radams@marathontech.ca

www.marathontech.ca

work together to bring a ‘big picture’ view that facilitates informed decisions, maximizes value and mitigates risk for our clients.

HMMsept08gm1307 Kilmer.qxd

9/12/08

4:27 PM Page 1 www.mmm.ca

Kilmer Brownfield Equity Fund L.P. Canada’s leading fund dedicated to the redevelopment of brownfields

Putting Private Equity to Work The Kilmer Brownfield Equity Fund is dedicated to creating value for stakeholders through the clean-up and revitalization of brownfield properties in Canada.

If you have a property for sale, please contact Pamela Kraft, Development Manager at 416-814-3437 pkraft@kilmergroup.com www.kilmergroup.com/brownfield June/July 2014 www.solidwastemag.com 29

29 swr june-july 2014 ad idx p 29.indd 29

14-06-23 11:15 AM

BLOG

by Paul Henderson “The Recycle First Coalition has 12 members who collectively employ over 800 people in the lower mainland.”

Waste Flow Management & Bylaw 280 The City of Vancouver’s perspective

I

n 2010, Metro Vancouver’s Board of Directors set waste diversion targets comparable to the best in the world: 70 per cent by 2015 and 80 per cent by 2020, up from 58 per cent in 2012. Metro Vancouver needs a waste flow management bylaw to reach those targets.

We estimate that in 2012 about 50,000 of the region’s one million total disposed tonnes of residential and commercial/institutional garbage were hauled to transfer stations in neighboring Abbotsford rather than delivered to Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouver (regional) facilities. In 2013, the estimated amount climbed to at least 70,000 tonnes with continuing increases in 2014.

Bylaw 280 is intended to establish a level playing field for waste haulers and recyclers by requiring that garbage be delivered to regional facilities so that disposal bans can be properly enforced, and the cost of solid waste infrastructure and recycling and waste avoidance measures shared equitably.

Metro Vancouver has bans and prohibitions in place to encourage diversion.

In 2013, Metro Vancouver levied approximately $500,000 in surcharges on 5,000 loads where “banned” materials were observed by inspectors in residual waste loads. Metro Vancouver is consulting on organics and clean wood disposal bans to be implemented in 2015. Without control over the disposal of waste, bans become ineffective.

Bylaw 280 The debate regarding Bylaw 280 has become polarized. A group of local recycling companies have banded together to form the Recycle First Coalition and have recommended the BC Minister of Environment approve Bylaw 280. The Recycle First Coalition has 12 members who collectively employ over 800 people in the lower mainland and recycle more than one million tonnes per year. Additionally, seven regional districts across southern British Columbia have passed resolutions in support of Bylaw 280. These regional districts realize that that control over the disposal of residual waste is critical to implementing solid waste management plans mandated by the province.

Waste management companies, a neighboring regional district, and some business groups have spoken out in opposition to Bylaw 280.

These entities suggest that Bylaw 280 will restrict competition and in-

novation and drive up waste management costs all in the name of building an “incinerator.”

Metro Vancouver’s perspective is that no matter how the region manages its residual garbage, Bylaw 280 is critical to achieving our waste diversion goals and ensuring a cost-effective and equitable disposal system.

Expected future increases in waste tipping fees are driven by expected decreases in waste quantities as Metro Vancouver achieves 70 and 80 per cent diversion. Overall disposal costs are expected to remain flat.

There are many milestones ahead in the development of wasteto-energy and entities that do not support the development of wasteto-energy should participate in the consultation and engagement process for the project. Metro Vancouver’s board and ultimately the minister of environment will decide the fate of waste-to-energy at least two years into the future.

Some stakeholders suggest Bylaw 280 restrains the development of mixed waste material recovery facilities (MWMRFs) processing residential and commercial/institutional waste. MWMRFs have been tried in communities across North America for many years and have repeatedly been unsuccessful. To my knowledge, the only functioning MWMRFs in North America are in place in communities where the community controls the flow of garbage and has dictated that the waste be processed through a MWMRF. Bylaw 280 has two key provisions related to MWMRFs. One provision is that bans and prohibitions that are applied at regional facilities are also applied at the MWMRFs. This ensures that the development of MWMRFs doesn’t undermine source separation.

Bylaw 280 also requires that residual garbage from MWMRFs be delivered to regional facilities. This will ensure that the regional system remains cost effective, and also ensures that the MWMRFs are not simply transfer stations in disguise.

In the end Bylaw 280 is about ensuring that control of the disposal of waste remains with local government for the purpose of maximizing diversion and ensuring a cost effective and equitable disposal system. The alternative scenario of failure of Bylaw 280 and uncontrolled bypassing of regional facilities will all but certainly not achieve those objectives.

Paul Henderson, P.Eng., is General Manager of the Metro Vancouver Solid Waste Services Department in Vancouver, BC. Contact Paul at paul.henderson@metrovancouver.org

30 www.solidwastemag.com June/July 2014

30 swr june-july 2014 blog p 30.indd 30

14-06-19 2:00 PM

T:8.125”

The paTh To The fuTure sTarTs close To home.

T:10.875”

Mack helped build this country and we’re doing all we can to keep it strong. Today, our Mack® TerraPro® Natural Gas trucks help cut costs by tapping into abundant domestic energy. Available in Cabover and Low Entry configurations, these trucks combine the cost savings and environmental benefits of clean-burning natural gas with the legendary power and performance you expect from a Mack. That’s something we can all be proud of.

31-32 swr june/july 2014 ADS p 31-32.indd 31

MackTrucks.com

14-06-19 2:01 PM

Exclusive Sales and Service for BOLLEGRAAF, LUBO and TITECH

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

31-32 swr june/july 2014 ADS p 31-32.indd 32

14-06-19 2:01 PM