December 2015/January 2016
INSIDE: Waste-to-Energy Woes – page 8
Ontario’s Waste Bill – page 37
Free Road Safety Decals – page 41
www.solidwastemag.com
THE EVOLVING TONNE One tonne isn’t what it used to be — page 8
2016 Buyers’ Guide – pages 21-34 01 swr dec15-jan16 cvr pg 01.indd 1
15-12-22 7:24 AM
ULTRA FAST & ACCURATE
With the MACH Hyspec™, Machinex offers a powerful optical sorting solution that pounces on waste!
The result: a leap forward
1
430
FAST ANALYSIS OF SPEED BELT MILLISECOND
HIGHER DEPTH OF FIELD
Increased productivity by processing a high volume of material in a short period of time
Higher purity of material & unsurpassed efficiency on the ejection of rolling objects
MM ON THE BELT
• Unique light system that generates low heat • No moving parts • Unsurpassed efficiency on ejection
1 877 362 3281
02 swr dec15-jan16 ad p 02.indd 2
sales@machinextechnologies.com | machinextechnologies.com USA | CAN | UK
15-12-18 7:48 AM
December 2015/January 2016
Volume 20, Number 6
CONTENTS
Solid Waste & Recycling
Canada’s magazine on collection, hauling, processing and disposal
COVER STORY
12
The Evolving Tonne
a rles J
ffe
One tonne isn’t what it used to be. Find out what it means for recycling program costs and designs. by Maria Kelleher
ha by C
FEATURES
FILLING THE DATA GAP Peel Project gets Pulled by Rod Muir
r art Cove
WTE WOES 8
IN PICTURES: Waste Expo Walk through the Montreal Show by David Nesseth
DEPARTMENTS
10
Editorial – Packaging Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A WTE TALE of TWO CITIES Exploring the WTE process by John Nicholson
Waste Watch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 18
Edmonton Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
RECYLING TRUCK SIMULATOR Virage cruises through Calgary by David Nesseth
International Spotlight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 A Response to EPR Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
20
Regulation Roundup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
ONTARIO’s NEWEST WASTE BILL Analysis of Bill 151 by Usman Valiante
Canadian Tire Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Vancouver Embraces MMBC . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
37
SENNEBOGEN’s DREDGING AWAY WM teams up for remediation project by Robert Adeland
ANNUAL BUYERS’ GUIDE BONUS SECTION
40
SLOW DOWN TO GET AROUND Get your free decal in 2016 by SWR Staff
OUR 2016 BUYERS’ GUIDE
42
2016
Comprehensive information for all divisions pgs 21-34
IN PICTURES: 7 Days of Garbage Photo Exhibition tackles packaging by Gregg Segal 47
Buyers’ Guide
21 swr dec15-jan16
Buyers' Guide
Cvr pg 21.indd
23
15-12-18
8
40
7:22 AM
47
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 3
03 swr dec15-jan16 Contents p 03.indd 3
15-12-18 10:52 AM
EDITORIAL
by David Nesseth “I realize that marketing has become so intertwined with commerce and packaging. It’s the teaser trailer for the movie, in a way. So, it’s hard to let this all go.”
Would you buy shoes without a box? I do. It’s... well, just plain easier that way
M
y first musical instrument ever was a blue box that once contained a microscope. I would drum away with pens as sticks, my nine-year-old self rapping against the hard, clear plastic window strip that once displayed the microscope’s majesty on store shelves. I was an early reuser, it seems. Even today, I still love seeing people make things like Christmas reindeers out of used detergent bottles. Just add antlers and mount it on the wall like a game trophy. It’s the utopian result for any piece of waste – to become, ultimately, “art”. But most waste is not so treasured, obviously. In some ways, I think the fact that some people go to such lengths to make something — anything — out of something we no longer want, is the result of knowing, and perhaps taking responsibility for, the fact that the discarded packaging exists in the first place. The very fact that we need to be so innovative, in some way shows the absurdity of what waste is at its core. I always wonder what the CEOs of certain companies are thinking when they see the shells of their products utilized as art. It really puts the old childhood microscope on the fact that this is waste, and not something buried in a landfill, or burned. It’s not been forgotten, quite yet anyway.
under the Christmas tree had been wrapped, yes, but the packaging had been removed. Oh the questions?! “Mom, was this video game system S-T-O-L-E-NNN!” or worse, secondhand. I realize that marketing has become so intertwined with commerce and packaging. It’s the teaser trailer for the movie, in a way. So, it’s hard to let this all go. Of course, we can’t let all of it go. Packaging that is. There are strict and very critical regulations pertaining to many products, but that does not mean that their construction, as well as their fundamental design, should never ever be reconsidered, or revaluated. I do not agree with the fact that our system allows producers to produce whichever packaging they wish, for the most part. In a world with such finite ability to manage its own waste stream, it seems like an easy place to start. Or is it? Like our children with the unpackaged — but wrapped – Christmas presents, the vast majority of customers demand packaging. Beyond marketing, of course, there are security concerns, as well as protective and containment concerns, which are attempted to be addressed through a product’s packaging. Then on top of that, we add anti-theft devices, maybe even lock it behind a cage if it’s something wild, like baby formula. PACKAGING IS It can be argued, also, that packaging more easily allows manufacFASCINATING I am utterly fascinated by pack- Obviously, a shopping bag makes something easier to carry, but it’s also quite funny turers, and retailers, to stack prodhow often it doesn’t. Shoes come to mind. Shoeboxes are ridiculous. I need a box for aging; these items so intensely ucts. Stacking tubes of toothpaste my shoes like I need a box for my hat, as unhaberdasherly as that may sound. designed (awards were won) then would be much more complicated instantly discarded. Every aspect of most products is designed to jump than stacking boxes of toothpaste. But surely we can come up with a less out at the customer from the store shelves shouting, “Pick Me!” We then wasteful stacking strategy. do an about-face in this relationship of commerce, uncover -our useAs much as the packaging validates a product, the shopping bag it’s our actual product purchase, then bin it straightaway. Eventually the bin carried in validates the product’s transport. It would appear odd to most, itself becomes a cornucopia of brand name logos and colours jockeying if people carried products in their arms instead of bags. Obviously, a for the best marketing position, even in death! shopping bag makes something easier to carry, but it’s also quite funny I remember being quite young the first time I thought, “Why is this how often it doesn’t. Shoes come to mind. Shoeboxes are ridiculous. I packaged like this?” It’s not an unreasonable thought for any child, seeneed a box for my shoes like I need a box for my hat, as unhaberdasherly as that may sound. ing as many items marketed to children are packaged to the hilt to bolster the excitement effect. Can you imagine a child receiving just a doll DO THEY BOX CARS NOW? as a gift? One that’s (gulp) unpackaged. For many, this would be a nightI was thinking of buying a car soon. Do they box cars now? Like giant mare scenario. Ultimately, in some ways at least, it’s the packaging itself cardboard packaging? Or can I just expect a red bow? I mean, who wants that validates the product. Its unopenedness, if you will, its unusedness, is part of what makes it so appealing. Imagine all the children’s gifts to buy a naked car. 4 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
04-05 swr dec15-jan16 editl p 04-05.indd 4
15-12-18 7:49 AM
EDITORIAL
Stores have begun popa way to march packaging ping up in Europe where into a future it desperately products are being sold unneeds to survive. Industry, packaged. Mostly boutiquemostly commercial industry, type grocery stores, where would do well to go to govyou would fill your own reernment with a plan that usable container with a could be funded by tax dolbunch of trail mix, or whatlars to fix our broken system ever whets your appetite. of commerce, which deWe haven’t always been pends on the waste system, such a packaging-driven sociwhich depends on comety. Of course, we used to die merce. It’s a circle, of course. more too. But seriously, there Not the good kind, either. were times when it was OK PACKAGING to just buy a men’s shirt from the shop and not have threads AFTERLIFE Packaging doesn’t need to and tags everywhere, paper become extinct, but it does wrapping, maybe a fancy need to adapt. It needs to sticker, and then the ol’ cardboard box, followed by the relish in its precision, pershopping bag. I personally haps even its sustainability. like the idea of receiving The very idea that we allow producers to use whichstrictly what I purchase, and ever materials they desire for not to be saddled with a bevy product packaging, is beof unnecessaries. yond me. It’s like intentionAgain, there are many ally setting up the recycling necessaries when it comes to system to fail. Do we need packaging. But we must also new products so badly that be willing to admit that there we as a society will just let is a problem. That’s always anyone introduce a product the first step, yeah? that doesn’t have a market to There is such beauty in be recycled successfully? the economy of packaging. Carte blanche hasn’t been By using precisely as little I still love, even today, seeing people make Christmas reindeers out of detergent bottles. earned on this front, nor is it packaging as possible, it Just add antlers and mount it on the wall like a game trophy. It’s the utopian result for any piece of waste – to become, ultimately, “art”. deserved. I understand that shows great care and precision of design. It appears clunky, lazy, and just plain cheap when I see we all want to be successful at what we do. Producers have just been doing some of the packages on store shelves. That sheer scale of packaging is what they’ve always done, in mostly the way that it’s always been done. part of what sets us up to fail, those of us who are ambitious recyclers. The tonne is evolving, though. Waste doesn’t like quite like it used to. It’s system overload. Not to mention something of greatly diminishing Mail commerce is exploding like it was the heyday of the Sears catalogue. value, in terms of a post-life market. When do we address this? These days, recycling bins are now filled with boxes that read “Amazon.” The idea of regulating the world of packaging isn’t something that anyBut more and more, too, people are getting dinners delivered, groceries, one is really talking about. It seems like an obvious “can’t do”. But I think and it’s all part of what has made online retail an absolute force. the concept deserves far more attention than it gets. As we start into a new era of waste legislation, not just in Canada, but around the world, at least in David Nesseth is editor of Solid Waste & Recycling magazine. He can developed nations, I believe that industry would only serve itself to devise be reached at dnesseth@solidwatemag.com December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 5
04-05 swr dec15-jan16 editl p 04-05.indd 5
15-12-18 7:49 AM
Solid Waste & Recycling
WA S T E WAT C H
Canada’s magazine on collection, hauling, processing & disposal
David Nesseth Editor dnesseth@solidwastemag.com Brad O’Brien Publisher bobrien@solidwastemag.com Dave Douglas
Account Manager ddouglas@bizinfogroup.ca
Sheila Wilson
Art Director
Gary White
Market Production
Diane Rakoff Senior Circulation Manager Tel: 416-510-5216; Fax: 416-510-6875 Silva Telian Circulation Customer Service Tel: 416-442-5600 x 3636; Fax: 416-510-6875 Alex Papanou
RCO sessions tackle Bill 151
The Recycling Council of Ontario has begun reviewing Ontario’s Waste-Free Ontario Act documents indepth, and will hold pair of webinars to recap and explain intention, meanings, and possible outcomes of the proposed policies in two specific areas. RCO Webinar 1: Bill 151 and Extended Producer Responsibility:
Jan. 12, 2016; 12:30–1:30 p.m. RCO Webinar 2: Bill 151 and the IC&I sector: Jan. 14, 2016; 12:30–1:30 p.m. RCO will also present its draft response to Bill 151 the week of Feb. 8, 2016 and invite comment from members. This may be either a webinar or halfday in-person event. Details provided in early 2016.
President, Annex-Newcom LP
Award-winning magazine
Solid Waste & Recycling magazine is published six times a year by EcoLog Information Resources Group, a division of Annex Newcom LP, a leading Canadian business-to-business information services company that also publishes HazMat Management 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. 43005526 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: drakoff@annexnewcom.ca Mail to: Privacy Officer Annex-Newcom LP 80 Valleybrook Drive Toronto, ON M3B 2S9 We acknowledge the financial support of the Govern ment of Canada through the Canada Periodical Fund of the Department of Canadian Heritage. © 2015 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent. Print edition: ISSN-1483-7714
Online edition: ISSN-1923-3388
CBC investigation uncovers Montreal’s covered landfills
Montreal has a list of 62 former landfills that were covered over but never decontaminated. A list of these old dumping grounds, dated 1994, was obtained through an access-to-information request to the City of Montreal from CBC. According to that list, of the 62 locations, 24 are certified former landfills and 38 are possible landfills and dumps. Slightly more than half of them are located in areas that are now zoned residential. Twenty former dumps are located on public land, and some are beneath municipal parks.
Ontario’s Cap and Trade program design options
In April 2015, Ontario’s government announced it would be limiting greenhouse gas pollution by implementing a cap and trade program. Also at that time, it indicated its intent to join the joint cap and trade program implemented by Quebec and California. Ontario is seeking comments on the design options under consideration for Ontario’s greenhouse gas cap and trade program. Input is being sought on various elements of the program design including timing, scope of the program, setting the caps on greenhouse gas emissions, allowance distribution, price stability mechanisms, market design features, compliance requirements, flexibility mechanisms and enforcement. Feedback will inform the development of a regulatory proposal for a cap and trade program.
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 December 2015/January 2016
06-07 swr dec15-jan16 WW-UF p 06-07.indd 6
15-12-18 7:50 AM
WA S T E WAT C H
Scrap metal recycler faces second fire
A scrap metal recycling plant in Burlington, Ont., went up in flames Nov. 26 while welding work was being done on the roof.The fire at Dominion Nickel Alloys Ltd. did not destroy the building’s structure, but did damage equipment inside the facility.The department had 32 firefighters, multiple trucks and aerial ladders on scene at the fire, the cause of which is unknown at this time. In 2013, another fire at the facility caused an estimated $200,000 in damage.
Consultations wrap for vehicle recycling regs
The recycling of vehicles is a significant waste diversion activity in Ontario with approximately 600,000 vehicles recycled annually in the province. While a number of end-of-life vehicle processing facilities adhere to industry-led standards and already operate in an environmentally protective manner, there are currently no regulatory requirements for the safe removal and management of contaminants from end-of-life vehicles. Bringing forward mandatory regulatory requirements would ensure that environmental management is happening across the whole of the end-of-life vehicle processing sector.
Thorhild landfill opens near Edmonton
With the west Edmonton landfill quickly approaching capacity, Waste Management Canada’s Thorhild landfill facility finally opened on Oct. 19, nearly 10 years after the project’s announcement. Now, residents within a 1.8 mile radius of the landfill are eligible to receive compensation as property value protection. According to Waste Management’s project website, “We have been engaging the public throughout this project beginning in 2006. A range of methods have been used for public involvement including hosting Open Houses, Store Fronts, follow-up on individual requests and the establishment of a Thorhild Landfill Community Advisory Committee.
Emterra double dips in CNG
Machinex partners with Krysteline
Quebec-based recycling systems manufacturer Machinex is partnering with Krysteline Technologies to take advantage of the UK company’s unique glass implosion technology. Krysteline’s technology is capable of significantly enhancing the glass recovery process within a MRF with effective and efficient benefits towards the end marketplace. The partnership will also offer up a full range of glass clean-up systems specifically designed for MRFs, including a full range of bulk handling equipment that use air density clean-up and screeners to cover all sizes of glass. In addition to its range of technologies, Krysteline can also assist as required with recovered glass commodities trading.
Emterra Environmental officially opened its second state-of-the-art compressed natural gas (CNG) fuelling station in British Columbia. Located on John Street in Victoria, the CNG fuelling station is a key part of Emterra’s new capability to provide recycling collection services to the CRD’s 13 municipalities and local businesses, with cleaner-burning, quieter-running CNG-fuelled collection trucks. Together, the 16 new trucks and CNG fuelling station represent an $8 million investment in the CRD.
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 7
06-07 swr dec15-jan16 WW-UF p 06-07.indd 7
15-12-18 7:51 AM
PROFILE
by Rod Muir
“Incinerators demand a “Put or Pay” agreement that a guaranteed quantity of MSW be delivered or the facility is compensated. As a result, it seems highly unlikely that a municipality is going to strive to further reduce its waste by devoting additional money, time and ideas to increasing diversion.”
Peeling away the layers from Waste-to-Energy I plan now to approach MSW from the opposite direction, specifically the environmental and economic damage wrought by its disposal via incineration
W
ith the recent decision to cancel an incineration proposal in Peel Region, the Durham/York Region incinerator one year behind in beginning operations, Plasco Energy seeking creditor protection, and with the defeat of proposals in Brantford, Meaford and Port Hope, and finally Metro Vancouver discontinuing its energy proposal, perhaps it’s time to re-examine how much energy is really produced by burning municipal solid waste (MSW) and at what environmental and economic cost. Spoiler alert, as the kids say today; I believe trying to burn municipal solid waste (MSW) to create energy is shockingly inefficient, costly, a net contributor to greenhouse gases (GHGs) and climate change, produces smog and many other emissions, as well as copious amounts of ash, a good portion of which is highly toxic . Finally, incineration diverts money, time and attention from all-important diversion activities. Normally, I stress the importance of the quick, inexpensive and easy role waste diversion can play in achieving sustainability. Now, I plan now to approach MSW from the opposite direction, specifically the environmental and economic damage wrought by its disposal via incineration.
The Myth of “Residual” Waste I always stress that understanding the composition of MSW is the key to finding solutions. Similarly, the composition of so-called “residual” waste, what remains after we have “maximized” diversion, is key to understanding the many shortcomings of solid waste as a fuel source. I have examined, specifically, the “residual” waste of Durham/York and Peel Regions, as detailed in their respective studies, conducted as part of their efforts to develop incineration facilities. Close to 70% of Durham’s “residual” will either not burn, or is recyaclable. Metal and glass comprise 17.2%, while foodscraps, pet waste and leaf and yard material combine for 22.4%, and household hazardous waste is at .3%. It should be noted that diversion rates in Western Europe are similarly mid-range, at approximately 50%. Despite this fact, there are many who suggest that non-existent, higher rates of diversion are proof that incineration must be a more advanced method of disposal than landfill because it’s used throughout Europe. I like to call this “The Myth of Europe.” The above information clearly indicates, to me at least, that the notion we have “maximized” diversion requires much closer examination. Furthermore, the ensuing inefficiency of incineration is a direct result of composition — items that will not burn, like metal and glass — or worse still, foodscraps with high water content that consume more energy than they provide. Prove it for yourself. Go home tonight and build a small fire, then throw dinner on it and see how much (heat) energy you get. Take it from me, you’ll be both cold and hungry.
Oh, the inefficiency A megawatt (MW) certainly sounds like a great deal of energy, doesn’t it? Well it’s not really. The reality is when you consider a MW in relation to total Household energy use it’s barely enough to completely provide for 250-300 homes. As such Durham’s new 140,000 ton per annum (TPA) facility, which will produce 14 MW, is enough to supply all the energy needs of about 3,900 homes. Similarly, Peel’s planned 250,000 TPA facility was to generate 25 MW suppling just 6,900. By way of comparison there are 403,000 homes and apartments in Peel. Therefore, burning all their residual solid waste will provide power for just 1-2% of these homes. From my research, this rule of thumb is sadly true - burning half the waste of a city, town or county generates just a fraction, 1-2%, of total energy needs. Why, because solid waste is such a sub-standard fuel source. No wonder Peel Region makes a point of stating in their report “ It should be noted that the main objective for energy from waste facilities is to reduce the amount of waste that would otherwise need to be disposed of in a landfill while the production of power is secondary.” The fact is incineration captures only 15-20% of the calorific value of the input waste. An incinerator producing steam, as well as electricity, does somewhat better 25% but you need a year round customer for the steam. The situation is worse still when comparing the embodied energy, what energy that went into making the product, harvesting the raw material(s) manufacturing etc., with only 10-12% of the total embodied energy captured. It’s often said incineration conserves one barrel of oil for every ton that is combusted. What’s not said is that eight barrels of oil went into making that ton of waste material in the first place. Or that four barrels of oil could be conserved by diverting that ton of material. Based upon the foregoing it’s hard to resist calling incineration a waste of energy rather than waste-to-energy as some do. And oh, the cost. Durham’s newly built incineration facility cost over $280,000,000,
8 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
08-09 swr dec15-jan16 Peel Cancels p 08-09.indd 8
15-12-18 7:52 AM
PROFILE
$2,000 per design ton (140,000 TPA) or $20,000 per kW. In comparison, according to the Energy Information Administration, (www.eia.org) a facility producing electricity from Natural Gas can be built for as little as 1/10 that amount — $2,000 kW. The gap in Ontario actually is much larger still. The new 280 MW Green Electron Natural Gas plant near Sarnia has a budget of $360,000,000 or $1.2MM per MW. Prior to its cancellation the 250,000 TPA Peel incinerator was to cost $634,000,000 (and climbing). Presuming, 25 MW of energy production that’s $25.4MM per MW 20 times higher than the Green Electron facility. Operating costs, including most significantly the cost of fuel similarly follows EIA’s 1/10 ratio. Roughly $.02 - $.03 per kWh for N.G. generation based upon a $.12 - $.18 per m3 N.G.cost vs. $.20 per kWh for incineration based upon a $120 per ton tip fee. The truth is incineration’s only saving grace is that the fuel source has a negative value. That is to say the sources of the fuel including Municipalities will pay to have this material disposed of. Whereas of course in a N.G. facility the fuel must to paid for.
Incineration and GHGs According to the Region of Peel, from a GHG perspective the incineration of MSW produces almost double the GHGs per unit of energy than burning coal and 50 – 100 times more than natural gas. Additionally, incineration releases five times the nitrogen oxides of coal. Why then would we work so hard as the Province of Ontario has to get “Off Coal” only to “Get On To MSW”? Yes, it’s true that landfills are also a significant contributor to GHGs, as they are the largest source of manmade methane (CH4) on Earth, primarily the result of foodscraps degrading under anaerobic conditions. But as previously stated, foodscraps are highly detrimental to incineration efficiency and cost, as they consume more energy than they produce. Though perhaps because of their weight, facilities love this material. The point is, we should neither be burning or burying this material, and once foodscraps are removed from the waste stream it’s far better to bury what remains than to burn it. You see, by burning plastic and especially all types of paper fiber, you immediately release all of the carbon they contain as GHGs. If on the other hand, you landfill this material, it’s now being recognized that you have, in fact, sequestered a good portion of those same GHGs, essential if we are to limited global warming to 1.5 – 2°C
... And many other emissions Before discussing other types of emissions produced from burning waste, it’s worth mentioning that according to the European Union there are over 100,000 chemicals in use, of which we have a basic risk assessment for about 25%. Furthermore, to test the co-reactions of only the 1,000 most common chemicals, just in groups of three, would take 160,000,000 experiments and over 180 years! The point being, we sim-
ply have no idea what’s going on when we expose these chemicals to high heat alone or in combination with other chemicals. To continue, I can’t argue there have been advances in the atmospheric pollution control systems, with a corresponding and significant increase in the cost of incineration. However, let’s be clear, emissions have not been reduced to zero, nor anywhere close to it, and they are still significant in relation to the environmental load we are already placing on our land, air and water. While Peel’s study considered GHGs, it ignored the negative effects on human health and ecosystems of particulate matter (PM), NOX, SOX, mercury, lead, cadmium, toulene, benzene, zinc and vinyl chloride. I hope it’s not too late to remind you that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore the total weight of waste that goes into an incinerator as either a solid or liquid must leave as either a solid (ash) or a gaseous emissions, as of course, thermal treatment makes the presence of liquid impossible. Incineration is said to reduce volume by 90% and weight by 70%. With regard to volume it’s quite possible that the benefits are overstated. Compaction at landfills is quite high with upwards of a 5/6 reduction in volume compared to what residents initially put out in their garbage can or bag.
“
Prove it to yourself. Go home tonight and build a small fire, then throw dinner on it and see how much (heat) energy you get. Take it from me, you’ll be both cold and hungry.”
Reductions in weight are more accurate but still don’t paint a completely accurate picture of this so-called benefit, as landfill tip fees are for the most part based on weight not volume. Furthermore, 20-25% of the ash (8% of the total incinerated) is the highly toxic leftovers of the APC system, which only captures and concentrates the toxins and as such contains various heavy metals including lead, mercury and cadmium and requires disposal in a much more expensive hazardous waste landfill.
Diverting money, time and ideas from Diversion Given the high cost and specialized nature of an incinerator, it’s extremely common that these facilities demand a “Put or Pay” agreement that a guaranteed quantity of MSW be delivered or the facility is compensated if it’s not. As a result. it seems highly unlikely that a municipality is going to strive to further reduce its waste by devoting additional money, time and ideas to increasing diversion. It’s often mentioned that municipalities with incinerators have diversion rates similar to those with landfills. This may be true. But at this point what’s required is a doubling (no, tripling!) of our diversion efforts. And after diverting foodscraps, along with everything else, we can improve a landfill we’re working hard to send less to, rather than an incinerator to which we are obligated to deliver a steady quantity of “residual” waste. Rod Muir, Hons B. Comm., MBA, is the Waste Diversion and Sustainability Chair for the Sierra Club Canada Foundation. He is willing to talk to any group on this important subject and can be reached at rodmuir@sierraclub.ca or 416-535-9918. December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 9
08-09 swr dec15-jan16 Peel Cancels p 08-09.indd 9
15-12-18 7:52 AM
SHOW HIGHLIGHTS Highlights from the Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo 2015, recently held at the Palais des Congrés in Montréal, Québec.
Danny Grenier, Virage Simulation Inc.
Janick Ouellet, Goodyear
Xeniya Savelyeva & Shivani Gajusingh, Enerkem
Remi Broquin, Nathanael Golcberg & Thomas Burke, SHO Innovation
Greg Mariotti, Orgaworld Canada
10 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
10-11 swr dec15-jan16 CWRE DPS p 10-11.indd 10
15-12-18 7:53 AM
SHOW HIGHLIGHTS
Darren Finlay, Ecoverse
Emmanuel Estevez, Durabac
John de Roos, Torxx
Chris Ramsden, Eriez
Patrick Baillargeon, CIMI Inc.
Toby Cummings, Turtleskin Safety Products
Cory Graper, RMC
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 11
10-11 swr dec15-jan16 CWRE DPS p 10-11.indd 11
15-12-18 7:53 AM
COVER STORY
by Maria Kelleher “Many new packaging formats are not yet recyclable, or recycling markets do not pay much for them, and some of the smaller/resealable packages are made from multi-layer materials for which markets do not yet exist. So basically, you are spending money to push material through a MRF that cannot be sold.”
What it means for recycling program costs and design
The Evolving Tonne of Recyclables I
n 2009, clients at the City of Toronto approached me with a query. They said Blue Box tonnes were down; Green Bin tonnes were down; but garbage tonnes were down too, so recycling and organics were not in the waste stream, either. Overall, residential waste generation was going down. What was going on? This led to the Future Blue Bin Study (RR 2011 article). which looked at societal and lifestyle trends, as well as future trends that could impact Blue Bin tonnages (and revenues) over time. When the study was completed by late 2010, our firm predicted a reduction in newsprint (as more news was being read online), and more plastic packaging (as consumers demanded smaller packages and bought more prepared food, wanting re-sealable packaging at the same time that packaging designers weere busy lightweighting. These predictions were factored into the City of Toronto’s 15-year business plan, as they had a significant impact on material revenues and the bottom line for the recycling program. In 2014, the City of Calgary noticed that Blue Bin tonnages in its curbside program were not increasing, even though they were adding some 5,000 households per year. There was a concern that there would be difficulty meeting the 80% target set for 2020. To investigate, Calgary staff commissioned a study to see if recycling trends could be identified, ones that were not unique to Calgary, and could be factored into longer term waste management planning. I was part of the CM Consulting team that completed the Recycling
Trends Analysis, which identified trends in curbside recycling programs in larger cities in Canada and the U.S. The study concluded that Calgary was not alone. Programs throughout North America were experiencing a tectonic shift in the mix of materials in their recycling programs — generally less printed paper and more plastic. This trend was impacting diversion rates as we currently measure them. The trend became known as “the evolving tonne” of recyclables. At this stage, the issue of the Blue Box’s changing material composition is clear to everyone. In fact, it is a “no- brainer,” if you just look at your grocery purchases and how newspapers are used in your household. The way we live is changing, and it’s changing what goes into our Blue Box. What does this mean for curbside recycling program costs? Bottom line — they are rising and will continue to climb. While the Evolving Tonne is responsible for many of cost increases, other factors are also at play: falling oil prices, softening commodity markets and China’s Green Fence have all considerably constricted the market for mixed paper and mixed plastics. As WM CEO David Steiner famously stated earlier in 2015 — we have a “perfect storm” of factors having a significant impact on recycling program diversion and costs. However, these trends are not changing, so we need to plan for a future of higher recycling program costs, at least until markets and technologies catch up and adapt to our “evolving tonne”. ... continues on page 14
12 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
12-15 swr dec15-jan16 cvr sty pg 12-15.indd 12
15-12-18 7:54 AM
COVER STORY
REVISITING THE HISTORY OF RECYCLING AND WHERE WE ARE TODAY HISTORY
Curbside recycling was broadly adopted by communities across North America in the late 1980s. For about 20 years we focused on: Ø collecting paper, glass, metals and some plastics (mostly PET and HDEP for which good markets were available) Ø expanding the materials collected Ø stabilizing markets for processed materials
Ø increasing participation and capture rates for materials
Ø d riving recovery up and costs down Ø making the system more efficient, and Ø meeting recycling and diversion targets. But recycling systems began to change from about 2005 on, with a few significant trends all occurring over the same few years, until about 2008.
HERE’S WHAT HAPPENED:
Ø More materials were being added based
on citizen demand for options to recycle more packaging, and government interest in increasing recycling targets; Ø Boxes were replaced with Bins, which allowed the use of automated trucks. Bins had a lot of advantages. The lid controlled litter; the bigger volume allowed people to put more material in, which was good and bad (more residue) Ø Green Bin programs added to the complexity of collection
ØM ore single stream systems were adopted Ø More user pay and container limit programs. This created an incentive to recycle more, but also resulted in more contamination in the recycling bins Ø Less garbage service as more communities went to bi-weekly garbage service, the rationale being if you have recycling and Green Bin service, you should only need bi-weekly garbage service. However, through all of these changes, the composition of the recycling stream stayed roughly the same.
THEN SOMETHING FUNDAMENTAL STARTED CHANGING IN 2008/2009:
Ø The ratio of plastic to paper changed. We started seeing more plastic, less paper and more smaller packages; Ø Residue rates increased which increased recycling system costs Ø Markets began to complain about the quality of materials from MRFs, particularly paper mills complaining about more plastic in paper bales. Ø MRF operators noticed a drop in newsprint (ONP) and an increase in OCC (cardboard).
The markets, particularly paper mills, blamed the increase in single stream recycling systems for the deteriorating quality of the material received. But it wasn’t just single stream systems to blame. The composition of the recycling stream was changing, and even two-stream MRFs were having more difficulty meeting market specs.
REASONS FOR CHANGE:
There are a number of reasons why the composition of the recycling stream is changing — some societal, some technological, and all happening at roughly the same time: Ø The “greying” of the Canadian population — we are living longer. By 2018, 25% of the U.S. population will be over 55. In Canada, the number of over 65s is expected to double in the next 20 years. Ø We have smaller households — fewer children and more one-person households because people’s first marriage is later, we have more divorced citizens, and more people who decide
not to marry and are voluntarily single
Ø More two-worker families — with busy schedules this leads to more take-out food
Ø Convenience and customized individualized products are kings. Automated coffee/drink pods are one example of a package rapidly gaining in popularity as it is designed for single servings to suit individual consumer needs, even in the same family at the same time (coffee for dad, tea for mom and hot chocolate for the kids, all at the same time). Ø Handheld and mobile devices are changing the way we live and communicate.
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 13
12-15 swr dec15-jan16 cvr sty pg 12-15.indd 13
15-12-18 7:54 AM
COVER STORY
... continued from page 12
I probably first noticed the mobile device impact when redesigning my website in 2011. My web designer told me that she needed to change the background to white so that the text would be easy to read on a smartphone or tablet. Really? I asked. It is worth remembering that the first Apple iPad was released in 2010. Hard to imagine, but true. The “handheld revolution” means that printed newspapers are decreasing, which leads to less paper in recycling streams. Newsprint decline is one of the two most significant aspects of the evolving tonne (the other is the increase in plastic). Newsprint was always the backbone of recycling programs — cheap to collect and process, and with good revenues. The fact that it is declining, and will continue to decline, is something we need to plan for. Bottom line — less newspaper means recycling costs will jump. Printed newspapers have struggled to keep pace with the ways that the Internet has changed our daily news consumption. Many people don’t read the newspaper for news anymore — you can get that on your smartphone, tablet or laptop. Many buy a newpaper for a more in-depth analysis of the news. While Baby Boomers will always skim through an actual hard copy newspaper with their morning coffee, Millenials will often scan news on their tablet or smartphone. For most newspapers this has led to dying circulation, advertising and the closure of many publications. There have been decisions like dropping the Sunday edition, or moving to just three editions per week rather than six. Some newspapers now publish in smaller formats — moving from broadsheet to tabloid, or to lighter/thinner paper, and fewer pages. La Presse in Montreal, for example, announced that it’s dropping its weekday print edition completely, and will have a only a Saturday print edition in 2016. For recyclers, this is bad news. Their “backbone” material is declining — the low hanging fruit gone. In the early days of recycling, newspaper made up 80% of what some MRFs handled. Now it might make up 38%, and this number is only dropping. One MRF operator I spoke to has a program where newsprint used to be 45% of the tonnage, now
there’s barely a pulse at 5%. The examples go on and on. A recent statistic for the U.S. is that newsprint comprises 40% of what is handled in recycling programs. Now, it is less than 25% in many locations.
MOVING FORWARD What this has meant for MRF operators is that it’s now more difficult, or impossible, to create a #8 news bale with higher revenue. MRFs now produce a #6 news bale where the specs are easier to meet, but gets lower revenues. Mills are getting used to this change, as they need the fibre. They pay lower prices for the lower grade bales and spent more cash themselves cleaning up the bales and disposing of residue. Internet shopping has increased exponentially in the last five years, and is projected to increase at a compound annual growth rate of 10% for the next five years in the U.S., from a value of $248.8 billion in 2014 (Forrester Research). Purchases are delivered in corrugated or boxboard packaging, and we are seeing more OCC and OBB in recycling programs. While both of these packages are recyclable, OCC in particular is bulky and takes up a lot of space in collection trucks, thereby increasing recycling program costs. While the Internet has changed the amount of newsprint and OCC/ OBB in recycling programs, three other huge changes are happening on the packaging front — lightweighting, new packaging formats and smaller/resealable/single-serve packaging formats. These trends mean that you have to process more bottles/containers or smaller packages to get one tonne of product to sell to the market (which buys tonnes). Many new packaging formats are not yet recyclable, or recycling markets do not pay much for them, and some of the smaller/resealable packages are made from multi-layer materials for which markets do not yet exist. So basically, you are spending money to push material through a MRF that cannot be sold. A good example of lightweighting is the PET bottle, which now weights about half of what it did 20 years ago. One processer I spoke to recently referenced the following statistic: PET bottle weighted 28 grams in 1978; it weighted 18.9 grams in 2000, and weights 7.95 grams today. Geoff Rathbone, formerly with the City of Toronto, quoted the fact that it used to take 35,000 PET bottles to make up a tonne of PET; now it takes 70,000. While I did not spend time reconciling the two sets of figures, the message is clear. It takes twice the work to make the same money. Not only that, PET bottles are so light today that they flatten in the truck. Newer MRFs have screens that sort loads of recyclables based on shape — flat material is considered to be paper and round material is sorted as containers. Because the PET is flat, the screen interprets it as paper and puts it into the paper stream. This contaminates the paper bale, which makes the paper market unhappy and results in lower revenues, but it also means that you are losing PET revenue. This might be considered an unintended consequence of governments and consumers pressuring manufacturers to make lighter packaging.
NOW LET’S TALK ABOUT NEW PACKAGING Perhaps the most noticeable change in packaging is the huge increase in the use of thermoform PET clamshells for fruit and vegetables. MRF operators have told me that these conatiners have increased dramatically in the last two years. While these packages are great from a lifecycle 14 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
12-15 swr dec15-jan16 cvr sty pg 12-15.indd 14
15-12-18 7:54 AM
COVER STORY
point of view — they protect the fruits and vegetables — they are a problem for the recycling system. They take up a lot of space in the recycling truck, which drives up collection costs, and are expensive to process at the MRF because of their low density, and the revenues are small at this time. Smaller, resealable and single-serve packages are proliferating because of demographic and lifestyle changes in our society. People who live on their own want small portions in order not to waste food. You need to process a lot of these small packages to get one tonne of material to sell. The small size of the package allows them to be missed by the sorting equipment, thereby contaminating other streams, and are not generally recyclable. While markets will develop over time for these materials, it will take awhile. In Ontario (with a population of 13.5 million, and more than 4 million curbside recycling households), municipalities report detailed annual Blue Box recycling program costs to Waste Diversion Ontario. Municipal recycling costs have been increasing dramatically in the last three to four years.
various adjustments and declining revenues, the main reasons for the huge jump were attributed to new recycling contracts with substantially higher costs as the market played “catch-up” on the impacts of the evolving tonne. Contractors trapped in 5, 7 or 10-year contracts that had been bid around 2005 or earlier had submitted bids on a material mix which had remained fairly static for years, and had little opportunity to adjust to the increasing costs and higher contamination resulting from the changing material mix — basically more plastic and less paper. Also around that time, China’s Green Fence came into full force, tightening up specifications (and therefore processing costs) for mixed paper and mixed plastic being shipped to China. Also, one processor commented to me that the “second generation” of single-stream contracts were issued, and these fully recognized the complexity of the evolving tonne in single-stream systems. Clients had learned a lot about single-stream systems after the first generation of single-stream contracts in 2005, and the second generation contracts had much tighter performance specifications, again increasing costs.
Year
Blue Box Diversion Rate
Municipal Blue Box Net Cost Municipal Datacall ($ millions)
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
46.0% 53.0% 55.0% 57.0% 64.0% 63.0% 66.0% 67.6% 64.2% 62.8% 65.8%
$ 62 $ 82 $118 $111 $109 $130 $155 $170 $190 $237 $241
Until about 2010, Ontario Blue Box costs were increasing annually, but these increases could be explained by the fact that materials were being added to the program and diversion rates were increasing too. The next year, 2011, was the first year that the impact of the evolving tonne of recyclables kicked in. Paper was dropping and plastic was increasing. There was more lightweight material like plastic in the Blue Box program, and less heavyweight material such as glass and newsprint. Because diversion is measured as the weight diverted divided by the weight generated, diversion rates started going down. They have recovered somewhat in 2013 and 2014 data have not yet been fully verified. Then there was a significant jump ($47 million in one year) in the 2012 reported costs. While some of the cost increases were related to
We need to adjust and adapt to the fact that we have more plastic and less paper in our recycling programs, and this is not going to change anytime soon. While other recycling cost drivers continue to go up and down (cost of fuel, the U.S. dollar, recycling markets, economic factors), this change is permanent, and likely to continue in a direction of even more plastic and multi-layer packaging with less printed paper, as electronic media more and more becomes the chosen delivery mechanism for our communication. Maria Kelleher founded Kelleher Environmental in 2002 to provide specialized environmental consulting services related to waste management and energy. She can be reached at maria@kellenv.com December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 15
12-15 swr dec15-jan16 cvr sty pg 12-15.indd 15
15-12-18 7:54 AM
LANDFILL
by SWR Staff
Edmonton waits a decade for new landfill In June 2006, Waste Management announced the Thorhild Landfill Project
I
t’s been a long haul to landfill. With the west Edmonton landfill quickly approaching capacity, Waste Management Canada’s Thorhild landfill facility finally opened on Oct. 19, nearly 10 years after the project’s announcement. Now, residents within a 1.8 mile radius of the landfill are eligible to receive compensation as property value protection. According to Waste Management’s project website, “We have been engaging the public throughout this project beginning in 2006. A range of methods have been used for public involvement including hosting Open Houses, Store Fronts, follow-up on individual requests and the establishment of a Thorhild Landfill Community Advisory Committee. As the Thorhild Landfill Project moves forward, information sessions and newsletters will be provided from time to time to update the community. If you have any specific questions, you can reach us through a dedicated toll free project number – (866) 648-1855. To learn more about the Thorhild Landfill Project, visit the Frequently Asked Questions section of our website.” Waste Management received permits from Alberta Environment and Thorhild County in 2008.
Public Involvement – Engaging County of Thorhild Residents Beginning in July 2006, WM held open houses in three communities, hosted store-fronts information sessions and sent newsletters to area residents. This was supported with the availability of WM representatives to follow-up individually with people who wished to learn more about the project. The results of the public involvement program were
Project Announced In June 2006, WM announced the Thorhild Landfill Project, reported consultant findings to County Council and signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Thorhild.
16 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
16-17 swr dec15-jan16 Edmonton p 16-17.indd 16
15-12-18 7:55 AM
LANDFILL
Provincial Application
instrumental in informing the planning and design decisions included in the municipal and provincial project applications. The public engagement program has continued with the establishment of a Thorhild Landfill Community Advisory Committee. Methods to engage and inform the community will continue throughout the project.
Site Studies Throughout 2006 to 2010, WM completed a variety of tests to assess the feasibility and suitability of the landfill site and ensure the success of reclamation efforts. These studies included: hydrogeological testing, water well and dugout assessments, soil site study, vegetation study, wildlife study, historical resources review, wetlands assessment, surface water testing, baseline noise testing and traffic assessment.
First Re-Zoning Application WM submitted the original application for the landfill to the County of Thorhild in April 2008.
Second Re-Zoning Application Our second Thorhild Landfill Re-Zoning Application was submitted to the County of Thorhild Council for review in February 2009. A public hearing was held in April 2010 with County Council approval of the rezoning application received in May 2010.
WM submitted the Waste Management of Canada Corporation Thorhild Landfill Project Application for Regulatory Authorization for regulatory review and request for approval under the Provincial Government’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) and the Water Act on March 31, 2010. The EPEA and Water Act approvals were provided by Alberta Environment (now Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development) Act on September 22, 2011.
Municipal Development Permit Application WM submitted a development permit application to the County of Thorhild No. 7 in 2011. The Development Permit approval was provided by County Council on July 14, 2011.
Site Development The Thorhild Project site is now being developed. The specific development features to be constructed between the summer of 2011 and the end of 2014 are Site work: access and site road building/fencing.Earthworks: cell and pond construction; site infrastructure placement: surface water ponds and ditches, leachate pond, site utilities and internal roads; building Construction: administration/maintenance building construction.
ECOVERSE.CA ONTARIO:
647-982-6781 ALBERTA ECOVERSE DEALER GROUNDWORX:
780-463-7077
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 17
16-17 swr dec15-jan16 Edmonton p 16-17.indd 17
15-12-18 7:55 AM
WA S T E - T O - E N E R G Y
by John Nicholson “There is no magic technology that will solve the problem. Likewise, there won’t be any municipality achieving zero waste from either landfill or thermal treatment in the next 15 to 20 years.”
A WTE Tale of Two Cities Peel Region Votes No; Vancouver a go
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness ....
T
here are many reasons for building a waste-to-energy facility in Canada, notwithstanding the fact that more municipalities are considering it as a viable solution over landfill. Despite increased focus on the 3Rs, the fact remains that municipal officials must include either landfilling or thermal treatment in their waste management plans for the next 15 to 20 years. Even the most ardent environmental activists I know concede that there will be waste to be managed even if every household and apartment dweller took up reducing and recycling waste with a passion.
Region of Peel in Ontario The Region of Peel, which has a population of 1.2 million people living in the cities of Mississauga and Brampton and the Town of Caledon, has had great debate on landfilling vs. waste-to-energy (WTE). For 20 years, the Region relied upon a privately-owned WTE incinerator within its own boundaries to dispose of its MSW. In 2012, against the advice of its own staff, Regional Council did not renew its WTE contract and instead opted to have its MSW trucked to a private landfill 200 km away in Warwick, Ont. At the time, Region of Peel Councillors claimed the $8 million per year the Region saved in landfilling vs. WTE would help pay for its
“
own planned WTE facility that would be part of the Region’s long-term plan and be operational by 2021. This past fall, Peel Regional Council voted overwhelmingly to scrap plans for the planned $500 million WTE facility. The vote runs counter to the Region’s 2012 Long-Term Waste Management Plan. “I think the question that then has to be given to them is if you don’t like that process, what do you like?” Norm Lee, Director of Waste Management for the Region of Peel, is in favour of a local solution to long-term waste management. Earlier in 2015, he stated, “Peel is growing, and so even as we increase our 3Rs program, our forecast is that our garbage tonnage will continue to go up. So by developing an WTE facility in Peel […] it will eliminate all the trucks going down the highway and eliminate the need to landfill the waste, which will benefit the environment.” Perhaps somewhat surprising to some, the citizens of Peel also appear to favour WTE as a waste management option. A telephone poll of 800 residents across the Region found 73 percent were in favour of a WTE facility within the region. Norm Lee believes the significant positive response to the WTE option in the Region is “because we already had one. People are used to it.” As of winter 2015, the Region of Peel Council has asked a commit-
I think the question that then has to be given to them is, if you don’t like that process, what do you like?”
18 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
18-19 swr dec15-jan16 MMBC p 18-19.indd 18
15-12-18 7:56 AM
WA S T E - T O - E N E R G Y
tee to look into a long-term waste management option (which seems to exclude WTE based on the most recent Council vote) for the remaining 25 percent of waste picked up curbside under the assumption that the other 75 percent is diverted through the 3Rs (it’s currently at 50%).
City of Vancouver In 2010, the Greater Vancouver Regional District and Member Municipalities released its Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan. Similar in scope to the Region of Peel’s 2012 plan, it called for more 3Rs along with the 4th R – energy recovery (also known as WTE). Its overall waste diversion rate target was set at 70% by 2020. The 2012 Plan called for the establishment of new WTE capacity of up to 500,000 tonnes per year in one or more facilities. As is the case, the planned WTE facility became a major issue during the 2014 municipal election campaign. With some politicians calling for a referendum if the WTE facility should go ahead or not. In a partial blow to the planning of the WTE facility, the provincial government denied Metro Vancouver from enacting Bylaw 280, which banned the export of solid waste out of the region. Without the ban on exports, sizing the proposed WTE facility becomes more difficult. The proposed WTE facility has critics from numerous sides, including corporations such as Belkorp Environmental Services, a recycling and waste disposal company. Belkorp commissioned ICF International to conduct an independent analysis of the Metro Vancouver WTE facility. Not surprisingly, ICF estimated the total project cost (capital and operating costs for 35 years) for a WTE facility could be in the range of $1.8 billion to $2.3 billion, which is 80% greater than Metro Van-
couver’s estimate of $1 billion. In late 2015, Metro Vancouver decided to put the brakes on its EFW procurement process. Instead, $30 million in upgrades are planned for its existing EFW facility in Burnaby. As for plans for a new EFW facility, the Chair of Metro Vancouver, Greg Moore, stated; “Metro Vancouver remains committed to wasteto-energy as the most sustainable technology for deriving benefits from residual waste after all efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle. The timeline for requiring additional [EFW] capacity has been pushed forward several years.
A Municipality’s Best Option It is of interest to note that in both the Region of Peel and Metro Vancouver, the votes against (in the case of Peel) and criticism against (in the case of Vancouver) the WTE option do not provide an alternative. Greg Moore, Chair of the Metro Vancouver’s Board of Directors (which represents 21 municipalities, one electoral area, and one First Nation) said it best of opponents to WTE plans when he stated, “I think the question that then has to be given to them is if you don’t like that process, what do you like?” There is no magic technology that will solve the problem. Likewise, there won’t be any municipality achieving zero waste from either landfill or thermal treatment in the next 15 to 20 years. The residue leftover after all 3R efforts have been exhausted has to go somewhere – either WTE or landfill. John Nicholson, M.Sc., P.Eng., is a consultant based in Toronto, Ontario. Contact John at john.nicholson@ebccanada.com
As of winter 2015, the Region of Peel Council has asked a committee to look into a long-term waste management option (which seems to exclude wasteto-ebergy based on the most recent Council vote).
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 19
18-19 swr dec15-jan16 MMBC p 18-19.indd 19
15-12-18 7:56 AM
PROFILE
by David Nesseth "The graphics, colours and contrast all look top-notch, so much so that it makes it all feel very real, almost pressure packed. It makes you want to do a good job out on the day’s collection route, real or not."
Bringing the road to life ... indoors Solid Waste & Recycling magazine hits the streets of Calgary with Virage Simulation
Computer design engineering specialist Danny Grenier test drives his recycling truck simulator at the Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo in Montreal.
A
s a specialist in computer design engineering, Danny Grenier is typically more at home behind the scenes, but on this day, at Canada’s biggest waste expo, he finds himself literally at the wheel of his own design — a simulator that helps drivers ranging from police to long-haul truckers, ambulance and recycling truck operators, to finetune their road skills within the safe confines of what is essentially a video game. As Grenier turns the ignition of the VS600M Truck Driving Simulator, made by Virage Simulation in Quebec, we hear the sound of our
digital diesel engine chugging away, waiting for us to hit the streets of Calgary, Alta., as recycling truck drivers in training. Our comfy cab is adapted with sideloader controls to replicate the look and feel of the actual Labrie Side Loader truck, says Grenier. We have a high-performance, compact three-axis motion system, and realistic responses from the clutch, gas and brake pedals based on actual vehicle measurements. There are several large high-res LCD screens to give us that full 180-degree perspective that a real driver would have on the road, fully engaging our peripheral vision. The graphics, colours and ... continues on page 35
20 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
20 35 swr dec15-jan16 Driving Simulators p 20 35.indd 20
15-12-18 8:15 AM
2016 Buyers’ Guide
21 swr dec15-jan16 Buyers' Guide Cvr pg 21.indd 21
15-12-18 10:50 AM
2016 SW&R BUYERS’ GUIDE BALERS Al-jon Manufacturing LLC Baleforce Recycling Equipment Balemaster Bilt-Rite Bramidan US Chenington Durabac, Duralift/Chagnon, Durapac Fastco Equipment Harmony Enterprises Harris Kernic Systems Logemann Brothers Machinex Machinex Recycling Services Metro Compactor Service Recycling Equipment Co. of Canada SP Industries Samuel Strapping Systems Setwest-HJA Summit Equip VAN DYK Recycling Solutions Varsek Trading Waste Stream Mgmt Wastequip
Union Gas Willms & Shier
COLLECTION/HAULING/ DISPOSAL SERVICES Emterra Group EnviroSORT Hotz Environmental Services Joseph Haulage Canada One Plus Progressive Waste Solutions Canada Rothsay – Maple Leaf Foods Wessuc Inc
COMPACTORS/CRUSHERS
Norseman Structures Out Front Portable Solutions WMS Services
A & M Process Equip Al-jon Manufacturing LLC American Compactor Beacon Engineering Co. Bilt-Rite BOMAG (CANADA) INC. Bramidan US Durabac, Duralift/Chagnon, Durapac Fastco Equipment Franklin Miller Glass Aggregate Systems Harmony Enterprises Laurin Inc. Logemann Brothers Machinex Marcel Equipment McCloskey International Metro Compactor Service Northern Cast Parts Company SP Industries Samuel Strapping Systems Setwest-HJA Summit Equip Tee Mark Manufacturing TMS Solutions Voghel Waste Stream Mgmt Wastequip WMS Services,
CLEAN TECHNOLOGY
COMPOSTING SITE
Miller Thomson LLP SaskEnergy
All Treat Farms Limited ComposTex Compost Covers
BATTERY COLLECTION & RECYCLING Battery Council Terrapure Environmental
BIOMASS/ANAEROBIC DIGESTION Anaergia Conestoga-Rovers & Associates FortisBC Energy West Salem Machinery
BUILDING SYSTEMS
PRODUCT LISTINGS R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited SCARAB International, LLLP Sittler Demolition & Environmental
COMPOSTING SYSTEMS/ COMPONENTS All Treat Farms Limited Allu Group Inc. Atkinson & Assoc BDP Industries BioBag Canada Brown Bear Casemaker Inc. Coastal BioAgresearch ComposTex Compost Covers Fecon HCL Machine Hein Lehmann Canada IPL Neuenhauser North America ORBIS Resource Recovery Systems Internat’l Rule Steel Inc. – Diamond Z SCARAB International, LLLP Signature Marketing, LLC Transform Compost WCI Environmental Solutions
CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION RECYCLING Allu Group Inc. Bulk Handling Systems (BHS) Dings Company HogZilla – CW Mill Equipment Co Machinex Major Wire Industries McCloskey International Metso Minerals Neuenhauser North America Norsteel Buildings Sittler Demolition & Environmental Terex Environmental Equipment West Salem Machinery
CONSULTING/ ENGINEERING 2cg AET Consultants Air Earth & Water Environmental All Treat Farms Limited ANGI Energy Systems, LLC Beyond Rewards Coastal BioAgresearch Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Envirotech Associates ERIS Falcon Ridge Group Geoware Leak Locationv Municipal Waste Association Norditrade Paradigm Software R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited RWDI SaskEnergy SENES Consultants Union Gas VisionQuest Environmental Strategies WCI Environmental Solutions
CONTAINERS (BINS, BAGS, CARTS) Bilt-Rite BioBag Canada Bomac Carts Casemaker Inc. Chevy Lane Del Equipment Durabac, Duralift/Chagnon, Durapac Dyna Pak EnviroWirx Waste Management Envyrozone Fanotech Waste Equipment Fibrex Group Haul-All Equipment Hydraline Saniquip IPL Jake, Connor & Crew
22 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
22-34 swr dec15-jan16 Buyers Guide pg 22-34.indd 22
15-12-18 7:58 AM
PRODUCT LISTINGS
2016 SW&R BUYERS’ GUIDE
Laurin Inc. Les Ateliers Beau-Roc Loraday Molok North America Multi Bag ORBIS Peninsula Plastics Universal Handling Equipment Varsek Trading VisionsQuest/McGuire Wastequip
GIS MAPPING & DATABASE REPORTS
INCINERATION/ GASIFICATION
ERIS
Eco Waste Northern Cast Parts Company
CONVEYORS/BELTS
Abbott Enterprises, Inc. Soft-Pak Zone Defense, LLC
Andela Products Apache Baleforce Recycling Equipment Brunette Machinery Co. C.S. Bell Con-Belt Inc. Flexco Glass Aggregate Systems Industrial Magnetics Machinex McCloskey International Metso Minerals Neuenhauser North America Summit Equip Titan Industries VAN DYK Recycling Solutions
ELECTRONICS RECYCLING & DESTRUCTION Shred-Tech
EQUIPMENT FINANCING Siemens Canada
EVENTS (TRADESHOWS/ CONFERENCES/ SEMINARS) Battery Council CCSPA Eco/Log Week Falcon Ridge Group Marketing Strategies Recycling Council Waste & Recycling Expo Canada
GLASS RECYCLING Andela Products Emterra Group Glass Aggregate Systems MSS Machinex
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS
GPS TRACKING SYSTEMS
INDUSTRY INFORMATION/ TECHNICAL RESOURCES/ PUBLISHING, ETC.
HEAVY EQUIPMENT/ ATTACHMENTS/PARTS Allu Group Inc. Atkinson & Assoc Crane Equipment Del Equipment Fecon HCL Machine Hydraline Saniquip Intec Video Liebherr-Canada Ltée M E C Company Marcel Equipment MGM Brakes Norsteel Buildings Palfinger Peterbilt of Canada S.E.S. SCARAB International, LLLP Shu-Pak Equip Southwestern Sales Co.
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE (HHW) Eko Environmental EnviroSORT Hotz Environmental Services
Battery Council CARI CCSPA Ontario Waste Mgmt Assoc
Ecolog Legislative Eco/Log Week ERIS Falcon Ridge Group Marketing Strategies SK Waste Reduction SaskEnergy Scarfo Productions LLC
INSTRUMENTATION/ CONTROL/SAMPLING/ MONITORING EQUIPMENT Abbott Enterprises, Inc. Avery Weigh-Tronix Canada Conveyor Components Co EPG Companies Global Sensor Intec Video Intergrated Visual Data Technology J. McGale Industries Inc. Lenox Instrument Co. MGM Brakes One Plus QEL Quatrosense Rockwell Automation, Siemens Canada Spectrum Technologies Walther-Prazision Quick Coupling
IC&I COMMERCIAL WASTE BioBag Canada Emterra Group Machinex Terrapure Environmental
LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES Dyna Pak M E C Company
LANDFILL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (CAPS, DAILY COVER, LINERS, GAS/ LEACHATE COLLECTION & TREATMENT Conestoga-Rovers & Associates EPG Companies Leak Location QEL Quatrosense R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Southwestern Sales Co.
LANDFILL OPERATORS Progressive Waste Solutions Canada
LAWYERS/LEGAL SERVICES Borden Ladner Ecolog Legislative Miller Thomson LLP Willms & Shier
MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT Apache Bramidan US Bulk Handling Systems (BHS) Callahan 5th Wheel Hoists Casemaker Inc. Conveyor Components Co CP Group Hallco Industries, Harris Industrial Magnetics Kubota Canada Loraday Machinex Mack Manufacturing Major Wire Industries Metro Compactor Service Ohio Magnetics, Inc.- Div. Stearns Palfinger Rockwell Automation, Roll-Rite, LLC S.E.S. Samuel Strapping Systems
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 23
22-34 swr dec15-jan16 Buyers Guide pg 22-34.indd 23
15-12-18 7:58 AM
2016 SW&R BUYERS’ GUIDE Sennebogen LLC Siemens Canada Titan Industries Titan Trailers
MOVING FLOOR SYSTEMS Hallco Industries, J&J Truck Bodies & Trailers Keith Manufacturing Machinex Walking Floor Wilkens Industries
NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS CCSPA Municipal Waste Association Recycling Council
ODOUR CONTROL SYSTEMS Air Phaser Environmental CB&i ComposTex Compost Covers Fogmaster Corporation Odor Control RWDI
OPTICAL SORTERS CP Group Machinex RMT Equipment Rockwell Automation, VAN DYK Recycling Solutions
PAPER / FIBRE RECYCLING/COLLECTION Allied Paper Savers Balemaster BTE Body Company, Inc. Bulk Handling Systems (BHS) Canada Fibers Emterra Group Enterprise CodeWorks EnviroWirx Waste Management Fibrex Group Jake, Connor & Crew MSS Machinex
Multi Bag Peninsula Plastics Progressive Waste Solutions Canada R.A.R.E. Recyclage Alexandria Setwest-HJA Sherbrooke O.E.M Walinga Inc.
PLASTICS RECYCLING/ COLLECTION Bulk Handling Systems (BHS) Canada Fibers Chenington Emterra Group Enviroplast Inc EnviroWirx Waste Management Fibrex Group Harmony Enterprises Haul-All Equipment Haycore Canada Industrial Magnetics Jake, Connor & Crew Machinex Multi Bag ORBIS Peninsula Plastics R.A.R.E. Recyclage Alexandria Sherbrooke O.E.M Varsek Trading Walinga Inc.
PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP/ EPR PROGRAMS AET Consultants Emterra Group Envirotech Associates VisionQuest Environmental Strategies
PUMPS/VALVES/METERS EPG Companies FortisBC Energy Hydraline Saniquip J.F. Comer Walther-Prazision Quick Coupling
PRODUCT LISTINGS RECYCLING SORTING & SEPARATION EQUIPMENT
SCALES/WEIGHING SYSTEMS
A & A Magnetics, Andela Products Baleforce Recycling Equipment Beacon Engineering Co. BM&M Screening Solutions Brunette Machinery Co. BTE Body Company, Inc. Bulk Handling Systems (BHS) C.S. Bell CP Group Crane Equipment Dings Company Eko Environmental Eriez of Canada Gemaco Sales Haycore Canada Hein Lehmann Canada J.F. Comer Keith Manufacturing Kernic Systems Logemann Brothers MSS Machinex Mack Manufacturing Magnetics Div Global Metso Minerals Neuenhauser North America Norditrade Ohio Magnetics, Inc.- Div. Stearns Recycling Equipment Co. of Canada Sennebogen LLC Sherbrooke O.E.M Shred-Tech Signature Marketing, LLC Tee Mark Manufacturing Terex Environmental Equipment VAN DYK Recycling Solutions Voghel Walinga Inc. Walking Floor West Salem Machinery Wilkens Industries Winkle Industries
Avery Weigh-Tronix Canada Enterprise CodeWorks Fairbanks Scales Fastco Equipment Geoware Intergrated Visual Data Technology London Machinery Paradigm Software RMT Equipment Soft-Pak TMS Solutions
SCRAP METAL RECYCLING Al-jon Manufacturing LLC Beacon Engineering Co. Callahan 5th Wheel Hoists Dings Company Eriez of Canada Haycore Canada J.F. Comer Machinex Ohio Magnetics, Inc.- Div. Stearns Winkle Industries
SHREDDERS/TIRE RECYCLING A & M Process Equip Balemaster C.S. Bell Chenington Columbus McKinnon Emterra Group Franklin Miller Harris HogZilla – CW Mill Equipment Co Kernic Systems Magnetics Div Global Northern Cast Parts Company Recycling Equipment Co. of Canada Shred-Tech Vecoplan
24 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
22-34 swr dec15-jan16 Buyers Guide pg 22-34.indd 24
15-12-18 7:58 AM
PRODUCT LISTINGS SLUDGE FILTRATION/ DEWATERING/DREDGING
TRAINING & CONTINUING EDUCATION
Anaergia
Beyond Rewards Coastal BioAgresearch Ecolog Legislative Eco/Log Week London Machinery Municipal Waste Association Robotronics SK Waste Reduction SENES Consultants TRUX Route
BDP Industries Brown Bear M E C Company Terrapure Environmental Wessuc Inc
SOFTWARE/CD-ROM/ INTERNET MULTIMEDIA Discerning Systems Enterprise CodeWorks Geoware Soft-Pak TMS Solutions TRUX Route
SPECIAL WASTE Emterra Group EnviroSORT
TRAILERS MANUFACTURING & SERVICES (TRANSFER, ETC.) Clement Industries, LLC Fanotech Waste Equipment Great Lakes Hallco Industries, J&J Truck Bodies & Trailers Joe Johnson Keith Manufacturing KNL Holdings Roll-Rite, LLC Titan Trailers Transport Trailer Sales Travis Body & Trailer Universal Handling Equipment Walking Floor Western Trailer Wilkens Industries
TRANSPORTATION/FLEET MAINTENANCE Beka-Lube Products Cummins Westport Global Sensor Intergrated Visual Data Technology Joe Johnson Joseph Haulage Canada Loraday Zone Defense, LLC
TRUCKS/HAULING & EQUIPMENT (FRONTLOADERS, ROLLOFFS, LUGGERS, HOOK LIFT, ETC.) Beka-Lube Products BTE Body Company, Inc. Callahan 5th Wheel Hoists Clement Industries, LLC Cummins Westport Del Equipment Durabac, Duralift/Chagnon, Durapac Fanotech Enviro Global Sensor Haul-All Equipment Intec Video J&J Truck Bodies & Trailers Joe Johnson Joseph Haulage Canada Laurin Inc. Les Ateliers Beau-Roc London Machinery
2016 SW&R BUYERS’ GUIDE Marcel Equipment Marrel Palfinger Peterbilt of Canada Roll-Rite, LLC Shu-Pak Equip Southwestern Sales Co. Titan Trailers Travis Body & Trailer Universal Handling Equipment Wessuc Inc
FortisBC Energy
TUB GRINDERS – SALES & SERVICE
Blackstone,
ArmorHog® Grinder Parts Gemaco Sales HogZilla – CW Mill Equipment Co Rule Steel Inc. – Diamond Z
Union Gas
WASTE AUDITING/ ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2cg AET Consultants Deister Emterra Group Envirotech Associates Envyrozone One Plus RWDI SK Waste Reduction SENES Consultants Spectrum Technologies VisionQuest Environmental Strategies Willms & Shier WMS Services,
WASTE TO ENERGY TECHNOLOGY Anaergia Bulk Handling Systems (BHS) Eko Environmental
Machinex Miller Thomson LLP Recycling Equipment Co. of Canada Rotochopper Sittler Demolition & Environmental
WASTE-TO-FUEL BDP Industries Machinex Vecoplan
WOOD RECYCLING EQUIPMENT/PARTS (DELIMBERS, DEBARKERS, TROMMEL SCREENS, CHIPPERS, ETC.) A & M Process Equip ArmorHog® Grinder Parts Brunette Machinery Co. Conveyor Components Co Fecon Franklin Miller Gemaco Sales Hein Lehmann Canada Machinex Magnetics Div Global Neuenhauser North America Rotochopper Rule Steel Inc. – Diamond Z Terex Environmental Equipment Vecoplan Voghel West Salem Machinery
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 25
22-34 swr dec15-jan16 Buyers Guide pg 22-34.indd 25
15-12-18 7:58 AM
COMPANY LISTINGS
2016 SW&R BUYERS’ GUIDE Fax: 519 570-9589. Toll-Free: 877 876-9235
Air Earth & Water Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2cg Inc.
159 Ridout St S London ON N6C 3X7 519 645-7733 Fax: 519 645-0337. Pres Paul van der Werf 2cg provides a unique blend of waste management consulting services. This includes waste auditing of various waste streams. We help public and private sector clients with waste management/diversion planning, cost rationalization and permitting. We have specialized organics expertise and provide advice related to composting and anaerobic digestion. Finally we provide communications services to help our clients get their story out.
A & A Magnetics, Inc.
PO Box 1427 Woodstock IL 60098-1427 Location: 520 Magnet Way 815 338-6054 Fax: 815 338-8590. Toll-Free: 888 605-6054 Sls Danielle Gibbs
A & M Process Equipment Ltd. 1801 Dundas St E PO Box 70569 Whitby ON L1N 9G3 Location: 1 Dundar Dr Whitby ON L1N 6Y4 905 619-8001 Fax: 905 619-8816. Pres John Lang
Abbott Enterprises, Inc. PO Box 9026 Pine Bluff AR 71611 Location: 901 West 4th Ave Pine Pluff AR 71601 870 535-4973 Fax: 870 535-4970. Toll-Free: 800 643-5973 Dir-Mktg John T Ware II
AET Consultants
531 Wellington St N Kitchener ON N2H 5L6 519 576-9723
43 Church St Paris ON N3L 1H4 519 442-1083 Pres Robert Lovegrove
Air Phaser Environmental Ltd. 308-19292 60th Ave Surrey BC V3S 3M2 604 308-7435 Pres Douglas Lanz
Al-jon Manufacturing LLC 15075 Aljon Ave Ottumwa IA 52501 641 455-5635 Fax: 641 682-6294. Toll-Free: 888 255-6681 Latin America Sls Mgr Sonia K Sancho
All Treat Farms Limited
Andela Products
493 State Rte 28 Richfield Springs NY 13439 315 858-0055 Fax: 315 858-2669. Pres Cynthia Andela
ANGI Energy Systems, LLC PO Box 5216 Janesville WI 53547-5216 Location: 305 W Delavan Dr Janesville WI 53546 608 563-2800 Toll-Free: 800 955-4626 Cdn Sls Mgr Marie-Geneviève Poitras
Apache Inc.
4805 Bowling St SW Cedar Rapids IA 52404 319 365-0471 Fax: 319 365-2522. Toll-Free: 866 757-7816 Pres/CEO Tom Pientok
ArmorHog® Grinder Parts – CW Mill Equipment Co., Inc.
7963 Wellington Rd 109 Arthur ON N0G 1A0 519 848-3145 Fax: 519 848-2598. Compost Site Mgr Bruce Voisin
PO Box 246 Sabetha KS 66534 Location: 14 Commerce Dr 785 284-3454 Fax: 785 284-2010. Toll-Free: 800 743-3491
Allied Paper Savers Inc.
Atkinson & Assoc.
16820 129 Ave NW Edmonton AB T5V 1L1 780 447-1648 Fax: 780 447-1737. Toll-Free: 888 680-1648
PO Box 22 Amherst NS B4H 3Y6 902 664-6151 Fax: 902 667-0485. Owner John R Atkinson
Allu Group Inc.
Avery Weigh-Tronix Canada
700 Huyler St Teterboro NJ 07608 Fax: 201 288-4479. Toll-Free: 800 939-2558 Mktg Mgr Jesse Allen
American Compactor, Inc. PO Box 1303 Mansfield OH 44901 419 522-9550 Fax: 419 522-1807. CEO David Shook
Anaergia Inc. 4210 S Service Rd Burlington ON L7L 4X5 905 766-3333 Fax: 905 766-3330. VP-Mktg/Govt Rel Mike Stadnyckyj
217 boul Brunswick Pointe Claire QC H9R 4R7 514 695-0380 Fax: 514 695-0385. Toll-Free: 800 561-9461 Dir-Sls Paul Daigle
Baleforce Recycling Equipment Inc. 14 Ronson Dr Etobicoke ON M9W 1B2 416 235-1900 Fax: 416 235-0275. Toll-Free: 888 874-1692 Sls Mgr Jim Guest
Balemaster
980 Crown Crt Crown Point IN 46307 219 663-4525
Fax: 219 663-4591. Reg Mgr Western Canada Matthew Bradley
Battery Council International 401 North Michigan Ave Chicago IL 60611 312 644-6610 Fax: 312 527-6640. VP Mark Thorsby
BDP Industries PO Box 118 Greenwich NY 12834 Location: 354 State Rte 29 518 695-6851 Fax: 518 695-5417. Compost Equip Mgr Richard Nicoetti
Beacon Engineering Co. Inc. PO Box 129 Jasper GA 30143 706 692-6411 Fax: 706 692-3227. Sec-Treas Susie Shields
Beka-Lube Products Inc. 9-2830 Argentia Rd Mississauga ON L5N 8G4 905 821-1050 Fax: 905 858-0597.
Beyond Rewards Inc. 17A-218 Silvercreek Pky Suite 327 Guelph ON N1H 8E8 519 821-7440 Fax: 519 821-7680. Principal/Ops Mgr Jean Ridout
Bilt-Rite Disposal Equipment Ltd. 143 Industrial Rd Bolton ON L7E 1K5 905 857-0330 Fax: 905 857-7669. Toll-Free: 866 245-8634 Pres Sal Chiera; Sls Mgr Max Chiera
BioBag Canada Inc. 103-1687 W Broadway Vancouver BC V6J 1X2 604 876-5100 Fax: 604 876-5107. Toll-Free: 866 976-5100 Pres Greg Beresford
26 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
22-34 swr dec15-jan16 Buyers Guide pg 22-34.indd 26
15-12-18 7:58 AM
COMPANY LISTINGS BTE Body Company, Inc. Blackstone, Inc.
130 Otonabee Dr Kitchener ON N2C 1L6 519 896-4967 Fax: 519 896-6457.
BM&M Screening Solutions Ltd.
5465 Production Blvd Surrey BC V3S 8P6 604 539-1029 Fax: 604 539-1022. Toll-Free: 800 663-0323 Pres Collin Jackson
Bomac Carts, LLC
201 Badger Pky Darien WI 53114 262 882-5000 Fax: 262 882-3389. VP-Sls/Mktg Cindy Lapidakis
BOMAG (CANADA) INC. 3455 Semenyk Ct Mississauga ON L5C 4P9 905 361-9961 Fax: 905 361-9962. Toll-Free: 800 263-0814 Cdn Sls Mgr Dan Church
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
PO Box 48600 Vancouver BC V7X 1T2 Location: 1200-200 Burrard St 604 640-4120 Fax: 604 687-1415. Partner William K McNaughton
Bramidan US, Inc.
3950 – 875 N Michigan Ave Chicago IL 60611 312 261-6006 Fax: 312 787-8744. VP-Sls Kristian Buur
Brown Bear Corporation
PO Box 29 Corning IA 50841-0029 Location: 2248 Avenue of Industries 641 322-4220 Fax: 641 322-3527. Pres Stan Brown
Brunette Machinery Co. Inc. 8717 132nd St Surrey BC V3W 4P1 604 522-3977 Fax: 604 522-6806.
PO Box 569040 Dallas TX 75356-9040 Location: 3611 Irving Blvd Dallas TX 75247 214 631-4770 Fax: 214 630-0852. Toll-Free: 800 299-6225 Ext. 119 Gen Mgr Arlyn D Campbell
2016 SW&R BUYERS’ GUIDE Canadian Association of Recycling Industries 1906-130 Albert St Ottawa ON K1P 5G4 613 728-6946 Fax: 705 835-6196.
Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association 800-130 Albert St Ottawa ON K1P 5G4 613 232-6616 Ext. 12 Fax: 613 233-6350.
Bulk Handling Systems (BHS)
3592 West 5th Ave Eugene OR 97402 541 485-0999 Fax: 541 485-6341. Toll-Free: 866 688-2066 Dir-Sls/Mktg Rich Reardon Bulk Handling Systems (BHS) is an innovative, worldwide leader in the design, manufacturing and installation of material sorting and handling systems for the solid waste and recycling industries. Companies around the world choose BHS because of our experience and dedication, cutting-edge technology, quality construction and unmatched customer service. Our customized systems reduce labor costs and increase material throughput and recovery rates, creating both efficient and economical operations.
Casemaker Inc. 8-33 Glen Cameron Rd Thornhill ON L3T 1N9 905 889-5245 Fax: 905 889-4818. Pres Jack Pepall
CB&i Inc. 3102 E 5th St Tyler TX 75701 903 595-7777 Fax: 903 581-6178. Toll-Free: 800 323-2115 Mgr Curtis Nipp
Chenington Equipment Manufacturing & Sales Inc. 1610 Lakeside Rd S Lethbridge AB T1K 3G8 403 329-1713 Fax: 403 327-0603. Pres Grant R Harrington
Chevy Lane Inc.
PO Box 291 Tiffin OH 44883-0291 419 448-0791 Fax: 419 448-1203. Toll-Free: 888 958-6381 Pres/Adv Mgr Daniel F White
11100 Sodom Rd Niagara Falls ON L2E 6S6 Location: 6100 Progress Rd Units 3-4 Niagara Falls ON L2G 0C5 905 295-7224 Fax: 905 295-8410. Owner Donna Chamberlain
Callahan 5th Wheel Hoists
Clement Industries, LLC
PO Box 205 Royal City WA 99357 509 346-2208 Fax: 509 346-9203. Pres Nancy Callahan
PO Box 914 Minden LA 71055 318 377-2776 Fax: 318 371-4369. VP-Sls/Mktg Bill Garrison
Canada Fibers Ltd.
Coastal BioAgresearch Ltd.
The C.S. Bell Co.
130 Arrow Rd Toronto ON M9M 2L4 416 253-0400 Fax: 416 253-1230. VP-Ops Jake Westerhof
268 Boutiliers Point Rd Boutiliers Point NS B3Z 1V1 902 981-5459 Pres P R Warman
Columbus McKinnon Corporation 1920 Whitfield Ave Sarasota FL 34243 941 755-2621 Fax: 941 753-2308. Toll-Free: 800 848-1071 Sls Mgr Richard P Colyar
ComposTex Compost Covers Charlotte VT 05445 802 363-3930 Owner Steven Wisbaum
Con-Belt Inc.
5656 Innovation Dr Valley City OH 44280 330 273-2003 Fax: 330 225-9672. Toll-Free: 800 700-2358 Sls Mgr Joseph Takacs
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates
651 Colby Dr Waterloo ON N2V 1C2 519 884-0510 Fax: 519 884-0525. Toll-Free: 800 265-6102 Mktg Mgr Dan Kieswetter
Conveyor Components Company-Div of Material Control, Inc. PO Box 167 Croswell MI 48422 Location: 130 Seltzer Rd 810 679-4211 Fax: 810 679-4510. Toll-Free: 800 233-3233 Sls Mgr Rich Washkevich
CP Group
6795 Calle de Linea San Diego CA 92154 619 477-3175 Toll-Free: 800 462-5311
Crane Equipment Mfg. Corp. 33740 Seavey Loop Eugene OR 97405 541 746-9681 Fax: 541 746-8928. Mktg Mgr Paisley Thom
Cummins Westport Inc. 101-1750 West 75th Ave Vancouver BC V6P 6G2
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 27
22-34 swr dec15-jan16 Buyers Guide pg 22-34.indd 27
15-12-18 7:58 AM
COMPANY LISTINGS
2016 SW&R BUYERS’ GUIDE 604 718-8100 Dir-Refuse Segment/Indl Rel Charles Ker Cummins Westport Inc. offers high-performance natural gas engines for commercial transportation applications such as medium and heavy-duty truck, refuse and vocational applications, and transit/school bus. The ISX12 G and ISL G feature simple maintenance-free aftertreatment and can operate on CNG, LNG, or RNG (renewable natural gas). Cummins Westport engines are available factory-direct from leading vehicle manufacturers, with warranty, service, and aftermarket support provided by the Global Cummins distributor and dealer network.
Fax: 604 544-3648. Toll-Free: 877 374-7744 Pres Dave Patterson
Deister Electronics Inc.
EPG Companies Inc.
4-1550 Kingston Rd Suite 1411 Pickering ON L1V 6W9 905 837-5666 Fax: 905 837-0777. Gen Mgr Rikk Boldy
Durabac, Duralift/ Chagnon, Durapac, Duraplast
22 ch Milton Granby QC J2J 0P2 450 378-1723 Fax: 450 378-1720. Toll-Free: 800 565-1723 Pres/Owner Patrick Charbonneau
Dyna Pak
112 Helton Dr Lawrenceburg TN 38464 931 762-4016 Fax: 931 766-1514. VP-Sls Dale Miklich 19900 County Road 81 Maple Grove MN 55311 763 424-2613 Fax: 763 493-4812. Toll-Free: 800 443-7426 Pres John Hasslen
Eco Waste Solutions
Del Equipment Limited
139 Laird Dr East York ON M4G 3V6 416 421-5851 Toll-Free: 866 613-0068 Del has been manufacturing truck bodies and designing upfit solutions since 1945. We offer a comprehensive line of truck bodies with world class equipment such as Swaploader Hooklifts, Effer Knuckleboom Cranes and Del manufactured roll offs, decks, dumps and U-bins. We’re your “one stop” shop for truck body and equipment solutions.
Dings Company
14-5195 Harvester Rd Burlington ON L7L 6E9 905 634-7022 Fax: 905 634-0831. Toll-Free: 866 326-2876 CEO Steve Meldrum
EcoLog Legislative Services
2-38 Lesmill Rd Toronto ON M3B 2T5 416 442-5600 Ext. 3570 Fax: 416 510-5128. Toll-Free: 888 702-1111 Ext. 8 Pub/Editor Lidia Lubka
EcoLog News
2-38 Lesmill Rd Toronto ON M3B 2T5 416 442-5600 Ext. 3570 Fax: 416 510-5128. Toll-Free: 888 702-1111 Ext. 8 Pub/Editor Lidia Lubka
4740 W Electric Ave Milwaukee WI 53219 414 672-7830 Fax: 414 672-5354.
Eko Environmental
Discerning Systems Inc.
Emterra Group
7887 Morley St Burnaby BC V5E 3Y9 604 544-3748
1000 6th St E Owen Sound ON N4K 1H1 226 688-8626 1122 Pioneer Rd Burlington ON L7M 1K4 905 336-9084
Fax: 905 336-8865. Toll-Free: 888 403-3333 VP-Corp Strategy/Bus Dev Paulina Leung
Enterprise CodeWorks Inc. PO Box 34067 Station D Vancouver BC V6J 4M1 604 876-6642 Toll-Free: 877 644-8677 Pres/Gen Mgr Norris Phillippe
Enviroplast Inc. 11060 Parkway Anjou QC H1J 1R6 514 352-6060 Fax: 514 352-9177. 514 8130991. Sls/Purch Dir Renata Cerilli
EnviroSORT Inc. 4229 Hewlett Dr Red Deer County AB T4S 2B3 403 342-7823 Fax: 403 343-6287. Toll-Free: 800 567-4209
Envirotech Associates Limited 1632-433 Norwich Ave Woodstock ON N4S 3W0 519 539-8129 Toll-Free: 888 820-8010
EnviroWirx Waste Management – Div. of RTS Companies Inc. 1027 Industrial Pl St. Clements ON N0B 2M0 519 699-0022 Fax: 519 699-0027. Toll-Free: 800 663-2803 CEO/Pres Graham Lobban The EnviroWirx™ 7 yd 3 semiunderground deep waste container is clean, innovative and it wirx! No special equipment required, as the unit can be emptied with a standard front end garbage truck. With 40% of the unit being underground, the earth temperature keeps the garbage cooler and reduces odours. It is available with a garbage or recycling lid, which are both secure to keep unwanted waste and pests out. Improve the appearance of your waste area today with the EnviroWirx!.
Envyrozone Inc.
25 Claireville Dr Etobicoke ON M9W 5Z7 416 674-8800 Fax: 416 674-4600. Toll-Free: 866 362-5400
Eriez Magnetics
2200 Asbury Rd Erie PA 16506 814 835-6000 Fax: 814 833-3348. Toll-Free: 888 800-3743 Mktg Mgr Darrell Milton
ERIS (Environmental Risk Information Service) 2-38 Lesmill Rd Toronto ON M3B 2T5 416 510-5204 Fax: 416 510-5133. Toll-Free: 866 517-5204 VP Carol Le Noury
Essex- Windsor Solid Waste Authority 211-360 Fairview Ave W Essex ON N8M 3G4 519 776-6441 Ext. 229 Gen Mgr Eli Maodus
Fairbanks Scales
821 Locust St Kansas City MO 64106 816 471-0231 Fax: 816 471-5951. Pres/COO Rick Norden
Falcon Ridge Group Inc.
PO Box 398 Sundre AB T0M 1X0 403 589-4832 Pres Arnie Gess
Fanotech Enviro Inc.
PO Box 690 Bracebridge ON P1L 1T9 Location: 220 Old North Rd Huntsville ON P1H 2J4 705 788-3046 Fax: 705 788-0211. Toll-Free: 800 640-9526 Pres Gabe Tomassoni
Fanotech Waste Equipment Inc.
PO Box 690 Bracebridge ON P1L 1T9 Location: 50 Keith Rd Bracebridge ON P1L 1X2 705 645-1694 Fax: 705 645-2687. Gen Mgr Dino Tomassoni
28 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
22-34 swr dec15-jan16 Buyers Guide pg 22-34.indd 28
15-12-18 7:58 AM
COMPANY LISTINGS Fastco Equipment Corporation 4125 Greenlane Rd Beamsville ON L0R 1B1 905 562-1547 Fax: 905 562-1589. Toll-Free: 800 366-1325 Pres Duane Fast
Fecon, Inc. 3460 Grant Dr Lebanon OH 45036 513 696-4430 Fax: 513 696-4431. Toll-Free: 800 528-3113 Pres John G Heekin
The Fibrex Group, Inc. Bldg 2 4165 Pruden Blvd Suffolk VA 23434 757 925-1375 Fax: 757 925-1372. Toll-Free: 800 346-4458 Toll-Free Fax: 800 444-8380 Pres Ruben Leenders
Flexco 2525 Wisconsin Ave Downers Grove IL 60515 630 971-0150 Fax: 630 971-1180. Sls/Distrib Mgr Richard Reynolds
Fogmaster Corporation 1051 SW 30th Ave Deerfield Beach FL 33442 954 481-9975 Fax: 954 480-8563. Pres Thomas Latta
Geoware Inc.
Haul-All Equipment Ltd.
Industrial Magnetics Inc.
101-B Randall Dr Waterloo ON N2V 1C5 519 888-9304 Fax: 519 888-9085. Toll-Free: 800 900-4252 Pres Mark Wills
4115 18 Ave N Lethbridge AB T1H 5G1 403 328-7788 Fax: 403 328-9956. Toll-Free: 888 428-5255 Pres Dennis Neufeldt
1385 M-75 S Boyne City MI 49712 231 582-3100 Fax: 231 582-0622. Toll-Free: 800 662-4638 Product Spec Rob Hutchison
Glass Aggregate Systems
Haycore Canada Inc.
Intec Video Systems, Inc.
3144 Gregoire Rd Russell ON K4R 1E5 613 445-3610 Fax: 613 445-0247. Pres Michel Jacobs
23301 Vista Grande Laguna Hills CA 92653 949 859-3800 Fax: 949 859-3178. Toll-Free: 800 522-5989 VP-Sls/Mktg Dino Nama
1100 Cannon Cir Faribault MN 55021 507 334-6437 Fax: 507 334-6438. Pres Tom Kubes
Global Sensor Systems Inc. 400 Brunel Rd Mississauga ON L4Z 2C2 905 507-0007 Fax: 905 507-4177. Gen Mgr Ray H Glenn
Great Lakes Mfg. Inc. 8450 County Rd Suring WI 54174 920 842-2012 Fax: 920 842-2497. Toll-Free: 877 248-5677 Pres Craig French
HCL Machine Works 15142 Merrill Ave Dos Palos CA 93620 209 392-6103 Fax: 209 392-3000. Mktg/Sls Casey Campbell
Hallco Industries, Inc.
16705 Fraser Hwy Surrey BC V4N 0E8 604 592-7717 Fax: 604 576-7122.
PO Box 505 Tillamook OR 97141 Location: 6605 Ammunitions Rd 503 842-8746 Fax: 503 842-8762. Toll-Free: 800 542-5526 Reg Sls Mgr David Lowery
Franklin Miller Inc.
Harmony Enterprises, Inc.
FortisBC Energy Inc.
60 Okner Pky Livingston NJ 07039 973 535-9200 Fax: 973 535-6269. Dave Schuppe
Gemaco Sales Ltd. 669 Derwent Way Delta BC V3M 5P7 604 540-7574 Fax: 604 540-7594. Toll-Free: 800 663-7574
2016 SW&R BUYERS’ GUIDE
704 Main Ave N Harmony MN 55939 507 886-6666 Fax: 507 886-6706. Toll-Free: 800 658-2320 VP-Sls Brent Christiansen
Harris 315 W 12th Ave Cordele GA 31015 229 273-2500 Toll-Free: 800 468-5657
Hein Lehmann Canada Inc. 130-4395 Fraser St Vancouver BC V5V 4G4 604 879-3804 Toll-Free Fax: 888 809-3022
HogZilla – CW Mill Equipment Co., Inc. PO Box 246 Sabetha KS 66534 Location: 14 Commerce Dr 785 284-3454 Fax: 785 284-3601. Toll-Free: 800 743-3491 VP/Sls Mgr Tim Wenger
Hotz Environmental Services Inc. 239 Lottridge St Hamilton ON L8L 6W1 905 545-2665 Fax: 905 545-7822. Toll-Free: 888 333-4680
Hydraline Saniquip 2-1 Daybar Ave Toronto ON M9W 3N8 416 248-6141 Fax: 416 248-5158. Pres Doug Calder
IPL Inc. 140 Commerciale St St-Damien-de-Buckl QC G0R 2Y0 418 789-3651 Ext. 559 Fax: 418 833-3305. Toll-Free: 800 463-0270 Ext. 559 Environmental Director Paul M Palazzo
Intergrated Visual Data Technology Inc. 3439 Whilabout Terrace Oakville ON L6L 0A7 905 469-0985 Fax: 905 825-9494.
Italian Trade Commission 1802-365 Bloor St E Toronto ON M4W 3L4 416 598-1566 Fax: 416 598-1610.
J&J Truck Bodies & Trailers 10558 Somerset Pike Somerset PA 15501 800 777-2671 Fax: 814 443-2621. VP Jerry Johnson
J.F. Comer Inc. 4-141 Reach St Uxbridge ON L9P 1L3 905 852-3370 Fax: 905 852-6557.
J. McGale Industries Inc. – AWTI 3rd Eye Mobile Vision Canada 101-4342 Hartfield Grove Mississauga ON L4W 4G9 905 625-8375 Fax: 905 625-3356. Pres James McGale
Jake, Connor & Crew 1-199 Trillium Dr Kitchener ON N2E 1W9 519 576-9865 Fax: 519 576-1080. Toll-Free: 877 565-5253
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 29
22-34 swr dec15-jan16 Buyers Guide pg 22-34.indd 29
15-12-18 7:58 AM
COMPANY LISTINGS
2016 SW&R BUYERS’ GUIDE Joe Johnson Equipment Inc. 2521 Bowman St Innisfil ON L9S 3V6 705 733-7700 Fax: 705 733-8800. Toll-Free: 800 263-1262 Pres Joe Johnson Jr
Joseph Haulage Canada Corp. 590 South Service Rd Hamilton ON L8E 2W1 905 643-0637 Fax: 905 643-0354. Toll-Free: 855 656-7374 CEO Geoffrey Joseph
Keith Manufacturing Co. PO Box 1 Madras OR 97741 Location: 401 NW Adler 541 475-3802 Fax: 541 475-2169. Toll-Free: 800 547-6161 Sls Mgr Mike Robinson
Kernic Systems, Inc. 5230 South Service Rd Burlington ON L7L 5K2 905 632-0562 Fax: 905 632-0027. Toll-Free: 800 678-9516 Pres Jason Hineman
KNL Holdings, LLC
PO Box 760 Paragould AR 72451 Location: 603 N 3rd Ave 870 236-7753 Fax: 870 239-2130. Pres Fred Workman
Kubota Canada Ltd.
5900 14th Ave Markham ON L3S 4K4 905 294-7477 Fax: 905 472-6143. The leader in compact construction equipment in Canada, Kubota offers 4 compact articulated wheel loaders under 60 hp., and 2 compact track loaders. The 75 and 80 hp. SVL Series set the new standard for comfort, performance and value.
Laurin Inc.
487 rue Principale Laval QC H7X 1C4 450 689-1962
Fax: 450 689-2527. Pres Michel Laurin
Leak Location Services, Inc. 16124 University Oak San Antonio TX 78249-4015 210 408-1241 Fax: 210 408-1242. Pres Daren Laine
Loraday Environmental Products 1-142 Commerce Park Dr Barrie ON L4N 8W8 705 733-3342 Fax: 705 733-3352. Toll-Free: 888 853-6600 Pres Peter Lorimer
M-E-C Company
Lenox Instrument Co. Inc. 265 Andrews Rd Trevose PA 19053 215 322-9990 Fax: 215 322-6126. VP William Lang
PO Box 330 Neodesha KS 66757 Location: 1402 W Main St 620 325-2673 Fax: 620 325-2678. Pres/CEO John A Quick
Les Ateliers Beau-Roc Inc.
MSS Inc.
300 Universelle St Vars ON K0A 3H0 613 443-0044 Fax: 613 443-1138.
Liebherr-Canada Ltée
300 Oceanside Drive Nashville TN 37204 615 781-2669 Fax: 615 781-2923. Dir-Sls Felix Hottenstein
3150 W Burleigh St Milwaukee WI 53210 414 445-3005 Fax: 414 445-1460. Sls Mgr Robert T Plichta
London Machinery Inc.
16 Westbrook Place Cambridge ON N3C 3J4 519 963-2500 Fax: 519 659-2306. Toll-Free: 800 265-1098 London Machinery is the proud Canadian distributor of McNeilus street smart and street tough refuse trucks; including Front loaders, Side loaders, Rear loaders and even earth-friendly yet powerful compressed natural gas (CNG) driven vehicles. Our commitment is to provide quality refuse products and deliver exceptional aftermarket support to keep your fleet working hard for you.
11-817 Brock Rd S Pickering ON L1W 3L9 905 420-0466 Fax: 905 420-0319. Toll-Free: 800 463-4298 As a subsidiary of Machinex Industries Inc., Machinex Recycling Services is a full service supplier for recycling equipment and sorting systems across Canada, with offices in Ontario and British Columbia. The company is also the Canadian distributor for American Bale Company.
Mack Manufacturing
4250 aut Chomedey Laval QC H7R 6E9 450 963-7174 Fax: 450 963-4833. Toll-Free: 800 363-7950
Logemann Brothers Company
Machinex Recycling Services
7205 Bellingrath Rd Theodore AL 36582 251 653-9999 Fax: 251 653-1365.
Machinex Industries Inc. 2121 Olivier St Plessisville QC G6L 3G9 819 362-3281 Fax: 819 362-2280. Toll-Free: 877 362-3281 ExperienceResultswith Machinex Solutions Machinex offers complete engineering design, manufacturing and installation of Material Recycling Facilities. Machinex provides turnkey projects for the recycling industry: Single-Stream, Municipal Solid Waste, Construction & Demolition, Commercial & Industrial Waste, Front-end processing for Waste-to-Energy system. The company offers a full range of cutting-edge quality recycling equipment such as Disc Screens Separators, Ballistic Separator, Balers, Trommels, Optical Sorting and more, giving customers complete system integration. Over the years, our experts have designed and installed over 350 turnkey facilities in partnership with leading MRFs in Canada, the United States and Northern Europe.
Magnetics Division, Global Equipment PO Box 810483 Boca Raton FL 33481-0483 561 750-8662 Fax: 561 750-9507. Toll-Free: 866 750-8662 Pres Marshall Gralnick
Major Wire Industries Limited 225 boul North Montcalm La Prairie QC J5R 3L6 450 659-7681 Fax: 450 659-5570. Toll-Free: 877 353-9628
Marcel Equipment Limited 1000 Progress Dr London ON N6N 1B8 519 686-1123 Fax: 519 686-9350. Toll-Free: 800 265-5747 Ops Mgr Mark Frederick
Marketing Strategies & Solutions 433 William St London ON N6B 3E1 519 432-8327 Fax: 519 642-3372.
30 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
22-34 swr dec15-jan16 Buyers Guide pg 22-34.indd 30
15-12-18 7:58 AM
COMPANY LISTINGS Marrel Corp.
4750 14 Mile Rd Rockford MI 49341 616 863-9155 Fax: 616 863-9177. Mgr Andy Jansma
McCloskey International
point for a variety of waste types. Molok container’s vertical, semiunderground design allows the waste to compact, increasing container capacity, and the lower temperatures underground prevent odours and pests.
1 McCloskey Rd Keene ON K9J 0G6 705 295-4925 Fax: 705 295-4777. Toll-Free: 877 876-6635 Sls Mgr Paul King; Sls/Mktg Rep Julie Andras
Multi Bag
Metro Compactor Service
Municipal Waste Association
40 Bethridge Rd Rexdale ON M9W 1N1 416 743-8484 Fax: 416 740-8687. Toll-Free: 888 968-7491
Metso Minerals Canada Inc. 644 Imperial Rd N Guelph ON N1H 7M3 519 821-7070 Fax: 519 821-4376. Prod Sales Mgr Steve Craig
MGM Brakes
200-5653 rue Paré Montréal QC H4P 1S1 514 738-3961 Ext. 21 Fax: 514 738-3676. Toll-Free: 888 862-0500
100-127 Wyndham St N Guelph ON N1H 4E9 519 823-1990 Fax: 519 823-0084. Exec Dir Ben Bennett
Ohio Magnetics, Inc.- Div. Stearns 5400 Dunham Rd Maple Heights OH 44137 216 662-8484 Fax: 216 662-9526. Toll-Free: 800 486-6446 Sls Mgr Walter Civovic
One Plus Corp.
7600 Morgan Rd Liverpool NY 13090 315 466-8330
Ontario Waste Management Association
Norditrade Inc.
Miller Thomson LLP
Norseman Structures 3815 Wanuskewin Rd Saskatoon SK S7P 1A4 306 385-2888 Fax: 306 249-1889. Toll-Free: 855 385-2782 Mktg Mgr Calvin Xiao
Norsteel Buildings Limited PO Box 693 Mount Forest ON N0G 2L0 Location: 152 Harry Bye Blvd 519 323-9909 Fax: 519 323-9910. Toll-Free: 877 558-5576 CEO Marja Hillis The Molok Deep Collection system is the original semi-underground waste solution that revolutionizes the way waste and recyclables are collected. Developed with the end user in mind, the system offers a clean, effective and efficient collection
PO Box 14363 Scottsdale AZ 85267 480 488-2126 Fax: 480 488-9439. Toll-Free: 888 948-3956 Toll-Free Fax: 877 948-1010 VP Michelle Lang
Neuenhauser North America
PO Box 75060 RPO Hudson Bay Cr Toronto ON M4W 3T3 416 489-8438 Pres Lars Henriksson
Molok North America Ltd.
Odor Control Company, Inc.
3182 MacArthur Blvd Northbrook IL 60062 847 498-0955 Fax: 847 498-1570. VP Jay Simon
8530 Cliff Cameron Drive Charlotte NC 28269-5906 416 904-8948 Toll-Free: 800 527-1534 Cdn Sls Mgr Rick Deane 2010-255 Queens Ave London ON N6A 5R8 519 931-3500 Fax: 519 858-8511.
2016 SW&R BUYERS’ GUIDE
1405 Denison St Markham ON L3R 5V2 905 477-0057 Fax: 905 477-0029. Toll-Free: 866 822-4022 Toll-Free Fax: 888 474-4445 Pres Sean Keenan
Northern Cast Parts Company Inc. 6-2230 Walkers Line Burlington ON L7M 3Y8 905 336-3965 Fax: 905 336-3955. Pres Peter Salmon
3-2005 Clark Blvd Brampton ON L6T 5P8 905 791-9500 Fax: 905 791-9514. Toll-Free: 866 266-9166 Dir-Fin/Admn Michele Goulding
Paradigm Software, L.L.C. 200-113 Old Padonia Rd Cockeysville MD 21030 410 329-1300 Fax: 443 275-2509. VP Jackie W Barlow II The CompuWeigh™ System is the standard in weighing and routing software and has been implemented completely in Microsoft Windows®. From scale processing, unattended, signature capture, video, and accounts receivable and aging to name a few, the CompuWeigh™ System is second to none. Match superior software with superior service and you have an unmatched combination. The system will run any weigh-based business including Landfills, Transfer Stations, MRF/RRF, Aggregate, Quarry and Hauling and Routing businesses.
Peninsula Plastics Limited 620 Industrial Dr Fort Erie ON L2A 5M4 905 871-4766 Fax: 905 871-4811. Sls Mgr Ashley Clark
ORBIS Corporation
1055 Corporate Center Dr Oconomowoc WI 53066 262 560-5000 Fax: 920 751-2478. Toll-Free: 800 999-8683 Mktg Mgr John Sebranek
Out Front Portable Solutions
4664 Ontario St Beamsville ON L0R 1B4 905 563-9790 Fax: 905 563-6367. Toll-Free: 800 282-1239 Sls Mgr Bill Heemskerk
Palfinger Inc.
PO Box 846 Niagara Falls ON L2E 6V6 Location: 7942 Dorchester Rd Niagara Falls ON L2G 7W7 905 374-3363 Fax: 905 374-1203. Toll-Free: 800 567-1554 Natl Sls Mgr Canada Jeff Black; Sls Mgr Ontario/Quebec Terry James
Peterbilt of Canada 501-6711 Mississauga Rd Mississauga ON L5N 4J8 905 858-7097 Fax: 905 858-7091. Sls Mgr Greg Grabinsky Peterbilt manufactures a versatile lineup of Class 6-8 trucks and tractors that are ideal for collection and transfer of solid waste and recyclable materials. Vehicles are available in diesel or natural-gas configurations. Collection vehicles can be spec’d as right-, left- and dual-hand drive. Products are supported with comprehensive parts and service capabilities through Peterbilt’s 300-plus North American dealer network. Financing and leasing solutions are also available. To learn more, visit www.peterbilt.com.
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 31
22-34 swr dec15-jan16 Buyers Guide pg 22-34.indd 31
15-12-18 7:58 AM
COMPANY LISTINGS
2016 SW&R BUYERS’ GUIDE Progressive Waste Solutions Canada Inc.
6-4090 Bellgreen Dr Ottawa ON K1G 3N2 613 260-0451 Fax: 613 260-2784. Exec VP Eastern Canada Robert Ross
QEL (Quatrosense Environmental Ltd.)
PO Box 749 Richmond ON K0A 2Z0 Location: 5935 Ottawa St 613 838-4005 Fax: 613 838-4018. Cust Serv Mgr Simon Warland
R.A.R.E. Recyclage Alexandria Recycling 265 Industrial Blvd Alexandria ON K0C 1A0 613 525-5112 Fax: 613 525-5114. Mgr Linda Andrushkoff
Recycling Council of Alberta PO Box 23 Bluffton AB T0C 0M0 403 843-6563 Fax: 403 843-4156. Exec Dir Christina Seidel
Recycling Equipment Company of Canada Inc. 157-55 Northfield Dr Waterloo ON N2K 3T6 Fax: 519 746-8122. Toll-Free: 866 496-4955 CEO Pete Mulvany
Resource Recovery Systems International, Inc. – KW Composters 511 Pawnee Dr Sterling CO 80751 970 522-0663 Fax: 970 522-3387. Pres Les Kuhlman
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
15 Townline Orangeville ON L9W 3R4 519 941-5331 Fax: 519 941-8120. Toll-Free: 800 265-9662 Exec Asst Patricia Halliday
RMT Equipment
101-30 rue Emiliea-Marcoux Sainte-Thérèse QC J7C 0B5
Fax: 450 963-7331. Toll-Free: 800 648-8132
Robotronics Inc.
1610 W 1600 S Springville UT 84663 801 489-4466 Ext. 104 Fax: 801 489-8241. Toll-Free: 800 762-6876 Ext. 104 Sls/Mktg Mgr Floyd Tippetts
Rockwell Automation, Inc. 1201 South Second St Milwaukee WI 53204-2496 414 382-2000 Fax: 414 382-4444. Toll-Free: 800 223-5354
Roll-Rite, LLC
2574 School Rd Alger MI 48610 989 345-3434 Fax: 989 345-7805. Toll-Free: 800 297-9905 Sls Mgr Solid Waste/Recycling Erl Henry
Rothsay – Maple Leaf Foods Inc. PO Box 8270 Dundas ON L9H 5G1 905 628-2258 Fax: 905 628-8577. Toll-Free: 800 263-0302 Raw Material Mgr Kevin DeBruyn
Rotochopper, Inc.
PO Box 295 St. Martin MN 56376 Location: 217 West St 320 548-3586 Fax: 320 548-3372. Mktg Mgr Monte D Hight Rotochopper manufacturers a complete line of horizontal wood waste grinders, low speed high torque shredders, asphalt shingle grinders, wood chip processors/colorizers, and mobile bagging systems. Offering 10 models that can simultaneously grind and color wood waste, Rotochopper is known for its commitment to “Perfect In One Pass” finished product quality, allowing operators to produce high value biomass fuels, colored mulch, RDF, and other end prod-
ucts in a single process. Rotochopper specializes in innovative equipment solutions, like the RG1, the world’s only purpose-built asphalt shingle grinder, and the Go-Bagger 250, the only fully mobile, self-contained bagging plant on the market.
SCARAB International, LLLP
Rule Steel Inc. – Diamond Z
1114 Osborne Rd Downingtown PA 19335 610 269-5406 Fax: 610 269-5406. Pres Carol Scarfo
11299 Bass Lane Caldwell ID 83605 208 585-2929 Fax: 208 585-2112. Toll-Free: 800 949-2383
RWDI 650 Woodlawn Rd W Guelph ON N1K 1B8 519 823-1311 Fax: 519 823-1316. Mktg/Media Contact Tammy Gazzola
S.E.S. Inc. 1400 Powis Rd West Chicago IL 60185 630 231-4840 Fax: 630 231-4945. Pres Stephen Martines
SP Industries Inc. 2982 Jefferson Rd Hopkins MI 49328 269 793-3232 Fax: 269 793-7451. Toll-Free: 800 592-5959 Sls Mgr Brad Duemler
Samuel Strapping Systems 2370 Dixie Rd Mississauga ON L4Y 1Z4 Fax: 905 279-8016. Toll-Free: 800 607-8727 Toll-Free Fax: 800 607-8727 Mktg Mgr Ryan Van Horne
Saskatchewan Waste Reduction Council 208-220 20th St W Saskatoon SK S7M 0W9 306 931-3242 Fax: 306 955-5852. Exec Dir Joanne Fedyk
SaskEnergy Incorporated 1000-1777 Victoria Ave Regina SK S4P 4K5 306 777-9415 Fax: 306 777-9877.
1475 County Rd W White Deer TX 79097 806 883-7621 Fax: 806 883-6804. Sls Mgr Richard Miller
Scarfo Productions LLC
SENES Consultants
12-121 Granton Dr Richmond Hill ON L4B 3N4 905 764-9380 Fax: 905 764-9386. Pres D M Don Gorber
Sennebogen LLC
1957 Sennebogen Trail Stanley NC 28164 704 347-4910 Fax: 704 347-8894.
Setwest-HJA
88 Beacon St Buffalo NY 14220 716 332-7061 Fax: 716 332-6059. Toll-Free: 800 836-2253 Pres Peter Hurd
Sherbrooke O.E.M Ltd.
262 rue Pépin Sherbrooke QC J1L 2V8 819 563-7374 Fax: 819 563-7556. Toll-Free: 866 851-2579 Project Mgr Jeremie Bourgeois
Shred-Tech Corp.
295 Pinebush Rd Cambridge ON N1T 1B2 519 621-3560 Fax: 519 621-4288. Toll-Free: 800 465-3214 VP-Sls/Mktg Joe Roberto
Shu-Pak Equipment Inc. 176 McGovern Dr Cambridge ON N3H 4R7 519 653-2472 Fax: 519 653-2719. Toll-Free: 800 809-0166 Pres David Tanner
Siemens Canada Limited 1577 North Service Rd E Oakville ON L6H 0H6 905 465-8000
32 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
22-34 swr dec15-jan16 Buyers Guide pg 22-34.indd 32
15-12-18 7:58 AM
COMPANY LISTINGS Signature Marketing, LLC 134 West St Simsbury CT 06070 860 658-7172 Fax: 860 651-8376. Toll-Free: 877 658-7172 CEO Evelyn M Golden
Sittler Demolition & Environmental E-120 Randall Dr Waterloo ON N2V 1C6 519 581-1351 Fax: 519 581-5658. Pres/CEO Steven Sittler
Soft-Pak
300-8525 Gibbs Dr San Diego CA 92123 619 283-2338 Ext. 513 Fax: 619 283-6641. Toll-Free: 888 763-8725
Southwestern Sales Company PO Box 1257 Rogers AR 72757 Location: 3221 N 2nd St Rogers AR 72756 479 636-6943 Fax: 479 636-4718. Toll-Free: 800 427-9368
Spectrum Technologies Inc. 3600 Thayer Court Auror IL 60504 815 436-4440 Fax: 815 436-4460. Toll-Free: 800 248-8873 Pres Mike Thurow
STANMECH Technologies Inc. 944 Zelco Dr Burlington ON L7L 4Y3 905 631-6161 Fax: 905 631-1852. Toll-Free: 888 438-6324 Toll-Free Fax: 888 329-6324 Mktg Coord/Commun Coord Sarah W Fenwick
Summit Equipment, Inc. PO Box 1847 Post Falls ID 83877-1847 208 773-3885 Fax: 208 773-3799. Pres/Gen Mgr Skip Hissong
Tee Mark Manufacturing 1132 Air Park Dr Aitkin MN 56431
218 927-2200 Fax: 218 927-2333. Toll-Free: 800 428-9900 Pres/CEO Denny Rach
Terex Environmental Equipment 22 Whittier St Newton NH 03858 603 382-0556 Fax: 603 382-0557. Mktg Rep Art Murphy
Terrapure Environmental 500-1100 Burloak Dr Burlington ON L7L 6B2 905 315-6300 Toll-Free: 800 263-8302 Managing Dir- Commun/Public Affairs Greg Jones
Titan Industries Inc. 735 Industrial Loop Rd New London WI 54961 920 982-6600 Fax: 920 982-7750. Pres Dan Baumbach
Titan Trailers Inc. 1129 Hwy 3 Delhi ON N4B 2W6 519 688-4826 Fax: 519 688-6453.
TMS Solutions Ltd. 4-1635 Brooks Ave Rochester NY 14624 585 621-5825 Fax: 585 581-1098. Toll-Free: 888 301-4700 Pres William J Brown
2016 SW&R BUYERS’ GUIDE TRUX Route Management Systems Inc. 302-485 Pinebush Rd Cambridge ON N1T 0A6 519 658-4322 Ext. 221 Fax: 519 621-3025. Toll-Free: 866 879-8789 Controller Tom Missere
Union Gas Limited
PO Box 2001 Chatham ON N7M 5M1 Location: 50 Keil Dr N 519 885-7404 Union Gas Limited, one of Canada’s Top 100 Employers for 2014, is a major Canadian natural gas storage, transmission and distribution company based in Ontario with over 100 years of experience and service to customers. Since 1997, Union Gas Demand Side Management programs have helped Ontario residents and business save about 7.5 billion cubic meters of natural gas and reduce CO2 emissions equal to removing 2.5 million cars from Ontario’s roads for a year. For more information, visit uniongas.com.
Universal Handling Equipment
8193 Esquesing Line Milton ON L9T 2X9 905 662-3318 Fax: 905 662-0603. Toll-Free: 877 843-1122
Varsek Trading Group Inc. 6260 Mara Cr Richmond BC V7C 2P9 604 277-6255 Fax: 604 277-6239. Gen Mgr Peter V Varsek
Vecoplan, LLC
PO Box 7224 High Point NC 27264 336 861-6070 Fax: 336 861-4329. Toll-Free: 877 738-3241 Sls Mgr Waste Sortation/Fuel Div. Mat Everhart
VisionQuest Environmental Strategies Corp. 15 Marsh Harbour Aurora ON L4G 5Z2 416 570-4379 Pres Dave Douglas
VisionsQuest/McGuire promotional Products (VQenviro) 15-5456 Tomken Rd Mississauga ON L4W 2Z5 416 570-4379 Fax: 905 602-7589. Natl Sls Mgr Dave Douglas
Voghel Inc.
1681 rue de l’Industrie Beloeil QC J3G 4S5 514 990-6636 Fax: 450 446-6401. Gen Mgr Jean Sebastien Voghel
Transform Compost Systems Ltd. 3911 Mt Lehman Rd Abbotsford BC V4X 2N1 604 856-2722 Pres John Paul
Transport Trailer Sales Inc. 8085 Esquesing Line Milton ON L9T 2X9 905 875-1203 Fax: 905 875-4336.
Travis Body & Trailer, Inc. 13955 FM 529 Houston TX 77041 713 466-5888 Fax: 713 466-3238. Toll-Free: 800 535-4372 Pres K Charles Bud Hughes
VAN DYK Recycling Solutions
705 Suave St Milton ON L9T 8M4 647 204-0330 Fax: 203 967-1199. Sls Mgr Ryan Cournoyer VAN DYK Recycling Solutions has led the North American Market by building over 2,400 efficiently operating and profitable plants. We offer a complete turnkey experience including design, installation, training, and unmatched service support. VAN DYK is the Exclusive Sales and Service for Bollegraaf, Lubo, TITECH and Walair in North America.
Walinga Inc. – Waste Equipment Division
RR 5 Guelph ON N1H 6J2 519 824-8520 Fax: 519 824-5651. Toll-Free: 888 925-4642 The Walinga Rendering/Compost Bucket loader unit is available in rear load or front load style, bucket loader or fork loader, straight truck or semi-trailer.
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 33
22-34 swr dec15-jan16 Buyers Guide pg 22-34.indd 33
15-12-18 7:58 AM
COMPANY LISTINGS
2016 SW&R BUYERS’ GUIDE The main features of these units are: – All aluminum body construction. – Rubrails and top rails 100 percent welded for a stronger leak proof design – H eavy duty tailgate locking mechanisms – Heavy duty body hinge – In cab control for PTO / pump and hoist.
Walking Floor International Canada 65 Bury Crt Brantford ON N3S 0A9 519 756-9178 Fax: 519 756-0687. Toll-Free: 800 514-6085 Dir-Ops/Sls David Schertzberg
Walther-Prazision Quick Coupling 2144 Burbank Dr Mississauga ON L5L 2T8 905 828-5579 Fax: 905 828-8189. Pres Lou Speziale
Waste & Recycling Expo Canada 615-1600 Parkwood Cir Atlanta GA 30339
403 589-4832 Consultant/Show Mgr Arnie Gess
WCI Environmental Solutions Inc.
200-1785 Woodward Dr Ottawa ON K2C 0P9 613 225-4500 Fax: 613 225-4501.
Waste Stream Management Inc. 2-172 Hunt St Ajax ON L1S 1P5 905 426-1755 Fax: 905 426-7078. Pres Jens P Hansen
Wessuc Inc.
1693 Colborne St E Brantford ON N3T 5L4 519 752-0837 Fax: 519 752-0840. Toll-Free: 866 493-7782
West Salem Machinery Co.
Wastequip 6525 Morrison Blvd Suite 300 Charlotte NC 28211 704 366-7140 Toll-Free: 877 468-9278 Wastequip is the leading North American manufacturer of waste handling and recycling equipment, specializing in products and solutions to collect, store, transport waste and recyclables. Our products are used in a wide range of applications, including collection of household, commercial and industrial waste and recyclables. With facilities across North America, we have products available for fast delivery.
PO Box 5288 Salem OR 97304 503 364-2213 Fax: 503 364-1398. Toll-Free: 800 722-3530 Technical Sales Bob DeSouza
Western Trailer Co.
PO Box 5598 Boise ID 83705 Location: 251 W Gower Rd Boise ID 83716 Fax: 208 344-1521. Toll-Free: 800 659-2539 Sales Mgr Dan Taylor
Wilkens Industries Inc. 184 S County Rd 22 Morris MN 56267 320 589-1971 Fax: 320 589-1974.
Toll-Free: 800 833-6045 Sales Doug Storck
Willms & Shier Environ mental Lawyers LLP 900-4 King St W Toronto ON M5H 1B6 416 863-0711 Fax: 416 863-1938. Partner Donna S K Shier
Winkle Industries 2080 West Main St Alliance OH 44601 330 823-9730 Fax: 330 823-9788.
WMS Services, Ltd. 1635 Brooks Ave Suite 4 Rochester NY 14624 585 621-5972 Fax: 585 581-1098. Toll-Free: 888 301-4700 Sls Mgr JJB Jeremiah Brown
Zone Defense, LLC 7-7895 49th Ave Red Deer AB T4P 2B4 403 775-6999 Toll-Free: 866 585-1465 Toll-Free Fax: 866 672-1212 Reg Sls Mgr Joshua Markus
NOTES
34 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
22-34 swr dec15-jan16 Buyers Guide pg 22-34.indd 34
15-12-18 7:58 AM
PROFILE ... continued from page 20
Recycling truck simulator interior (left); Driving simulator models, Truck, Car & Rehab (below).
contrast all look top-notch, so much so that it makes it all feel very real, almost pressure packed. It makes you want to do a good job out on the day’s collection route. We even have a fully functional pneumatic driver seat that allows you to feel the gentle rocking of the truck. And the clutch vibrates gently beneath one’s foot, if you go manual. Everything sounds quite real too. It’s immersive. As we carefully...slowly...drive our truck down the street to our first house, ready to pick up our first recycling bin, it appears that alignment is a big part of making a successful stop. Grenier waits until the bin is centred in his lower right mirror, then signals that he’s ready to use the mechanical arm lift, which comes out from the side of our truck. You need to change mirrors to keep up with the perspective. Grenier manages to dump the big bin into our truck without issue. “It took me about 21 seconds to do this, but a professional driver would take about 6 to 8 seconds,” he says, smiling. “So, I still have a bit of practice to do.” To his left, Grenier is given a full readout score that grades all of his manoveurs. This particular simulation was designed for the City of Calgary’s waste truck drivers, who often need to navigate through very tight residential streets with plenty of obstacles like hydro poles. In our scenario, there are trucks parked in odd spots just off the road, which makes our manoeuvres to pick up the bins even more dangerous. Sometimes, drivers may have to decide that it’s actually unsafe to attempt to lift the bin with our mechanical arm. Too risky. In our simulation, the weather is nice. Quiet. But you can bring win-
ter Calgary to life with just the push of a button, if you’re more inclined to be a glutton for punishment. You name the weather conditions and the VS600M can simulate them for you, making bad weather training a key feature of the product. In the Calgary simulation, the operator drives a route where he must empty 30 recycling bins. Each loading manoeuvre is analysed and scored in real time by the simulator according to the following criteria: alignment of the arm with the bin; smoothness of the grabbing and emptying actions, accurate return of the bin to its initial position and, most critically, the operator’s visual surveillance of the area around the truck before setting it in motion after each loading manoeuvre. After receiving the Virage simulator, Christy Lyon, Calgary’s manager of Waste & Recycling Collection Services, noted how valuable the training has become. “Operating our vehicles safely and efficiently is our primary concern,” says Lyon. “We needed a tool to raise the level of proficiency and awareness of our drivers. With its ergonomics and realistic scenarios, Virage’s simulator is a valuable tool in our training program.” The VS600M truck simulator can be installed in any standard-size office without structural changes to the flooring or special electrical adaptations. The simulator can also be installed in a trailer. A mobile version can be transported in customized cases to any training site. And if you were wondering, yes, the simulator will let you crash the truck through a fence. David Nesseth is editor of Solid Waste & Recycling magazine. He can be reached at dnesseth@solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 35
20 35 swr dec15-jan16 Driving Simulators p 20 35.indd 35
15-12-18 8:15 AM
A N A LY S I S
by Usman Valiante “Whatever the outcomes of those relationships, the brand holders themselves remain liable, thus providing them with a very strong incentive to ensure their intermediaries are capable and diligent.”
Why Ontario’s newest proposal is not just another waste diversion law RRCEA provides for many of the critical policy tools (and none of the detrimental ones) that will make producer responsibility in Ontario an effective means towards a circular economy
F
or more than seven years, Ontario has been debating and waiting for new legislation to replace the ineffective Waste Diversion Act, 2002. The latest attempt, Bill 91’s Waste Reduction Act, died in the legislature with the intervening 2014 provincial election. With a mandate to work, “[…] with industry, municipalities and other stakeholders toward the objective of re-introducing waste reduction legislation,” Environment and Climate Change Minister, Glen Murray, chose not to simply recycle Bill 91 but to engage in another round of consultations that culminated in the tabling of Bill 151’s Waste-Free Ontario Act, on Nov. 26, 2015. Bill 151 comprises two pieces of legislation: • Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2015; and
• Waste Diversion Transition Act, 2015 (which replaces the Waste Diversion Act, 2002). While the Waste Diversion Transition Act, 2015, maintains existing Industry Funding Organization-based programs for electronics, tires, Blue Box materials and municipal household and special waste, its primary purpose is to set forth a legislative framework for transitioning these programs to producer responsibility under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2015 (RRCEA). “As such, it is RRCEA that is a far more interesting piece of legislation, as it sets out the province’s aspirations for resource recovery and a circular economy.”
Bill 151 is comprised of two pieces of legislation: Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2015; and theWaste Diversion Transition Act, 2015 (which replaces the Waste Diversion Act, 2002).
36 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
36-39 swr dec15-jan16 Waste Free p 36-39.indd 36
15-12-18 7:59 AM
L E G I S L AT I O N
Photo credit: Ellen MacArthur Foundation
The reference to a circular economy is in itself telling — RRCEA is clearly not yet another hackneyed approach to regulate “waste diversion away from disposal”. As described by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation – a global thought leader on the circular economy – “A circular economy is restorative and regenerative by design, and aims to keep products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all times. The concept distinguishes between technical and biological cycles.” The RRCEA sets about to achieve the aspirations for a circular economy using five distinct tools: a statement of the provincial interest; a provincial strategy setting out the approach to meeting the provincial interest; policy statements that support the strategy and provincial interests; the establishment of an Authority to ensure compliance with the Act and its regulations; and the regulations themselves, which once written, will set out the responsibilities of the various parties that are subject to the RRCEA. The statement of “provincial interest” is essentially a guide for developing all precipitating policies and policy instruments under the Act. Some of the statements directly relevant to creating a circular economy include, minimizing “[…] greenhouse gas emissions resulting from resource recovery activities and waste reduction activities,” and “hold[ing] persons who are most responsible for the design of products and packaging responsible for the products and packaging at the end of life,” as well as “[…] decreas[ing] hazardous and toxic substances in products and packaging,” and finally, “increas[ing] the reuse and recycling of waste across all sectors of the economy”.
“ 36-39 swr dec15-jan16 Waste Free p 36-39.indd 37
RRCEA requires that, “In order to support the provincial interest, the Minister shall develop a strategy entitled Strategy for a Waste-Free Ontario: Building the Circular Economy”. The Strategy sets out goals, a summary of actions to support the goals (e.g. regulations, guidelines, incentives, policy ‘nudges’) and measures by which progress will be assessed. The first iteration of such a strategy was issued as a companion document to the posting of Bill 151 on the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights Registry. Policy statements may be issued by the Minister to support delivery of the Strategy and provincial interests. There seems to be broad discretion for the MOECC to create policy, though it is clear these provisions could be used to establish material efficiency hierarchies (traditionally reduce, reuse, recycle) and definitions of recycling that include or exclude certain end-of-life management practices (e.g. land application, incineration etc.). Provincial interests and policy statements affect parties with obligations under RRCEA, and in some cases, with obligations under other Acts. Notably, municipalities could be required to amend official plans, zoning bylaws and other bylaws, all to be consistent with the policy statements. Service providers to the obligated parties (i.e. waste collectors and recyclers) and owners or operators of waste management systems are also subject to meeting provincial interests and attendant policies. RRCEA requires the MOECC to work with other ministries to ensure alignment between policy statements and provincial plans under other Acts. If the legislation passes, RRCEA would replace Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) with a new Resource Productivity and Recovery Au-
As such, it is RRCEA that is a far more interesting piece of legislation, as it sets out the province’s aspirations for resource recovery and a circular economy.” December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 37
15-12-18 7:59 AM
L E G I S L AT I O N
thority (the Authority) and terminates the existing WDO board on the date RRCEA comes into force. The new Authority is an administrative body that registers obligated parties (via a registrar), collects information from them relevant to ensuring compliance with the regulations and enforces the regulatory obligations imposed upon the parties. The Authority, however, has no policy-making function. The authority is governed by a board of 11, of which five members are appointed by the Minister. RRCEA provides the Authority with enforcement powers commonly associated with inspectors, and it may issue orders to those regulated parties that are found to be non-compliant with the RRCEA and its regulations.
The Minister may make regulations affecting products, primary packaging, convenience packaging or transport packaging (each with specific definitions set out in the RRCEA).
The categories of obligated parties include: • Producers deemed to be “brand holders” that have a commercial connection to a product (including parties that import, wholesale, lease or retail covered products, or otherwise are involved in the product’s distribution or those supplying convenience or transport packaging); and • Waste generators and resource recovery service providers who perform an activity that relates to resource recovery or waste reduction in Ontario For products and primary packaging, a brand holder may be regulated under RRCEA to register and effect waste reduction, collection, management, promotion and education and reporting and record keeping as specified in the regulations. For convenience packaging (shopping bags or boxes) and transport packaging (pallets, bail wrap and boxes, but not things like shipping containers), a party may be required to carry out one or more of the same responsibilities if they are a brand holder of a product that is or was contained in such packaging, whether they are eithersupplying it to consumers, or, in the case of transport packaging, delivering a product to a consumer for use in Ontario.
RRCEA vs. Bill 91 Waste Reduction Act The RRCEA improves on Bill 91 in a number of very important ways. The RRCEA provides the MOECC with the ability to regulate recyclers through the Authority. “Bill 91 was deficient in this regard, leaving producers exposed to unregulated recyclers, which only served to add cost, complexity and risk to producers’ efforts to meet regulated provincial recycling standards for covered materials.” By allowing for the regulation of recyclers against set recycling standards, the RRCEA reduces producer costs and risks, reduces opportun38 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
36-39 swr dec15-jan16 Waste Free p 36-39.indd 38
15-12-18 7:59 AM
L E G I S L AT I O N
“
Bill 91 was deficient in this regard, leaving producers exposed to unregulated recyclers, which only served to add cost, complexity and risk to producers’ efforts to meet regulated provincial recycling standards for covered materials.”
ities for fraud, creates a level playing field amongst recyclers, (which will drive investment and innovation) while providing Ontarians with greater certainty that environmental objectives are being met. Bill 91 sought to regulate the relationship between producer/brand holders and their compliance agents. It stipulated that producers had to have written agreements with commercial ‘intermediaries,” which the Bill described as “[…] a person or entity owned, operated, controlled or managed, directly or indirectly, by the producer or by the producer together with one or more other producers,” that, “brokers, arranges for, or facilitates the provision of the waste reduction services.” At the time the ministry claimed such regulation of their “intermediaries” was necessary to prevent brand holders/producers from sloughing off their responsibilities to intermediaries, and then claiming, despite brand holder best efforts, the intermediary was at fault for failing to meet the ministry’s waste service and reduction standards. The RRCEA makes no attempt to regulate the relationship between brand holders and producer responsibility organizations/intermediaries/agents that may act to discharge brand holders’ regulatory obligations. Rather, brand holders are allowed to form producer responsibility organizations / intermediaries / agents (or not form them as the case may be) and are free to enter into whatever agreements with whomever they see fit without interference by the Ontario government or the Authority. Whatever the outcomes of those relationships, the brand holders themselves remain liable, thus providing them with a very strong incentive to ensure their intermediaries are capable and diligent. Bill 91 contained provisions about “Producers’ Responsibilities to Municipalities” whereby municipal negotiations of “voluntary agree-
ments with producers” for payment for the collection and recycling of designated materials was to be backstopped by the ability to invoke the Authority to intervene and set the rate of producer compensation to municipalities. This would have led to a worsening of the existing mess under Ontario’s Waste Diversion Act, 2002, where producer payments to municipalities for Blue Box recycling was the subject of arbitration in 2014 and subsequently a Blue Box Cost Containment Panel process as administered by Waste Diversion Ontario throughout 2015. The WDO process has yet to result in any agreement between Stewardship Ontario and Ontario municipalities in regard to producer payments for municipal Blue Box recycling. RRCEA has no provisions related to “Producers’ Responsibilities to Municipalities” and the RRCEA does not afford the Authority with the jurisdiction to establish formulae by which brand holders compensate municipalities for the collection and recycling of every designated waste. Instead, and as discussed earlier, RRCEA sets out the ability for the government to regulate brand holders to undertake collection and recycling of designated materials without specifying how they do that. While detailed regulatory requirements for designated materials under the RRCEA remain to be written, it is clear that as enabling legislation the RRCEA provides for many of the critical policy tools (and none of the detrimental ones) that will make producer responsibility in Ontario an effective means towards a circular economy. Usman Valiante is a senior policy analyst with Corporate Policy Group LLP. He can be reached at valiante@corporatepolicygroup.com
RRCEA REPLACES WDO If the legislation passes, RRCEA would replace Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) with a new Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority (the Authority) and terminates the existing WDO board on the date RRCEA comes into force.
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 39
36-39 swr dec15-jan16 Waste Free p 36-39.indd 39
15-12-18 7:59 AM
PROFILE
by Robert Adeland “Environmental hurdles and requirements necessitated change in the 875 R-HD job application at the Duwamish site.“
WM turns to SENNEBOGEN for new dredging project Washington project unloads contaminated sediment from the river, de-waters it, then loads the solid material onto railcars for transport to landfill
Waste Management opts to power its new SENNEBOGEN 875 R-RD with an electric drive so environmental risks to Seattle’s Lower Duwamish Waterway will be minimized.
W
hen Waste Management North America’s leading provider of integrated environmental solutions got involved with an ongoing environmental dredging and remediation project initiated by Boeing in Seattle’s Lower Duwamish Waterway, it was the first step in a new direction for the company. “The Duwamish River dock site is a new type of facility for Waste Management,” says Nick Harbert, district manager for Waste Management. “The long-term plan for the 16-acre site is to unload contaminated sediment from the river off barges, de-water it, and then load the solid material onto waiting railcars for transport to landfills.” Waste Management officials knew they would need the right kind of equipment for the new dock application to meet the high productivity levels they had set for themselves. A purpose-built SENNEBOGEN material handler was deemed the solution, but company officials debated the merits of SENNEBOGEN 880 and 870 models and were torn between either a diesel or an electric-powered machine.
Due diligence led to purchase “SENNEBOGEN LLC. arranged a trip to SENNEBOGEN headquarters in Germany for Waste Management officials to see various models of the purpose-built green machines in operation doing similar type applications,” says Harbert. “They liked what they saw and came back to North America convinced that SENNEBOGEN was the right machine for the Duwamish site.” Harbert also says seeing a SENNEBOGEN 875 R-HD at the 2014 Con Expo Show in Las Vegas with John Meese, senior director of heavy equipment, and having the opportunity to have that conversation with him and Erich Sennebogen, tilted the decision in favour of the 875 material handler, and he placed the order. “The SENNEBOGEN 875 R-HD’s extended reach (K21, 68’7”) and its ability to handle a 6-yd. clamshell bucket were the key determining factors,” says Harbert. “We decided to go with the electrically-powered machine because
40 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
40-41 swr dec15-jan16 SENN p 40-41.indd 40
15-12-18 8:00 AM
“
PROFILE We decided to go with the electrically-powered machine because we would be working on a river and wanted to minimize the potential risk of spills from the machine. We also wanted to hold ourselves to a higher environmental standard. Minimizing the noise level of operating the machine was a factor, too.”
we would be working on a river and wanted to minimize the potential risk of spills from the machine. We also wanted to hold ourselves to a higher environmental standard. Minimizing the noise level of operating the machine was a factor, too.” Environmental hurdles and requirements necessitated change in the 875 R-HD job application at the Duwamish site. Unfortunately, environmental hurdles and requirements slowed development of the Duwamish site. “After Waste Management became the long-term tenants of the site in April 2014, we were unable to begin construction of railroad tracks as there still had to be more site assessment work done by the state environmental regulatory agency,” says Harbert. “As a result, the Boeing material could not come to the Duwamish site and it had to be processed at a third-party facility on the river.” The good news is that Waste Management’s SENNEBOGEN 875 R-HD has been put to productive use in the meantime. “While we wait for the necessary approvals, what is happening at our Duwamish site now is the off-loading of clean back-fill material from trucks onto barges to be taken to fill in the holes left by the dredging,” says Harbert. “Our SENNEBOGEN 875 R-HD has been phenomenally efficient and productive in this operation, cutting barge-loading times significantly. Whereas, it had previously taken operators four to five hours to load a barge with back-fill material, our SENNEBOGEN was able to do the same operation in two hours. During an evaluation meeting, company officials made it very clear that they would not have been
able to meet their contractual obligations without the aid of our facility and our SENNEBOGEN material handler.” Harbert says his operators are very happy with the simplicity, performance and the responsiveness of the SENNEBOGEN 875 R-HD machine, joking that other contractors experienced “green envy” when they witnessed Waste Management’s material handler in operation at the Duwamish site. “They wanted to get one of these machines,” he says. “It has definitely been a great asset to our operation.”
Dredging and remediation a long-term project The dredging and remediation of the Duwamish River will continue for many more years. The river is an EPA-managed Superfund site with plans to move over 1 million cubic yards of contaminated dredge sediment over the next several years. Harbert says Waste Management’s Duwamish site will be fully operational within a year or so and will be very much a part of that ongoing remediation project. He says the company is also bidding on similar dredge operations elsewhere. For 35 years, Robert Adeland has established himself as a professional marketer in both Canada and the U.S. He is a principal for Marketing Strategies & Solutions, an integrated marketing firm specializing in B-2-B communication. He can be reached at robert@marketingstrategiesandsolutions.com
WHATEVER YOU NEED, MARATHON HAS YOU COVERED • Stationary and self-contained compactors • Balers • MRF systems • Anaerobic digestion systems
Clockwise, from upper left: Auger Compactor, Material Recovery Facility, Vertical Baler, Smart FERM
• Ready Baler program available on select products
For more information, visit marathonequipment.com
®
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 41
40-41 swr dec15-jan16 SENN p 40-41.indd 41
15-12-18 8:00 AM
S WA N A N E W S
by SWR Staff
SWANA releases free safety decals Nearly 40% of Americans are tempted to speed up, pull around and pass garbage trucks on the road each week
T
he Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) will begin distributing those familiar Slow Down to Get Around decals — the ones you see on the rear of waste trucks — free of charge to members in early 2016, all in an effort to raise road safety awareness. A 2014 poll commissioned by the National Waste and Recycling Association found that nearly 40% of Americans are tempted to speed up, pull around and pass garbage trucks on the road each week. Slow Down to Get Around is a national safety campaign aimed at remedying the problem by encouraging citizens to drive carefully, so that everybody can get home safe and sound. Slow Down to Get Around is now the law in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia
David Biderman
and Wisconsin. The Ontario Waste Management Association is making a push to see similar laws introduced to Ontario. “This program is just one of many elements to our new Safety Matters program,” says SWANA executive director and CEO David Biderman. “As the leading association for solid waste professionals, SWANA will continue to expand its safety offerings to help to decrease the number of accidents and injuries in the industry. In the U.S., Slow Down to Get Around requires drivers to change lanes if possible or slow down to at least 10 miles per hour below the posted speed limit and pass at least two feet to the left of the stationary vehicles that are in the process of collecting waste or recycling. The law carries a penalty of up to $250. SWANA says Lytx Inc., creator of Drive-
RECYCLING & RENDERING TRUCKS
WALINGA
RENDERING / COMPOST UNITS • 100% Welded Construction • Water Tight Sealed Tailgate • Hydraulic Controls • Full Open Top
RECYCLER • Walinga Custom Cab Conversion • Single or Dual Loading • 46 yard Capacity • FRP Smooth Side Construction • 4/7yd Hydraulic Bustle Gate Guelph, Ontario (888) 925-4642 • Wayland, Michigan (800) 466-1197 • www.walinga.com
42 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
42-43 swr dec15-jan16 Slow Down To p 42-43.indd 42
15-12-18 10:51 AM
S WA N A N E W S
Cam cab video equipment, is the official sponsor of the association’s Slow Down to Get Around decal program. “Our goal at Lytx is to help make good drivers better, and we know that reminding people about safe driving behaviors — whether professional drivers or everyday motorists — can deliver a positive impact,” says Naomi Hamels, senior marketing manager for Lytx. “The Slow Down to Get Around decal effort is a smart way to keep safe driving top of mind for everyone who gets behind the wheel. For more information on SWANA and its Safety Matters program, please visit www.SWANA.org
YOUR ORGANIC RECYCLING SUPPLIER In a rapidly progressing world, the need to responsibly manage organic resources is more important than ever. Through a vast and versatile product lineup, Vermeer demonstrates our commitment to transforming organic materials into a useful end product. Whether you are processing waste into compost, producing wood chips for power generation or turning discarded wood debris into landscaping mulch, Vermeer has the products to meet your needs.
POUR LE RECYCLAGE DES MATIÈRES ORGANIQUES : VERMEER
TROMMEL SCREENS | TAMIS ROTATIF
COMPOST TURNERS | RETOURNEURS DE COMPOST
Dans un monde en rapide évolution, la gestion responsable des matières organiques est plus importante que jamais. L’engagement de Vermeer à vous aider à transformer les matières organiques en produits finis utiles se traduit par une gamme étendue de produits polyvalents. Qu’il s’agisse de transformer les déchets en compost, de produire des copeaux de bois pour servir de source d’énergie ou de fabriquer du paillis pour l’aménagement paysager à partir de débris de bois, vous trouverez chez Vermeer le produit qui saura répondre à vos besoins.
HORIZONTAL GRINDERS | BROYEURS HORIZONTAUX BRAMPTON OTTAWA LONDON
(800) 668-9065 (613) 298-9121 (855) 351-9866
CRAIGHURST ATLANTIC EDMONTON
(800) 668-9065 (902) 222-9679 (800) 809-5066
CALGARY GRANDE PRAIRIE SASKATOON
(403) 216-1160 (780) 230-2000 (306) 382-3249
WINNIPEG THUNDER BAY LAVAL
(866) 548-1866 (807) 345-2705 (800) 990-7919
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 43
42-43 swr dec15-jan16 Slow Down To p 42-43.indd 43
15-12-18 10:51 AM
I N T ’ L WA S T E S P O T L I G H T
by Timothy Byrne “Plans for a waste-to-energy facility may help the Prefecture provide renewable energy and become self-sufficient for many decades to come.”
Green isn’t Greek to them A brief history of waste management in Thessaloniki
T
hessaloniki is in Macedonia, northern Greece, the second largest city on the coast with a bustling commercial port. Summer temperatures reach 40°C and attract many overseas tourists and day trippers from Halkidiki, who stay at seaside towns along the coast. With its cosmopolitan nature, Thessaloniki also attracts business travellers who hold meetings in the city’s many venues, such as the HELEXPO Centre, which holds exhibitions and conferences year round, and of course, adds to the city’s annual waste footprint.
Responsibility for waste management in Thessaloniki, and the entire Prefecture, lies with the FODSA, a public company that manages waste for the Association of Local Authorities of the Prefecture of Thessaloniki. It manages the treatment of waste from the two million people living in the Prefecture — a very important task. The current president of FODSA, Michalis Geranis, is very forward thinking. He realizes that Thessaloniki Prefecture cannot rely on sanitary landfills as the long-term solution for treating non–recyclable waste, so FODSA is looking at waste-to-energy options as a longer-term sustainable solution to this problem. FODSA is technology-neutral and is considering both mass burn systems, as well as emerging technologies like gasification and pyrolysis. It is FODSA’s belief that by incorporating waste-to-energy options into their longer-term waste management strategy, the Prefecture will be self-sufficient with its own electricity.
Recycling systems in Thessaloniki Prefecture FODSA widely encourages residents of the Prefecture to recycle and reduce the volumes of municipal waste currently sent to landfill. It has provided blue coloured 1,100-litre containers for the deposit of mixed recyclables like paper, cardboard, ferrous and non-ferrous steel cans, also plastics (PET, HDPE TETRAPAK and LDPE). The blue 1,100-litre containers are in communal collection points next to 660 and 1,100-litre green containers for non-recyclable waste. Thessaloniki collects mixed recyclables from the blue containers on behalf of FODSA using a fleet of HFAISTOS STEFANOU 16 cubic 44 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
44-46 swr dec15-jan16 Int'l Waste Spot p 44-46.indd 44
15-12-18 8:03 AM
I N T ’ L WA S T E S P O T L I G H T
metre rear-loading waste collection vehicles mounted onto Mercedes Axor and DAF LF 15 and 18 tonne two-axle chassis. They are fitted with a bin lift, comb and trunnion arms compliant to DIN 30700 and DIN 30740 standards for emptying the blue containers. The collection service uses a driver and two operatives. The large blue containers are positioned at the rear of the collection vehicles so they can be emptied by the vehicle’s lifting equipment. Once the containers have been emptied, the crew returns them to the communal collection point before moving on. For the deposit of multi-coloured bottles and jars, FODSA also provides blue igloos that can be seen outside hotels, apartments, multioccupant dwellings, restaurants and night clubs, where large volumes of glass bottles are produced from beer and wine. The City of Thessaloniki provides a tipper truck with a crane fitted behind the cab to empty the igloos on a regular basis. This stops any cross contamination with other recyclables from the abrasiveness of the glass, which could affect output quality for reprocessors. Once the dry recyclables have been collected from the blue containers and the blue igloos, the recyclable materials are delivered to a Sindos materials recycling facility in Thessaloniki Prefecture. The paper, cardboard, ferrous and non-ferrous metals and the plastics (PET, HDPE, TETRAPACK and LDPE) are separated by eddy current separators before being baled for transporting to reprocessors. The mixed coloured bottles and jars are delivered to a glass processor where it’s source separated by colour for melting and producing new glass materials. The rejected material from the Sindos facility is baled and taken to the sanitary landfill site for disposal once all of the recyclable materials have been extracted. FODSA helps Greece move its waste up the waste hierarchy, complying fully with the Revised Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) and helping the country improve its recycling rate and provide a closedloop system for its recyclable materials. FODSA also provides recycling collection points at shopping centres, public buildings and offices for batteries, preventing them being sent to landfill. The collection of waste electronic and electrical equipment, such as worn out fridges, freezers and TVs, is also provided for the community, which helps Greece comply with the Recast of the WEEE Directive (2012/19/EU).
Waste transfer station Infrastructure for non–recyclable waste in Thessaloniki Prefecture FODSA has organized a network of waste transfer stations for the efficient discharge of non–recyclable waste by the municipalities across the Prefecture. The operation of the waste transfer stations helps provide an efficient waste collection system for inhabitants and helps to reduce the carbon footprint in waste collection vehicles having to travel long distances to the sanitary landfill site. The main transfer station in the Prefecture is Finikas waste transfer station, which processes all of the city’s waste. Built in 1995 in conjunction with Kiggen from the Netherlands, and MUT from Austria, the fa-
cility is totally covered and sound insulated with three static compactors that compress waste delivered by waste collection vehicles into hermetically sealed roll–on–off containers. It is on two levels — the upper level where waste collection vehicles discharge loads — and the lower level where roll–on–off containers receive the waste falling from the top level into the hopper of the static compactors. When fully-loaded waste collection vehicles arrive at Finikas, loads are weighed and vehicles are directed to one of the three static compactor apertures to discharge. A traffic light system is operated: green informs the driver that he or she can reverse inside the waste transfer station to discharge the load; red informs the driver of other incoming vehicles that he cannot discharge his load in the aperture of the compactor because the roll–on–off container receiving the waste at the lower level of the transfer station may be full and may be in the process of being exchanged with an empty container. The roll–on–off containers are moved onto a frame at the lower level. Once a roll–on–off container is full, it’s moved to the right, so an empty container from the left can be moved across to the aperture and locked into place for the fresh loading of waste to continue. Initially, the waste transfer station only processed waste produced by the City of Thessaloniki. The staff, which manages and operate it, are directly employed by Thessaloniki, however, more recently, the city has come to an agreement with the municipalities of Kalamaria, Pylea, Neapoli and Thermi to deliver waste in their own vehicles to Finikas. This helps to reduce carbon footprint by not having to deliver the waste directly to the Prefecture’s sanitary landfill site. FODSA has also organised waste transfer stations in other parts of Thessaloniki Prefecture, such as Thermaikos. The waste collection vehicles from the Thermaikos municipality deliver waste to a local transfer station where FODSA has constructed a hopper for the discharge of non–recyclable waste by gravity into Kaoussis 56m3 top loading ejector trailers. The ejector trailers are operated by FODSA and once a waste collection vehicle has discharged its load into the top of the ejector trailDecember 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 45
44-46 swr dec15-jan16 Int'l Waste Spot p 44-46.indd 45
15-12-18 8:04 AM
I N T ’ L WA S T E S P O T L I G H T
er, the compaction ram inside the ejector trailer compresses the waste to the end of the ejector trailer. It is then ready to receive a fresh load of waste from another waste collection vehicle. Once the ejector trailer is full, FODSA replace it with an empty ejector trailer so that the fresh loading of waste by waste collection vehicles from Thermaikos can continue. FODSA operate a fleet of Renault Kerax and Iveco Trakker 6x4 double drive tractor units which position empty transfer trailers under the transfer station’s loading apertures to enable the fresh loading of waste by waste collection vehicles to continue. They also transport the full ejector trailers to the sanitary landfill site of Thessaloniki Prefecture to be emptied.
Mavrorahi sanitary landfill site – Thessaloniki Prefecture All non–recyclable waste is delivered to the Mavrorahi sanitary landfill site, which disposes of the waste produced across Thessaloniki Prefecture as well as additional non — recyclable waste from Halkidiki municipalities. The landfill site is operated by FODSA, which designed and constructed the landfill to replace the now full landfill site at Tagaredes. FODSA opened the new Mavrorahi sanitary landfill site in 2008. Civil works were undertaken in advance of the landfill opening at Mavrorahi, including a specially engineered road complete with bridge for the waste collection and waste transfer vehicles to travel across a ravine to access the landfill site. Two weighbridges were built, one to weigh incoming vehicles and one to weigh the outgoing vehicles so their tare weight could be established. The landfill was lined with a liner and the necessary pipework was constructed for the transport of leachate and methane gas out of the landfill site. Once waste collection and transfer vehicles have been weighed on the first weighbridge at Mavrorahi, they travel along the haul road to the
tip face of the landfill to discharge their loads. The waste collection and transfer vehicles head to the second weighbridge at the exit of the landfill to obtain their weighbridge ticket before leaving the site. The fresh waste deposited at the tip face of the landfill is pushed into the landfill cell by bulldozers for compaction by a Bomag landfill compactor. Bulldozers also spread soil excavated from nearby the landfill over the fresh waste so that it is covered to prevent seagulls and vermin from ferreting in the waste and spreading disease. The leachate collected from inside the landfill is treated in a desalination plant next to the landfill site. The desalination plant uses Reverse Osmosis technology and polishes the leachate to reduce the levels of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and Ammoniacal Nitrogen in the leachate before being discharged off site through a consented discharge. Methane is flared off site using a series of flare torches for the different landfill cells. The landfill site complies fully with the requirements of the EU Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC). FODSA provides sustainable recycling, waste transfer, sanitary landfill and landfill rehabilitation for closed sanitary landfill sites such as Tagaredes across Thessaloniki Prefecture. Its future plans for further developing waste transfer infrastructure by the construction of another waste transfer station will help reduce the carbon footprint and vehicle emissions, while plans for a waste-to-energy facility may help the Prefecture provide renewable energy and become self-sufficient for many decades to come. Timothy Byrne is based in the UK. He is an MCIWM chartered waste manager, ISWA international waste manager, and an associate member of Ategrus (Spanish Solid Waste Association). He can be reached at garbage32@hotmail.co.uk.
46 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
44-46 swr dec15-jan16 Int'l Waste Spot p 44-46.indd 46
15-12-18 8:04 AM
ART PROJECT
by SWR Staff
SAY ‘CHEESE’: Living with our Waste Shot by acclaimed photographer Gregg Segal, 7 Days of Garbage
G
LAD Canada and the City of Toronto reecently hosted the 7 Days of Garbage photography exhibit at Union Station’s Great Hall, all in an effort to illustrate personal consumption, as each subject posed with a week’s worth of his or her own waste, has been expanded to showcase the waste of prominent Torontonians Kai Lee, son of Canadian chef Susur Lee and restaurateur; Amanda Blakley and family, freelance writer and co-founder of exclusive Toronto tastemaker’s club, The Social; Andy Byford, chief executive officer of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC); and James Yurichuk and Natey Adjei, members of the Toronto Argonauts.
“Ever since I was a kid, I’ve wondered about garbage – where does it go and what happens when we run out of places to put it? With 7 Days of Garbage, I call attention to the crisis of waste and consumption, by personalizing it,” said Segal, who asked friends, family and neighbours pose for a photograph alongside one week’s worth of trash. “From there, I’ve found that some have started to consider the issue more deeply, and I hope this state of awareness will follow the exhibit to Toronto.” GLAD remains committed to sustainable living, and encourages those who view the photographs to share their thoughts and insights on social media using the hashtag #7daysofgarbage.
“By asking us to look at ourselves, I’ve found that some are considering the issue more deeply. Many have said the process of saving their garbage and then laying in it reconciled a need for change. Others have commented how powerless they feel. What can anyone of us do?” — Gregg Segal, 7 Days of Garbage photography project
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 47
47 swr dec15-jan16 7 days p 47.indd 47
15-12-18 10:51 AM
EPR CANADA
by Corinne Atwood “The majority of EPR programs operating in BC piggy-back on the network of bottle and recycling depots established by independent owner operators and/or taxpayer funded municipal collection sites or non profits (subsidised by the taxpayers).”
A closer look at BC’s ‘A’ grade for EPR If we’re going to discuss “A’s” let’s start with accountability
B
C has many EPR programs — more than any other province — and the desire of BC residents and industry partners to participate in recycling programs should be applauded. British Columbians have, for decades, embraced the culture of recycling. Many of BC’s longest standing industries and independent businesses are recycling based. Most EPR programs have been created to address valid waste management issues. EPR can be a great tool for waste management. However, one must keep perspective in the awarding of the EPR Canada’s Certificate of Recognition for the “A” British Columbia received. This award is said to be the result of an audit, but we should look at who performed the audit and who is passing out the grade. If the award was to reflect a comprehensive view of EPR programs, and had included input from all stakeholders such as collectors, haulers, processors, regional districts, municipalities and consumers at large, BC may well have received a different score. EPR Canada is a group of consultants, most of whom have done work for EPR stewards in a number of jurisdictions including BC. So essentially EPR Canada is patting themselves on the back, as they can be included in the group of people who help create some of BC’s EPR programs.
Looking at EPR Canada’s website it becomes apparent that some of the founders/consultants have supported blue box EPR programs that leave the consumer and taxpayers on the hook for discarded materials and relieve manufacturers of any or most costs. It’s true that the British Columbia Litter Act, and the offspring that emerged from the introduction of that Act (Used Beverage Container Stewardship Plan), which uses deposit-return as a collection method, has become a program to be admired and appreciated by the masses. The Used Beverage Container Stewardship Plan holds fast at the top of the EPR pile for a program that works. So then, how does BC get an A when all the other EPR programs in BC have chosen not to use the best proven recovery method in applications that would have been a natural fit? Mayonnaise and pickle jars, plastic dish soap, shampoo and other toiletries containers and soup/ vegetable cans are all sold in containers made out of the same materials from which beverage containers are made. All those containers could have been put into the deposit program. Manufacturers plead that families would starve if these containers had deposits attached. On the contrary! Deposits are returned to those who bring the containers back. In
48 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
48-49 swr dec15-jan16 EPR p 48-49.indd 48
15-12-18 8:05 AM
EPR CANADA
fact, abandoned deposit-bearing containers support hundreds of community groups and charities and help thousands subsidize income. Programs not operating under deposit systems charge visible or nonvisible non-returnable recycling fees. These non-refundable recycling fees account for hundreds of millions of dollars taken out of consumers pockets each year. BC should have immediately been downgraded for failing to recognise milk as a beverage under the Recycling Act. Milk is sold and marketed as a beverage in BC. How is it that milk can be marketed and sold as a drinkable food product for sale when it’s not recognised under our own regulations as a beverage? Milk containers should have been assigned into the Used Beverage Container EPR program, as Alberta has done. Years ago, BC lowered its deposit rates to support the Alberta used beverage container program under a harmonization agreement. Since that agreement was born, Alberta deposit rates have gone up and milk containers have been included in the Alberta used beverage container program. BC has not matched the program. Maybe it’s because one or more consultants on the EPR Canada Board helped B.C.’S FAILING EPR get milk containers assigned into the BC Printed SYSTEM Paper and Packaging (PPP) Non-negotiated, one sided, shortprogram? The majority of EPR term, easily cancelled contracts offerprograms operating in BC ing pittances for the work performed, piggy-back on the network delivered in a take-it or leave-it style, of bottle and recycling offer no security for the risk takers, depots established by independent owner operators but are what most stakeholders and / or taxpayer funded expect to be offered under the most municipal collection sites of BC’s current EPR programs. or non profits (subsidised by the taxpayers). EPR stewards frequently pitch to collectors, transporters and
processors why they should willing to assume all the risk and should be doing more for less or nothing at all. Some EPR stewards have not increased handling fees to contractors for over a decade at a time when business costs in BC have risen over 25% in the past five years. Some EPR programs hope to enslave collectors by offering no remuneration at all. Non-negotiated, one sided, short-term, easily cancelled contracts offering pittances for the work performed, delivered in a take-it or leave-it style, offer no security for the risk takers, but are what most stakeholders expect to be offered under the most of BC’s current EPR programs. Some collectors and other industry partners say they feel looked down upon as if they were the residual of EPR programs instead of being embraced as valued partners. This is the shameful history of BC’s EPR programs that no one wants to talk about. Staff at the Ministry of Environment tries hard to see all sides of the recycling industry and are aware of the ongoing issues affecting the stakeholders. But EPR programs that are industry led will continue to focus on the best interest of industry. Regulations that put industry solely in charge of program development and that lets EPR stewards report their successes, using third parties they have hired, using information they have provided to those third parties, using whatever methods they see fit to get the desired recovery results, all without an independent governing agency consisting of all stakeholders to over see the programs leaves most stakeholders frustrated and concerned about the viability of the industry they helped create. If we’re going to discuss “A’s” let’s start with ACCOUNTABILITY? BC and the outside world need to see this award for what it is worth. BC would be better served to take a stronger leadership role and make substantial improvements to the EPR templates and current regulations to “protect the interests of all stakeholders” and introduce an “Independent Recycling Management Board” “consisting of all stakeholders” so that we make sure EPR programs work in everyone’s interests. Corinne Atwood is executive director of the BC Bottle and Recycling Depot Association. She can be reached at bcbda@telus.net December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 49
48-49 swr dec15-jan16 EPR p 48-49.indd 49
15-12-18 8:05 AM
R E G U L AT I O N R O U N D U P
by Rosalind Cooper, L.L.B. “The new waste strategy empowers producers by giving them responsibility for managing diversion and encouraging them to improve how their products and packaging are designed, used and reused, and how their end of life products and packaging are recycled and reintegrated into the economy.”
Looking ahead to a Waste-Free Ontario On Nov. 26, 2015, Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change announced its new waste strategy and posted the proposed Waste-Free Ontario Act for public comment
I
f passed, this newly-proposed Ontario legislation would enact both the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, and the Waste Diversion Transition Act, resulting in the elimination of existing waste diversion programs operated under the Waste Diversion Act, 2002. The proposed Waste-Free Ontario Act is intended to increase resource recovery and facilitate waste reduction by making individual producers responsible for achieving these objectives.
Current Waste Management Regime The approach under the existing Waste Diversion Act, 2002 involves the creation of industry funding organizations to implement recycling programs in Ontario. Industry funding organizations establish systems to collect and process materials, and producers of waste are responsible for financing diversion programs by remitting fees to industry funding organizations. Producers have had little control over program costs and operations. In 2015, the Blue Box program cost over $229 million, and was shared between producers and municipalities. The mandatory requirement to pay fees to an industry funding organization means that there is little incentive for producers to improve packaging design or to develop concepts for recovering their products and packaging at end-of-life.
Previous Waste Management Reviews
In 2004, the government released a discussion paper entitled “Ontario’s 60% Waste Diversion Goal, A Discussion Paper” for public comment. The document discussed ways to improve the diversion of waste, particularly organic wastes and wastes generated by the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors, by banning landfills, creating more centralized organics processing, and better understanding the role of new technologies. In 2008, the government released a discussion paper entitled “Toward a Zero Waste Future: Review of the Waste Diversion Act, 2002” as part of the five-year review of the Waste Diversion Act, 2002. The paper was intended to evaluate if changes were needed to enhance waste diversion in Ontario. Consultation w\ith key stakeholders was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing framework in achieving diversion. In 2009, the report entitled “From Waste to Worth: The Role of Waste Diversion in the Green Economy” was released, outlining the findings from the prior review. The report also included proposed changes to the waste diversion framework focused on extended producer responsibility for the management of designated wastes.
Need for Change to Existing Regime Currently, Ontario generates about 12 million tonnes of waste a year, but diverts only 25 per cent from landfill. Absolute greenhouse gas emissions from Ontario’s waste have increased by 25 percent between 1990 and 2012 as the amount of waste disposed in landfills has also increased. Failure to divert more waste from landfill creates concerns regarding the
capacity of Ontario’s municipal landfills, and municipal taxpayers are funding diversion efforts and dealing with rising costs. Shifting responsibility for Blue Box materials to producers results in significant savings for municipal taxpayers and benefits for the environment. The new waste strategy empowers producers by giving them responsibility for managing diversion and encouraging them to improve how their products and packaging are designed, used and reused, and how their end of life products and packaging are recycled and reintegrated into the economy.
The Regulatory Regime and Strategy
Glenn Murray
The proposed Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2015 is intended to achieve zero waste and zero greenhouse gas emissions from the waste sector. Zero waste refers to a new way of approaching waste which emphasizes waste prevention. The goal of reducing greenhouse gases from the waste sector is intended to assist the province in meeting its climate change commitments. The strategy includes holding individual producers responsible for the end-of-life management of their products, including meeting government-set waste reduction outcomes. This is intended to encourage economic and environmental innovation. All-in pricing would be used to ensure consumer protection and encourage improved product design. Under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, the Resource Productivity Recovery Authority would replace Waste Diversion Ontario and be responsible for overseeing enforcement and compliance under the new producer responsibility regime. Producers would be identified as “responsible persons” and required to show compliance by reporting data to the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority. Responsible persons would, however, be given flexibility in determining how to best meet their obligations to reduce and recover waste. The Waste Diversion Transition Act would facilitate the transition of existing programs, such as the Blue Box program, to the new producer responsibility regime and wind up existing waste diversion programs and industry funding organizations. The diversion of a wider range of wastes would be pursued, including the designation of paper and packaging from the industrial, commercial and institutional sector. This would include consultation on the use of disposal bans; a strategy to increase diversion of organics; and developing and implementing new standards for end-of-life vehicles. Rosalind Cooper, LL.B., is a partner with Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP in Toronto, Ontario. Contact Rosalind at rcooper@tor.fasken.com
50 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
50 swr dec15-jan16 RegRndup p 50.indd 50
15-12-18 10:51 AM
PROFILE
by Diane Blackburn
Customer Returns Find Tire-less Hands
“As retail consumers begin to buy everything from spark plugs to ice skates this holiday season, we can all feel good about the environmental sensibilities at one of Canada’s favourite retailers.”
A Styrofoam densifier and heavy-duty baler for rigid plastics have been added to the standard equipment lineup at CTC and have increased efficiencies to save cash
A
t the time of writing this profile, the specter of Christmas Shopping is upon us. The largest shop ‘till ya drop season officially launched when the last candy dropped into an old Halloween bag on the night of October 31st. Surely one of the most popular and trusted stores from which to procure presents during the season of holiday madness is the local Canadian Tire store. The iconic red triangle logo has been part of Canadian heritage since 1922, when brothers John and Alfred Billes took their combined savings … a whopping $1,800 in that era … and plunked it down to purchase Hamilton Tire & Garage Ltd. It didn’t take long for the store to move east from Hamilton to Yonge and Gould streets in Toronto to become the Canadian Tire Corporation (CTC) in 1923. The first associate store opened in 1934, launching Canada’s wildly successful dealer-operated network of retail stores nationwide. By the time 1997 rolled around, 85% of Canadians lived within a 15 minute drive of their local Canadian Tire store, and nine out of 10 adults shopped there at least twice a year. Christmas was undoubtedly one of those peak shopping opportunities. The growth of Canadian Tire is a phenomenal success story. Fast forward to 2011 and CTC acquires the Forzani Group Ltd., the largest national sporting goods retailer in Canada. But as the company expanded in tandem with rising consumerism, massive volumes of waste were also being generated by their operations — waste that needed an alternative solution to landfilling. While queuing up to the ‘returns’ counter at your local Canadian Tire, you may have wondered where the products go. Rest assured, they are in the best of hands at the company’s Resource Recovery Centre (RRC) in Brampton, Ont. The RRC is the epitome of 3Rs thinking. RRC is the corporation’s internal materials recovery facility, its only mandate being to reuse and recycle whatever crosses the threshold.
RRC takes every infinitesimal scrap of waste from across Canada and reuses or recycles it; very little goes to disposal. The RCC’s enviable record is accomplished by a team of less than 10 people, led by RRC manager Brian Petrie, and RRC’s environmental consultant James Skuza, who assist in diverting thousands of tonnes of waste from landfill every year. Supporting the programming efforts led by Petrie and Skuza is Greenspace Waste Solutions CEO Jason Smith. Greenspace is the service provider that helps CTC achieve their ambitious waste goals. The Resource Recovery Centre has processes in place for the collection and source separation of cardboard, stretch wrap, wood, hard/ rigid plastics, Styrofoam, electronics, rubber, tires, glass, vinyl, steel, copper, copper wiring, aluminum, brass, stainless steel, electric motors, radiators, ceramics/porcelain/clay, paper, organics, mixed cafeteria recyclables, batteries, sugary liquid and used oil, all of which are sent off for recycling. Even scrap (white wood) pallets are sent for reuse. A
– FAST FACTS – • Canadian Tire’s first mail order catalogue debuted in 1928. • Its first gas bar launched in 1958, the same year the store issued the famous faux currency that eventually became Canadian Tire dollars. • In 2013, The Canadian Tire Centre in Ottawa became the home arena of the NHL’s Ottawa Senators.
December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 51
51-52 swr dec15-jan16 IC&I CdnTire p 51-52.indd 51
15-12-18 8:07 AM
PROFILE
HITTING THE NUMBERS In 2014, RCC set sights on an internal goal of 95% diversion to beat its 2013 goal of 87%. It increased acceptable recycling criteria and introduced new recycling streams. Putting them over the top was the response of RCC’s tight-knit team, creating more education and communication about appropriate recycling methods. The end result? It reached 98.9% diversion, which is a remarkable achievement given the starting point of 50% diversion in 2012. New challenges are on the horizon for RCC as they undertake trial runs on recycling products generated by new banners from the Forzani Group acquisition. The distribution centres now generate over $600,000 a year in revenue from recycling.
The AMRC is now the MWA... with a new website to match our new name
www.municipalwaste.ca
Project1
11/13/06
10:28 AM
Page 1
Styrofoam densifier and heavy-duty baler for rigid plastics have been added to the standard equipment lineup and have increased efficiencies to save the corporation thousands of dollars. RRC staff is also trained to perform refrigerant evacuation of damaged products such as fridges, water coolers, AC units and dehumidifiers, ensuring the capture of all the ozone-depleting gasses used in such products before they go to electronics recycling facilities. If that isn’t impressive enough, RRC also boasts a triage process to inspect and divert all damaged product, further increasing reuse over recycling, and making it the perfect implementation of 3Rs hierarchy. CTC is not required under O. Reg. 102/94 to conduct a waste audit, and could easily duck out of such a detailed and time consuming process. But instead they welcome the opportunity to learn from the audit process, as it enhances their understanding of the complex waste mix they deal with every single day. Its annual ‘surprise’ audit, using SWAM (Standard Waste Auditing Method), examines the representative content of a 40 yard compactor from the RRC site with all details logged and tracked. On the engagement side of the ledger, RRC keeps its team sharp by reinforcing the 3Rs message with their own mantra, “Engage, Empower, Excel”. The 3Rs hierarchy is delicate for any retailer with the range of product that Canadian Tire carries. Packaging reduction is a big goal, but too little packaging results in too much product damage. It’s a tightrope but CTC has found just the right balance. And finally, with an employee-centric “garage sale” program, all the perfectly useful items — many of them brand new and still packaged — are put up for sale every year. Everything from cookware to sporting equipment is on the block, where it’s snapped up by enthusiastic employees. All sale proceeds go to CTC’s Jumpstart Charity which, since 2005, has helped over 1 million kids in all Canadian jurisdictions participate in organized sports and other physical activity. If ever there was a case to be made for obsessive compulsive behaviour, the single-minded focus on driving towards zero waste is alive and well at Canadian Tire Corporation. As retail consumers begin to buy everything from spark plugs to ice skates this holiday season, we can all feel good about the environmental sensibilities at one of Canada’s favourite retailers. Diane Blackburn is the Events Manager for the Recycling Council of Ontario. She can be reached at events@rco.on.ca
52 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
51-52 swr dec15-jan16 IC&I CdnTire p 51-52.indd 52
15-12-18 8:07 AM
Company
Advertisers’ Index
December 2015/January 2016
Page # Company
Page #
2cg/Paul van der Werf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Marathon Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Allu Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Municipal Waste Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Ecoverse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Paradigm Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Environmental Business Consultants . . . . . . . 52
Trux Route Management Systems Inc. . . . . . 52
Eriez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Van Dyk Recycling Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Freightliner Trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Vermeer Canada Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Machinex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Walinga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
! NewChange a Belt in 10 Minutes!
Watch it Now! Eriez RevX-E Mach III 10 Minute Belt Change
Visit Recovery.eriez.com or call us 888.300.3743 December 2015/January 2016 www.solidwastemag.com 53
53 swr dec15-jan16 ad idx p 53.indd 53
15-12-18 8:07 AM
S T E WA R D S H I P
by SWR Staff
Vancouver embraces MMBC City wishes to transition responsibility for recycling collection services by the end of 2016
T
he City of Vancouver has made a decision to transition responsibility for recycling collection services to Multi-Material BC (MMBC) for single family curbside residences and multi-family buildings. This decision follows the November publication of a report to the City’s Standing Committee on City Finance and Services that recommended Council give notice to MMBC that the City wishes to transition responsibility for recycling collection services by the end of 2016. This means that MMBC will take on direct responsibility for operating recycling collection services in the City of Vancouver. MMBC is already directly responsible for operating recycling services in several communities in the province, including the Cities of Langley, Coquitlam, Revelstoke, Prince George and Quesnel; the Village of Anmore; the University Endowment Lands; and Regional Districts of North Okanagan, Central Kootenay and Kootenay Boundary. In these communities, MMBC enters into contracts with service providers and oversees their operation and performance. Since the program launch on May 19, 2014, Vancouver has benefited from MMBC’s incentive payments to help cover the cost of providing recycling collection to residents in the City, but has now decided that it would like MMBC to fully manage this function. MMBC does not anticipate that the transition of services from the City to MMBC will impact steward fees or MMBC’s budget. MMBC’s supply chain staff will start the necessary work in partnership with the City to ensure Vancouver residents continue to receive a high level of service, while also operating an efficient service on behalf of its steward members. On Nov. 17, city staff presented the ins and outs of a full service transition to MMBC, a move that would need to make considerations for several factors, including funding shortfalls and aging waste fleets. Payments from MMBC do not cover the full cost of Vancouver’s collection service delivery, and in 2015, the shortfall between MMBC revenues and program costs may exceed $4 million, according to a committee report. Further, Vancouver currently owns and operates a fleet of 30 recycling trucks that have aged beyond their useful service life and are in “urgent” need of replacement, a cost that could reach about $12 million. In its Council report, the City states that although staff were initially reluctant to stop providing a City service to its residents, “MMBC has demonstrated their ability to implement recycling systems in other municipalities and have achieved high levels of recycling.” In response to the City’s decision, Allen Langdon, managing director of MMBC, said, “This decision by the City of Vancouver speaks to its confidence in MMBC to efficiently and effectively manage residential
packaging and printed paper recycling. We look forward to working on behalf of our members, and with the City of Vancouver, to effect a smooth transition and continue to build on our first year’s success of recovering 80 per cent of the packaging and printed paper sold in the province by our members.” The transition will take place by the end of 2016. Council also directed staff to report back on City-delivered programs that: • Enhance public realm cleanliness • Reduce overflowing litter cans Allen Langdon • Improve service response time Throughout most of the province, residential recycling collection is financed by MMBC, a non-profit industry-led organization that assumed responsibility for managing residential packaging and printed paper recycling on behalf of industry. The transition opens new opportunities for important zero waste programs “The recommendation to fully transition recycling collection was made after careful assessment of MMBC’s capacity to provide recycling to Vancouver residents and the opportunity for the City to then redirect the associated resources to other high priority programs,” says Jerry Dobrovolny, general manager of engineering for the City of Vancouver. “Over the last 20 years, Vancouver residents have made considerable progress towards reducing waste generated within the city. The opportunity to fund other high priority programs, such as litter prevention and collection, abandoned and illegally dumped waste, and new recycling initiatives, are critical to the success of achieving our Greenest City Zero Waste goals.” Waste reduction and recycling are critical to the success of achieving the goals and targets of the Greenest City Action Plan. Vancouver has already made significant progress towards its Greenest City Zero Waste goals. Since 2008, the City has reduced by 18% the amount of solid waste disposed to a landfill or incinerator. MMBC will finance recycling collection through industry fees. MMBC manages recycling collection services on behalf of its member organizations, which pay fees based on how much packaging and printed paper they supply into the BC market. The cost of the recycling service will be financed by MMBC instead of through municipal utility fees.
54 www.solidwastemag.com December 2015/January 2016
54 swr dec15-jan16 Design Awards p 54.indd 54
15-12-18 10:52 AM
BOLLEGRAAF
HBC Balers
A Bollegraaf fully automated baler is widely versatile, extremely powerful, and very cost efficient. Advantages Low operating costs A dedicated operator is not required Patented easy-maintenance needle heads for an uninterrupted production process Lowest maintenance costs Pre-press flap means no shearing, low power consumption, and dense, high quality bales Efficient hydraulic installation guarantees large capacity with low power consumption Energy efficient 50% fewer cycles than a two ram baler means less wear and less energy costs Silent pumps make this baler the quietest in the world Van Dyk Baler Corp. and Lubo USA, DBA:
WE ORIGINATE, OTHERS IMITATE
vdrs.com â—? 203-967-1100 â—? info@vdrs.com
Exclusive North American Sales & Service for BOLLEGRAAF, LUBO & TITECH
55 swr dec15-jan16 rh ads p 55.indd 55
15-12-18 8:09 AM
SMELLS LIKE PROFIT.
WORK HAS A NEW WAY TO WORK. The Freightliner Trucks 108SD is built to be tough and efficient. For starters, it offers up to 325 horsepower and 750 lb-ft of torque. It also has a steel reinforced aluminum day cab, which provides plenty of durability without excess weight. Combine that with outstanding visibility, and your fleet can easily handle the tightest routes. Freightliner trucks aren’t just tough, they’re smart. Find out more at FreightlinerTrucks.com/WorkSmart. Competitive financing available through Daimler Truck Financial. For the Freightliner Trucks dealer nearest you, call 1-800-FTL-HELP. www.freightlinertrucks.com. FTL/MC-A-1090. Specifications are subject to change without notice. Copyright © 2015. Daimler Trucks North America LLC. All rights reserved. Freightliner Trucks is a division of Daimler Trucks North America LLC, a Daimler company.
56 swr dec15-jan16 lh ads p 56.indd 56
15-12-18 8:09 AM