Thermal Plant on Native Lands Proposed - April 2006

First NRG, a company based in Hogansburg, N.Y., on the St. Regis Mohawk reserve, plans to build thermal treatment plants on native lands in order to treat and dispose of Ontario garbage. According to an article in the Globe & Mail newspaper, the company's founders say they are backed by "native cigarette manufacturers" and have had discussions about their gasification technology with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the vice-president of Sudan and Cuban officials. They also say they have won half of a $1-billion deal to process garbage in Jakarta. Simon Romana, a New Zealander who says he is the inventor of the firm's gasification technology, says the "thermal reduction" turns solid waste into gas that is then used to create electricity. The company says it has a $60-million contract with unnamed companies to treat and destroy millions of tonnes of Toronto-area waste, and says former Washington mayor Marion Barry -- famously re-elected after a conviction for cocaine possession -- is a supporter. The company plans to build two plants on reserves in Canada: one at Oneida Nation near London, Ontario and the other on Cornwall Island on the Akwesasne reserve, across the U.S.-Canada border from St. Regis. The plants will be able to process 1.5 million tonnes -- and perhaps double that eventually -- of residential waste per year from Toronto and other GTA municipalities, with the Oneida plant starting up at the beginning of June. Currently all of Toronto's residential waste is shipped to a Michigan landfill under a long-term contract with Republic Services, which has had no dealings with First NRG. Senior Toronto officials say they have had no contact with First NRG. Construction has yet to begin at the Oneida site, but the company plans to have it up and running by June. The Akwesasne site could open six months later. The facilities need no special government approvals or environmental assessments, the company says, because they would be on native land. Leaders of the Akwesasne band council say they have not received any application for a gasification plant on their lands. First NRG says it has demonstrated the technology with a $1.5-million truck-bed mounted unit. Marion Barry, now a representative in Washington, has worked with the company to try and land a deal with the District of Columbia to build gasifiers to process 1,200 tonnes of municipal sewage sludge.

Privately-held Green Power Inc. has announced it's expecting delivery of a mobile demonstration plant that it says can transform almost all forms of solid or liquid waste into a ready-to-use diesel fuel -- one that's more environmentally clean that what's available at diesel gas stations. The technology, for which GreenPower holds the patents, offers the promise of transforming all kinds of waste (except for radioactive waste, porcelain, glass and metals) and garbage into diesel, without secondary pollution, at an efficiency rate of over ninety percent, and at low cost.

Plastics and paper industry fight over bag tax - August 2006

The plastics industry and the associaiton that represents paper and paperboard producers are arguing over the policy issues related to a propsed 25-cent per bag on plastic grocery bags in B.C. The information is set out in two news releases -- the first from the Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA) and the second from the Paper & Paperboard Packaging Environmental Council (PPEC). Both news releases are presented in their entirety below (items 1 and 2). 1. Plastic industry to fight B.C.'s proposed bag tax It may not be on the radar screen of consumers just yet, but watch for the fireworks this fall. That's when municipal politicians will be voting on a proposed 25-cent tax on each and every plastic shopping bag in B.C. In response, the Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA) is gearing up to fight the proposal by launching a consumer information 'myth busting' campaign and by challenging the tax proponents to a public debate in Vancouver prior to the vote. The tax is being spearheaded by several Councillors in the province's lower mainland, including Janice Harris of North Vancouver, Craig Speirs of Maple Ridge and Kamloops' Arjun Singh. They want the Union of B.C. Municipalities – at its meeting in October - to pass a motion calling on the province to levy a 25-cent bag tax. They say they want to emulate what has happened in Ireland where a similar tax on plastic shopping bags was introduced in March 2002. "They tell a good story. Unfortunately, it is based on inaccurate and biased information," says Cathy Cirko, CPIA's Vice President of Environment and Health. "What they're NOT telling you is that the Irish tax has been a failure, creating problems for consumers, retailers and ironically, the environment." In Ireland, consumers have responded to the tax by switching to other types of bags, particularly paper bags and heavier 'kitchen catcher' bags, to carry their groceries. True, the number of plastic shopping bags has declined by 90 per cent over the past four years. But at the same time, the sale of heavier plastic bags has gone up 400 per cent and the overall amount of plastic resin used in Ireland has actually increased 10 per cent. A number of retailers in Ireland have responded by providing paper bags. "Regrettably, this has been a step backwards for the environment," says Cirko. Studies show that the manufacture of a paper grocery bag is twice as energy intensive as that of a plastic bag, and that paper bags have 80 per cent more impact on the environment in terms of GHG emissions. Perhaps most disturbing, the bag tax has taken a toll on the most vulnerable members of society. Many seniors and disabled people rely on plastic shopping bags because the product is lightweight, easy to carry, inexpensive and waterproof. These groups, along with the poor, are least able to afford such a tax. Some consumers have been so unwilling or unable to pay the tax that they have resorted to using articles of clothing (shirts, sweaters, coats) to bundle up and carry their groceries home. The tax has also resulted in a major increase in shoplifting, as it is now more difficult for retailers to identify who has and hasn't paid for their goods. The tax has led to a significant increase in 'push outs' (shoppers filling their carts and baskets and walking straight out without paying) at an estimated cost to retailers of 10 million euros ($14.3 million CDN) annually. "Ultimately, the retailer must make up for their losses. It is the consumer who ends up paying through higher product prices," Cirko notes. Still other retailers in Ireland have responded to the tax by offering reusable cloth bags which has led to growing concerns about public health risks, as these bags must be washed frequently to avoid food contamination. This has prompted retailers to increase the amount of food packaging. Bananas, for example, traditionally sold loose, are now sold on trays and shrink-wrapped. "Where's the environmental 'win' in more packaging?" asks Cirko. Given what has really happened in Ireland, why would anyone still advocate for a similar bag tax in B.C.? The tax has created problems; it has not 'solved' anything. "The bag tax proponents maintain that eliminating plastic shopping bags will reduce litter and divert waste from landfill. Again, they're not telling you the real story," notes Cirko. Plastic shopping bags in Canada account for less than half of one per cent of all litter, and less than one per cent of residential solid waste by weight. B.C. has the most extensive retail bag take-back programs in Canada, with about 30 per cent of all plastic shopping bags being recovered and recycled. In addition, about 50 per cent are re-used to contain garbage. "Is there more we can do? Absolutely. Manufacturers and retailers are working hard to increase the recovery rate. We want all of the bags back because they are a valuable commodity and can be recycled," says Cirko. Contact PR Post: Robert Stephens at 416-777-0368 or robert@prpost.ca or Dena Fehir at 416-777-0368 or dena@prpost.ca 2. Real issue is litter, says paper industry The paper industry is upset that its plastic counterpart has resorted to denigrating paper bags in its campaign to avoid a possible 25-cent tax on plastic shopping bags in British Columbia. "Frankly, this seems to be more of a litter issue than anything else and should be tackled on that basis," says John Mullinder, executive director of the Paper & Paperboard Packaging Environmental Council (PPEC). "For a national plastic association to claim that paper grocery bags are 'a step backward for the environment' and to quote selectively from so-called life cycle studies is both unfortunate and unhelpful," says Mullinder. Life cycle analysis (LCA) is intended as an internal monitoring and continuous improvement tool, he says, and is not one to be used inappropriately by competing industries or by governments, mainly because widely varying assumptions and averages make "apples-to-apples" comparisons very difficult. "For example, paper bags in Canada are made from renewable resources (mostly from wood chips, shavings and sawdust left over from logging operations) whereas plastics are derived from non-renewable fossil fuels (oil and gas)." The real issue in B.C. and elsewhere, he says, seems to be litter. How do you discourage littering from a package design perspective and how do you encourage consumers not to litter once they have the packaging? The real issues seem to be behaviour and consequences, he says, rather than the environmental merits of paper or plastic.

Recycling operators approve of LCBO deposits - September 2006

Ontario's blue box program will be better without LCBO containers, say municipal program operators. The position of the operators differs from that of industry group Corporations Supporting Recycling (CSR) that recently issued a press release expressing concern about the province's decision to place wine and liquor bottles on deposit, claiming that it will harm plans to build large glass recycling plants. (See "Editor's Blog" at left side of the Solid Waste & Recycling magazine home page: www.solidwastemag.com) Not only will the removal of empty wine and liquor bottles reduce a major contaminant in the program, but returning empties at beer stores will mean they can be recycled into new bottles and not be "downcycled" for low-value construction uses, the recyclers say. "Broken glass has always been a major problem in the blue box program, damaging equipment and contaminating other streams," says Mike Birett, Chair of the Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators (AMRC). "Taking out the wine and liquor bottles will alleviate a lot of those issues and we are sure people will feel better knowing the bottles will be recycled into new bottles rather than lower value applications, such as road aggregate." In addition, the significant increase in anticipated recovery rates will help meet the province's diversion goal of 60 per cent by 2008. (Current blue box recovery rates for LCBO containers are about 65 per cent. The Beer Store sees return rates on empty beer bottles in the high 90-per-cent range.) Birett noted there may need to be a review in the way collection contracts are designed and in the way industry provides financial support to the program. Both are currently based on per-tonne payments, and the removal of LCBO containers will have a major impact on the make-up of the overall "basket of goods" collected by the blue box program. "With so much based on weight, obviously there needs to be a rethinking in some areas, but these are temporary issues that can be figured out," he says. This summer the AMRC was co-author of a report with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) on increasing efficiency in the blue box program. Among other things, that report urged the province to add deposits to wine and liquor bottles to improve recovery. By transferring the collection to an industry-run program, the province is demonstrating full product stewardship and municipal taxpayers will no longer have to subsidize the service. Current industry support of blue box programs are based on 50 per cent of the net costs. Municipalities pay the balance. Vivian De Giovanni, Executive Director of the AMRC, says many recycling programs are finding the blue box is not big enough to accommodate the increasing amount of material placed at the curb for recycling. Removing wine and liquor bottles will also leave room for other recyclables. De Giovanni says other provinces operate a very efficient blue box program without wine and liquor containers. "We agree with the Ministry of the Environment and are committed to helping resolve the issues and concerns associated with this new initiative in a simple and cost effective manner. This will improve the blue box program, improve diversion rates and get us back to truly recycling glass." The AMRC is an incorporated, not-for-profit organization formed in 1987 by municipal waste management professionals to facilitate the sharing of municipal waste reduction and recycling information and experience

Design for environment report focuses on electronics - October 2006

Canada's Electronics Industry continues to demonstrate leadership in protecting the environment, with the release of its first report to focus on improvements in environmental design of consumer electronics and information and communications technology products. The report "Designing for the Environment" was released at North America's largest gathering of the electronics recycling community, the E-Scrap 2006 conference in Austin, Texas. The report was prepared by Electronics Product Stewardship Canada (EPSC), representing 21 of Canada's leading electronics manufacturers on environmental issues. EPSC's Vice-President, Jay Illingworth, described how its member companies are working to provide more environmentally sound products for Canadian consumers. "We know that Canadians increasingly prefer to purchase products that are easier to recycle at the end of their life, and create less of an impact on the environment throughout their lifecycle," Inningworth said. "Our companies have responded by investing significantly in the environmental performance of their products, from initial research and development, through to manufacturing and marketing. As a result, these products are not only better for the environment, but they also appeal to consumers with better performance, reduced costs and overall convenience." The report details five areas that have shown significant advances over the last several years: chemical management, energy efficiency, materials management, design for recycling, and product expandability. It outlines how companies have reduced environmentally sensitive chemicals in their products, and developed and incorporated power-saving features. Advancements in technology and the miniaturization of components have reduced the amount of resources required to produce electronic products, and some difficult to recycle plastics are being replaced with lighter, more durable metals that are recyclable. Other companies have developed products that snap apart for ease of recycling, doing away with the need for glue. Others have eliminated paint and varnish on plastics. Multi-functional devices, such as all-in-one printers, can perform an array of tasks, reducing the total number of products that need to be manufactured, shipped and responsibly recycled at end-of-life, reducing the overall environmental impact. Illingworth commented, "Our companies have accepted the responsibility to both respond to consumer demands, and to meet the need to create a much smaller environmental footprint for our products. The end result is that today's consumers can find a wider range of electronic products that can be used more efficiently and can be recycled in a more environmentally responsible manner." The report provides an overview of the current state of the industry's product-based environmental improvements. An accompanying web page provides direct links to individual EPSC member companies' corporate sites, providing tangible examples of products that integrate many of the environmental features profiled in "Designing for the Environment.

Study rates beverage industry recycling November 2006

Major U.S. beverage companies received poor marks in a study of the recycling performance of their containers. "Waste and Opportunity: U.S. Beverage Container Recycling Scorecard and Report" is a report card on the beverage industry's recycling efforts released by corporate social responsibility group "As You Sow" and the Container Recycling Institute. The report gave PepsiCo and Coca-Cola Co. the highest grades; both earned a C. All other companies scored D- or F, with Cadbury Schweppes, Cott, and National Beverage performing the worst. "Both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have shown some leadership by using 10 per cent recycled content in plastic bottles and promising to work with competitors toward setting beverage container recovery goals," says As You Sow research director Nishita Bakshi, author of the report. "However, most other companies have done little to nothing to significantly improve recycling rates." American consumers purchase over 500 million beverage bottles and cans, on average, every day. Only one third are recycled while two thirds are landfilled, incinerated or littered. This results in major pollution and energy impacts, and depletion of aluminum ore and petroleum resources. Producing containers using virgin resources increases greenhouse gas emissions. If the current container recycling rate of 34 per cent were increased to 80 per cent, avoided greenhouse gas emissions would be equivalent to taking 2.4 million cars off the road for one year, the report says. The report evaluated 12 leading beverage companies, including the top five carbonated soft-drink manufacturers (Coca-Cola Co, Pepsi Cola North America, Cadbury Schweppes, Cott Corp. and National Beverage), the top three bottled water manufacturers (PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and Nestlé Waters North America) and the top three beer companies (Anheuser-Busch, Miller Brewing and Coors Brewing), as well as New Belgium Breweries, Polar Beverages, and Starbucks. "There has been insufficient action by the beverage industry to significantly increase beverage container recovery," according to Conrad MacKerron, director of the group's Corporate Social Responsibility Program. "Bottled water sales have grown nearly 700 per cent in the last eight years, yet stand-alone water companies have shown no leadership in using recycled content or improving recycling rates." "Beverage sales jumped five-fold in the last 30 years, while container recycling rates have dropped from 53 per cent in 1992 to 34 per cent in 2004," says Patricia Franklin, executive director of Container Recycling Institute (CRI). "Each year we are producing more beverages but recycling a smaller portion of those containers." The report was undertaken to provide current data on recycling efforts for consumers, investors and other corporate stakeholders. "As institutional investors, we believe it is important for this information to be compiled so that we are able to measure company performance over time and relative to industry peers," said Kenneth Scott, portfolio manager at Walden Asset Management, a socially responsive investment firm. As You Sow and Walden have filed shareholder proposals with Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo to encourage them to improve their performance on recycled content and container recovery. The recycling report makes five recommendations for beverage companies to reduce environmental impact: use higher levels of recycled content in their bottles; set a national beverage container recovery goal (and support public policies and voluntary measures that increase recycling); develop design innovations leading to less packaging material; and, publicly report on their progress to stakeholders.

Niagara landfill expansion approved December 2006

Niagara Waste Systems landfill expansion project recently received environmental assessment approval from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. The EA approval allows for the landfill to accept 850,000 tonnes of waste per year, of which 100,000 tonnes per annum must be reserved for the Niagara Region's municipal waste; the remainder is for the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors. Before Niagara Waste Systems can proceed, the landfill proposal must be reviewed and approved by the Ministry of Environment under the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act.

City makes a date in dump deal December 2006

Toronto will acquire a $220-million London-area dump on March 29, according to a deal brokered by the city and the landfill's owner. Mayor David Miller said yesterday that the city overcame a major hurdle in its quest to buy the Green Lane landfill by finalizing a purchase and sale agreement with the dump's owner. Many in southwestern Ontario -- including Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley and London Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco-Best -- oppose the move. "(The agreement) is enormous progress in securing -- for over the next decade -- a place for the City of Toronto to landfill its garbage," Miller said. The city is contractually-bound to continue trucking its garbage for disposal in Michigan until 2010. But there is vehement opposition in the state to Toronto shipping its garbage to Carleton Farms landfill. Toronto has been shipping trash to Michigan amid fears the border may close to trash-laden trucks from the city. "Imagine the cost to this city if we didn't do this and the border closed," Miller said. "People would be able to charge us almost anything. So, we've prevented a very huge risk." The terms of the purchase and sale agreement will not be made public until the deal closes. Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong said Torontonians should be concerned about the secrecy surrounding the deal. "What that means is we don't know what the implications are for the city of Toronto," he added. "We don't know the financial implications and we don't know the environmental implications. And what that means is we can't have the debate or the discussion -- or any kind of dialogue -- about the details."

Ontario permits Lafarge cement kiln to burn waste Jan 2007

Ontario's Ministry of the Environment has granted Lafarge Canada to burn scrap tires and other municipal waste at its cement manufacturing plant in Bath, Ontario. Strict conditions will be part of two certificates of approval that will be granted under the Environmental Protection Act to Lafarge Canada, allowing it to replace about 30 per cent of the fuel it currently uses at its Bath plant through a gradual phasing-in of used tires and other municipal wastes. In a pilot project, Lafarge will be allowed to burn these wastes under strictly controlled conditions in order to confirm that the process can safely meet Ontario's stringent air emission standards. It will burn tires in gradually increasing amounts in three demonstration stages over a period of two years. Only if emissions levels meet the ministry's standards can Lafarge then proceed to the next stage. The conditions set out in Lafarge's air certificate of approval include: -- Rigorous third party oversight: The demonstration phase of the project will include an independent third party technical review of the facility's performance testing on behalf of a community liaison committee. Lafarge's emissions results will also be reviewed by the ministry. -- An open and transparent process: The company is required to continuously monitor emissions. Lafarge has also agreed to display its continuous monitoring in a public place. The community liaison committee will review the results. -- Strict standard: The facility will have to meet strict air emission limits based on Ontario's rigorous A7 air guideline. These standards are more stringent than either the European Union or the US Environmental Protection Act limits. Lafarge will also have to achieve even lower limits for lead and cadmium. -- Success criteria: If, as a result of the demonstration phase, Lafarge has demonstrated to the ministry's satisfaction that the technology has met the required emissions standards at each level of testing, the Bath plant will be allowed to continue, subject to routine performance testing and continuous emission monitoring. Under its waste certificate of approval, Lafarge has committed to ensuring that the wastes received at the site are either not recyclable due to their properties or are surplus to the capacity of Ontario recycling markets, and must provide the ministry with an annual detailed assessment of the efforts the company has taken to restrict the receipt and use of potentially recyclable material. Though no facility in Ontario currently uses tires as an alternative fuel, in a further development, Environment Minister Laurel Broten is also proposing to call a temporary halt to the burning of tires for a period of two years. This halt will give ministry scientists and experts the opportunity to ensure the environmental performance of facilities that convert tires to energy. If the results are not complete, the halt can be extended to three years. Alternative fuels, including tires, have been used for many years in safe, proven processes to make cement in Quebec as well as such jurisdictions as Sweden, Germany, and California.

Recycling vs Disposal Feb 2007

Increased diversion beats landfill or incineration when environment and human health costs are factored in According to Jeffrey Morris, Ph.D., recycling makes more sense than disposal for those discards that may be recycled, and we should push the envelope to divert everything possible from landfill or incineration even when recycling appears expensive compared to disposal in simple price comparisons. This is because when the full lifecycle of a product is measured, the energy use and environmental burden from natural resource extraction and manufacturing -- the social and human health costs of which are not reflected in conventional accounting -- dwarf any presumed savings. Morris is principal of the consulting firm Sound Resource Management, based in the Seattle, Washington area, and he spoke at the Recycling Council of Ontario's Energy From Waste Forum in Brampton, Ontario, November 3, 2006. Morris has taught economics at the Universities of Washington and Colorado and has published peer-reviewed articles in The Review of Economics and Statistics, The Journal of Resource Management and Technology, and other periodicals. His 20-year research career has focused on resource use, waste prevention, externalities and free market imperfections/failures, and sustainability. His presentation was refreshing in part because it made the case for reuse and recycling over disposal with fact and rigorous analysis, not ideology. Of particular interest to waste professionals are Morris's measurement and costing of the environmental and human health impacts of raw materials extraction and manufacturing distribution, which impute an economic benefit of US $517 per tonne of material recycled. This number was arrived at using data methodologies accepted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other organizations, and includes the cost of global warming, acidification, eutrophication, human health effects from particulates and toxics, and ecological toxicity. (See Chart 1.) For all the common recyclables, producing products using recycled materials saves between 35 and 90 per cent of the energy consumed to extract, refine and manufacture products from virgin materials. Recycling thus substantially reduces the releases of pollutants and toxins associated with energy production. (See Chart 2.) Landfill vs. WTE Also of interest is Morris's conclusion that while the environmental impacts of landfill disposal and incineration are fairly similar, economic analysis (including energy from waste incineration and landfill gas extraction) indicates that landfill is cheaper than incineration and is to be preferred. This latter conclusion has been confirmed by other research, notably in Europe. In their paper "Burn or bury? A social cost comparison of final waste disposal methods," Elbert Dijkgraaf and Herman Vollebergh concluded that the European waste directive that favors incineration over landfill is wrong-headed. They concluded that landfilling is preferable at the margin, and that the Dutch government could reduce the social cost of waste disposal by expanding landfills. Waste-to-energy plants perform better than modern landfills only if one restricts the analysis to net environmental cost, and the difference is small. The net private costs, however, are so much higher for incineration that landfilling is the social cost-minimizing option at the margin. Landfilling with energy recovery is much cheaper, Dijkgraaf and Vollebergh say, even though its energy efficiency is considerably lower than that of a waste-to-energy plant. Land costs should make landfilling an especially expensive proposition. However, as shown by the gross private costs comparison (in Chart 3), the capital costs of incineration equipment and the requisite pollution control technology needed to meet European emissions standards are much greater than a landfill's land costs. Any small environmental benefit that WTE may have over landfill is dwarfed by these additional investment costs. Morris' data for the northwestern US show a similar result. Furthermore, Morris notes, Gerard Nieuwendijk, the Deputy President of the Confederation of European Waste to Energy Plants (CEWEP), confirmed this investment cost differential in his remarks at RCO's Energy From Waste Forum. Morris's conclusions relate to the newspaper, cardboard, mixed paper, glass bottles and jars, aluminum cans, tin-plated steel cans, plastic bottles, and other conventionally recoverable materials found in the residential and commercial solid waste stream. The energy conservation and pollution prevention engendered by using recycled rather than virgin materials as feedstocks for manufacturing new products tends to be an order of magnitude greater than the additional energy and environmental burdens imposed by curbside collection trucks, recycling plants, and transport of processed materials to end markets. (See Chart 4.) The energy usage to collect, process and ship those recyclable for manufacturing into new products barely register on the stacked bar chart for energy usage in the recycling lifecycle. In general, the energy grid offsets and reductions in associated environmental burdens offered by energy derived from landfill gas or from waste combustion are substantially smaller than "upstream" energy and pollution offsets obtained by manufacturing products with processed recyclables. These conclusions will be of interest to public officials and policymakers as they consider whether to divert more materials from disposal, and whether or not to expand landfill capacity or approve more waste-to-energy infrastructure. Real-world analysis Morris's conclusions are based in part on specific research for the San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority and the Washington State Department of Ecology. A direct comparison was made of the collection for recycling versus collection for disposal of the same quantity and composition of materials handled through existing curbside recycling programs in Washington State and in San Luis Obispo County. These comparisons provide a better approximation of marginal energy use and environmental burdens of recycling versus disposal for recyclable materials in solid waste than does a comparison of recycling versus management methods for typical mixed waste, where that waste includes organics and non-recyclables. For both projects, lifecycle assessment (LCA) techniques were used, and included comparisons with landfill disposal where gas is collected and used for energy, and with large-scale waste-to-energy combustion. Emissions estimates used the Decision Support Tool (DST) developed for assessing the cost and environmental burdens of integrated solid waste management strategies by North Carolina State University (NCSU) in conjunction with Research Triangle Institute (RTI) and the US EPA. The analysis helped the City of Seattle conclude that construction of a waste-to-energy plant could be a systemic disincentive to waste diversion and that emphasis on further recycling should be given priority. An economic and environmental analysis conducted for the city suggested that over 1.3 trillion BTUs of energy conservation and nearly 236,000 metric tonnes of CO2 reduction would result from the implementation of new recycling programs designed to increase Seattle's recycling from the current 40 per cent to 60 per cent by 2010. These figures don't include energy conservation and GHG reductions from additional recovery of construction debris and organics that will also occur under the 60 per cent recycling program. Estimates of the economic value for recycling's pollution prevention and resource conservation benefits indicate that the societal value of these benefits outweighs the additional economic cost that is often incurred for waste management when systems for handling solid wastes add recycling trucks and processing facilities to their existing fleet of garbage collection vehicles and existing transfer and disposal facilities. (It's estimated that ten more jobs are associated with recycling and the manufacture of goods from recycled products than waste disposal.) This may seen like small potatoes to cash-strapped municipal waste management authorities, especially those that don't cover their costs via user-pay programs or that lack political support for increased recycling. However, Morris argues that developments in the trading of credits for emissions reductions offer hope for the future. For instance, a greenhouse gas credit of just US $9 a tonne would offset the net costs of many recycling programs. Private companies are also increasingly interested in pollution prevention and in the long run will favor recycled content manufacturing, which will drive up prices for recycled materials. Morris agrees that better estimates are needed for the societal value for avoided environmental burdens, as an impetus for greater cost internalization from producers. Furthermore, lifecycle emissions data is needed for additional pollutants, plus other materials that end up in the waste stream (e.g., electronic wastes, scrap tires, organics waste, etc.). And what about that last per cent that can't currently be recycled? Morris notes that municipal waste management should focus on the 3Rs (including composting) to shrink disposal quantities down to about a 10 per cent level. Present and future society will benefit more from spending scarce resources on this task than it will from diverting huge sums of money away from the 3Rs to build incineration capacity to dispose of the 40 or 50 per cent of waste that is currently not being recycled. In the meantime, waste prevention techniques, products redesigned for easier reuse and recyclability, and new technologies for recycling difficult to recycle wastes will continue to chip away at even that seemingly obstinate per cent.

Groups cry foul on Ontario incineration regs March 2007

In a new press release, environmental groups from across Ontario blasted the Ontario government for "passing regulations that will weaken key environmental laws and allow massive incinerators to be fast-tracked without an environmental assessment and little public consultation." The groups say that new regulations are poised to undermine current blue box recycling and waste diversion programs by promoting the construction of controversial waste-to-energy facilities -- multi-million dollar incinerators. Ironically, the news release came out just as York Region north of Toronto is set to announce the short list of potential sites for its proposed waste to energy plant, the first mass burn waste plant to be seriously proposed for Ontario in several years. "It is truly outrageous that the Ontario government is fast-tracking these controversial changes despite the fact that these incinerators produce 33 per cent more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal-fired power plants," said Sierra Legal Lawyer and Economist Dr. Anastasia Lintner. "Recycling and reuse of waste can save more than 25 times the energy recovered by incineration." The groups say that regulatory changes were quietly released on Friday afternoon that include the streamlining of approvals for certain pilot or demonstration projects, such as incineration projects. This move, they say, would curtail public participation and will directly compete with existing recycling programs for materials with high-energy values such as paper, plastics and organics. "The justification for the exemption of energy from waste facilities from full environmental assessment seems to be that they somehow will make a contribution to the province's energy supply. Yet recycling products like newspapers and plastic containers uses far less energy than having to re-create that entire product," added Pembina Institute Director of Environmental Governance Dr. Mark Winfield. "Recycling programs are simply a far more rational energy conservation strategy." "In our view, these regulatory changes are unjustified and contrary to the public interest," stated Rick Lindgren, Staff Lawyer with the Canadian Environmental Law Association. "Waste incineration is an environmentally significant activity that should remain fully subject to the rigorous scrutiny and public participation requirements of Ontario's environmental assessment process." "Incineration is simply not the solution to Ontario's waste issues," said Sierra Legal Senior Staff Scientist Dr. Elaine MacDonald. "The province says it wants to stop burning coal because it is a dirty source of energy, but at the same time it is promoting an even dirtier, much less reliable source -- garbage." Over the past several months various groups submitted formal comments to the province highlighting concerns about the proposed regulations. The groups argue that the solution to Ontario's waste woes begins with strong producer responsibility laws and citizen stewardship to reduce waste at the source. "Ontario is not confronted by a waste disposal crisis," said John Jackson of Great Lakes United. "In fact Ontario has recently approved millions of tonnes of new landfill capacity. The true crisis is one of waste generation -- and Ontario has utterly failed in its efforts to curb waste generation and increase recycling." Many of the groups' concerns are documented in an investigative report released today by the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy. The report, "Ontario's Waste Management Challenge -- Is Incineration an Option?" emphasizes waste reduction and diversion, while calling for Ontario to fund an independent assessment of incineration technologies to better understand the true costs and benefits of incineration before their implementation.

Canada initiates greenhouse plan May 2007

Sensing that Canadians are deeply concerned about a potential global warming threat, and that inaction will cost them at the polls, Canada’s Conservative Stephen Harper government has announced a blueprint to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. The government plans to force industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 18 per cent by 2010 and 26 per cent by 2015. The price of cars, home appliances, electricity and fuel are expected to rise, but may be offset by technological innovation and the adoption of energy-efficient systems. (The Ontario government has already announced a phase-out of incandescent light bulbs, to be replaced by compact fluorescent bulbs [CFLs] by 2012. The government believes replacing all 87 million incandescent bulbs in Ontario households with CFLs will save six million megawatt hours annually -- enough to power 600,000 homes.) Environment Minister John Baird concedes the economy will take a hit of up to $8 billion annually in the “worst year” under the plan until 2020. But he claims that cleaner air will result in health-care savings of more than $6 billion annually, by 2015, courtesy of reduced risk of death and respiratory illness. Industry’s 26 per cent reduction target by 2015 is expected to be met through reduced emissions, contributions to a technology fund, domestic emissions trading and a one-time credit for emissions reduction action between 1992 and 2006. Highlights of the government plan include: -- Short-term emission reduction target of 18 per cent for existing industry by 2010, based on 2006 emission levels. -- A 26 per cent reduction target rate for industry by 2015. -- Canada’s total emissions, including industry and other sources, reduced by 20 per cent by 2020. -- Industry can meet targets through reducing emissions, contributing to a technology fund, through domestic emissions trading and one-time credit for emission reduction action between 1992 and 2006. -- Plan predicts real but “manageable” price increases for cars, home appliances, electricity and fuel. -- National emission caps by 2012 for air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, volatile organic compounds and particulate matter. -- Plan predicts $6.4 billion in annual health benefits by 2015 from reduced risk of death and illness. -- Mandatory fuel-efficiency standard for the auto industry (yet to be determined) to take effect beginning with 2011 model year. -- Economy expected to a hit of $8 billion in “worst” year of plan.

Halton cancels incinerator plan, other changes June 2007

On June 13, Ontario’s Halton Region decided to drop its plan to build a large waste-to-energy incinerator. The planning committee (led by new regional chair Gary Carr) voted unanimously to cancel the plan to construct a large incinerator to burn waste from the Greater Toronto Area. One possible reason was a report from a local medical health officer which portrayed waste incineration as potentially having negative effects on human health and the environment. Also, York Region (north of Toronto) has stepped back from a partnership with neighbouring Durham Region to build and operate a $250-million mass-burn incinerator on an equal basis. Instead of paying half the capital costs and using half its capacity, York is scaling down to 12 per cent of the capital costs and capacity. This could mean the plant will never be built. According to industry insiders, York started sending signals a couple of months ago that it was scaling back its commitment because it’s looking at turning garbage into pellets that can be burned elsewhere. York is apparently looking at and will likely commit its residuals to another thermal option located in York that will likely be available in advance of a Durham-York facility. The other facility is the Dongara facility which in fact will generate fuel pellets. The company is looking for an Ontario-based user but will likely use cement kilns located in Michigan in the interim. The setbacks or changes in Halton and York come on the heels of a possible dissolution of a partnership between the City of Hamilton and Niagara Region, which had until recently joint-ventured on a waste plan that included an option -- recommended by consultants -- to incinerate residue (post-recycling) waste.

Ontario project supports green technologies Aug 2007

As part of Ontario's climate change plan, the government is investing $15 million over four years for a pilot project to help businesses convert to more environmentally-friendly technologies, such as hybrid power. The project will help the government and industry learn more about the technology, spur investment and help make medium-duty hybrid trucks more affordable for Ontario businesses. The province will also increase the use of cleaner fuel in its own fleet by installing two new ethanol fuelling stations in the province. These new facilities could also be made available to other users, such as municipal fleets once they are operational. As well, the government is preparing to begin stakeholder consultations with vehicle manufacturers and environmental groups to develop a green vehicle program that will rate cars, light trucks and commercial vehicles using environmental criteria. The goal of these consultations will be to establish incentives to encourage people to buy "green" vehicles. The plan is to recognize such vehicles with an Eco-licence plate, to be launched the summer of 2008. The three initiatives were announced August 8 by Ontario Transportation Minister Donna Cansfield and Environment Minister Laurel Broten.

Austrian technology will find a new home in the Fort McMurray region converting forestry wood waste into a valuable energy source, thanks in part to $2 million in funding from the Alberta government. The project, a $16-million project from Northland Forest Products Ltd., will divert wood waste in the region to create a new value-added opportunity from forestry biomass. The commercial scale plant will use a thermo-chemical process to generate both thermal and electrical power with an estimated 1.4 megawatts of capacity, enough to power 1,400 average Alberta households. Carbon emission mitigation is also a key component of this proposal. The funding was allocated through the Biorefining Commercialization and Market Development Program and the Bio-energy Infrastructure Development Program. Both grant programs are part of the Alberta government's $239-million Nine-Point Bio-energy Plan designed to encourage the growth of a clean, renewable fuel industry in Alberta. The grants also support product development, market research, and feasibility studies to assist bio-refiners in adopting new technologies and meeting market requirements. More information on Alberta's bio-energy industry and the grant programs is available on the Alberta Energy website at www.energy.gov.ab.ca under the Business section.

Toronto area waste-to-energy plant location selected Jan 2008

Officials from Durham and York Region, Ontario have endorsed a site for a potential waste-to-energy plant in Clarington close to the nuclear power plant. The vote from the Joint Waste Management Group (made up of councilors from both regions) was unanimous. It came after a heated debate in Newmarket led by representatives of opposing views: Durham Chair Roger Anderson argued in favor of incineration against Paul Connett, a retired chemistry professor from New York state who is a well-known anti-incineration activist. Connett -- who is known for his "over the top" presentations -- was brought to the meeting by local opponents. He referred to pro-thermal treatment consultants and municipal staff as "suckling pigs" and told the committee the proposed $150 million energy-from-waste incinerator (which would process about 200,000 tonnes of waste annually) an "economic and health disaster for both regions." An Ipsos-Reid poll of 400 residents in the two regions, conducted in December and released yesterday, 74 per cent said they agree or somewhat agree with the idea of using thermal technology, including incineration and gasification, to deal with the regions' waste in the face of the upcoming closure of Michigan landfill sites to Ontario's garbage. The 12-hectare site is located near the Darlington nuclear plant, between Courtice and Osbourne Rds. south of Highway 401. Four of the five proposed sites were in Clarington, the fifth in East Gwillimbury. Five companies, including some from Germany, Japan and the U.S., are on the short list to build a plant. The last incinerator built in the Greater Toronto Area was built in 1992 in Brampton. Halton Region, Niagara Region and Hamilton are also considering waste-to-energy plants.

Five Toronto area municipalities will save on the cost of operating their recycling programs thanks to a new glass processing plant scheduled to open its doors in Brampton, Ontario this summer. Stewardship Ontario has struck an agreement with Canadian recycled glass processor, Unical Inc., to build the plant. As a start, it will accept all of the glass bottles and jars recycled in Toronto, Hamilton, and the Regions of Peel, York and Durham blue box programs. To support the development of this new market for blue box colored and clear glass, Stewardship Ontario is providing $1.75 million in seed money to Unical to purchase processing equipment. "One of Stewardship Ontario's mandates is to develop and enhance markets for recyclable materials leading to improvements in system cost efficiencies," said Sandra Banks, vice-chair of the board of directors. Stewardship Ontario, an organization of industry stewards that pays half of the net operating cost of the Ontario Blue Box program, estimates the investment in the Unical plant will be paid back in less than two years. Each of the five municipal partners in the deal stands to save operating costs totaling about $10 million over the seven years of the existing contract. In year one alone, municipal costs savings are estimated to range from $40,000 in Durham, which will deliver the least amount of glass to Unical, to a high of about $650,000 in Toronto, which will ship the largest amount of glass. In total, the five municipalities will supply a minimum of 44,000 tonnes of mixed (colored and clear mixed together) blue box glass. This represents about half of the glass estimated to have been collected in residential recycling programs in all of Ontario in 2007. "In fact, when this plant is fully operational, it will have capacity to process much more glass than these initial 44,000 tonnes," said Andre Racine, president of Unical. "We're expecting we'll make rapid progress toward our capacity of 120,000 tonnes because we'll be almost next door to many municipalities that generate a lot of blue box mixed glass. That will save on transportation costs alone."

At their meeting on July 11, 2008, members of the Niagara-Hamilton WastePlan Joint Working Group accepted the recommendations of a staff report calling for a focus on waste diversion priorities, and an end to the agreement between the two municipalities for the Environmental Assessment (EA) Study for disposal alternatives. Niagara and Hamilton had entered into a formal working arrangement in 2003 to pursue alternate long-term waste disposal technologies. The report also recommends that the municipalities continue to meet on a regular basis to review opportunities for working together. The work and information resulting from WastePlan will serve as reference information for future activities relating to alternative disposal options for the two municipalities. The EA Study concluded that there are three viable alternatives for long term disposal that can be pursued by either municipality at a later date. "We are satisfied that both municipalities have sufficient short-term landfill capacity and we recognize the current need to focus on our respective waste diversion programs," said Councillor Russ Powers, Hamilton Co-chair. "Ending the WastePlan study will enable both municipalities to put a priority on waste diversion activities," agreed Councillor Damian Goulbourne, Niagara Region Co-chair. "Niagara is also working on the implementation of the Level of Service Study, which will reduce the reliance on residual waste disposal capacity." The options available for waste management have changed significantly in the five years since the Niagara-Hamilton WastePlan was formed. Many new alternate disposal capacity options are emerging that require further monitoring. Those options include waste-to-energy, stabilized landfill and refuse-derived fuel alternatives such as turning garbage into pellets used as fuel. In 2005, the municipalities' consultants said thermal treatment, which includes incineration, is the "preferred alternative." "What we're ending is the working arrangement with Niagara, and ending an EA study," said Pat Parker, manager of solid waste planning for Hamilton, in a local article. "That doesn't mean we don't still have a recommendation in our master plan to pursue alternative disposal at some time." The two municipalities will instead focus on increasing diversion rates to 65 per cent. Currently Niagara sits at 41 per cent and Hamilton is at 42 per cent. As well, Niagara is working on a 20-year contract with a private landfill in the area. Hamilton is working to extend the life of its existing landfills. "We've recalculated our landfill capacity and we have about 25 years," said Parker

The Ontario Ministry of Environment has released Toward a Zero Waste Future -- a discussion paper that moves Extended producer Responsibility (EPR)from being a conceptual idea to possibly a practical reality in the province. It has concurrently issued a letter to Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) requesting a review of the existing Blue Box Program Plan (BBPP). The WDA review discussion paper has been issued as the first step in a statutorily mandated review of the WDA. The WDA discussion paper identifies several important concepts associated with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as an approach to Zero Waste. Specifically, the paper discusses producer versus shared responsibility, the economic implications of individual producer responsibility versus collective producer action on waste diversion, the issue of stewardship costs manifesting themselves as "visible fees" applied over and above the price of products and the impact of stewardship program design on competition in waste service markets. In this context the discussion paper then proposes the following: 1. A clear framework built upon the foundation of EPR. The paper identifies key elements of this framework: -- The concept that, "…waste diversion programs should shift more financial responsibility onto producers", while allowing, "…producers to discharge responsibility for their products and packaging in the way that best suits their needs, has the fairest impact on existing markets and meets the public's demand for successful diversion activities that strive for zero waste and foster a green economy." -- The concept of differentiating between producers' products based on the environmental profile of those products (including waste and non-waste factors such as energy efficiency, toxics reduction, greenhouse gas emissions profile etc.); -- A prohibition on "visible fees"; -- Application of stewardship fees to materials to materials that are not currently recyclable; -- A more flexible approach to allowing producers to discharge their existing or future stewardship obligations through individually crafted approaches such as pre-existing schemes, or individual producer-run programs. 2. A greater focus on the first and second of the 3Rs – waste reduction, and reuse. 3. Increasing reduction and diversion of waste from the industrial, commercial & institutional sectors. Alternatives proposed include revising existing 3Rs regulations, extending responsibility for IC&I wastes to producers or designating IC&I wastes on a material-by-material basis. 4. Governance and administration of EPR programs -- i.e., greater clarity around roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities, to ensure that all players are contributing to a common goal. "This discussion paper moves from EPR as a conceptual model to discussing the policy and practical issues that have to be addressed to make EPR a functional and meaningful approach," says Usman Valiante, a waste reduction expert and contributing editor to Solid Waste & Recycling magazine, adding, "As proposed, a policy régime that has individual producers bearing the full and fully differentiated costs of their products is profoundly different than what is commonplace in Canadian waste diversion programs today. The discussions precipitating from this paper are going to have relevance in the broader Canadian context and not just Ontario." Some of the concepts enunciated in the discussion paper are reflected in the BBPP review letter as issued to WDO by Minister Gerretsen. Most notably, the letter states that, "The BBPP does not reflect full Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) funding since the WDA requires Blue Box stewards to fund 50% of municipal program costs, with municipalities funding the rest." The Minister then requests WDO to, "Recommend how to move the BBPP towards full EPR funding. Since different collection and processing systems for Blue Box wastes are the result of decisions made by local municipalities, in your review and recommendation, please consider the potential impact to the management of municipal recycling programs as industry moves to full EPR funding.

Real Xmas trees greener than fake ones Jan 2009

A natural Christmas tree may have more than just smell on its side — it also emits fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than an artificial one, a new study has found. Sustainable development firm ellipsos inc. conducted an independent Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) that concluded natural Christmas trees generate 3.1 kg of GHG emissions per year, compared to 8.1 kg of GHGs emitted by artificial ones. Jean-Sébastien Trudel, president of ellipsos and co-author of the study, said the findings challenge the common belief that artificial trees are better because they can be reused year after year. The LCA method considers the tree's environmental impact throughout its life cycle, from the extraction of raw materials to what happens to the tree after it's used. The LCA follows the recognized ISO 14040 and 14044 standards and was reviewed by an independent third-party of peers. An artificial tree has to be reused for at least 20 years before it can have the same environmental effect as a natural one. But on average, artificial trees are only kept for six years, the study said. Trudel said the difference in GHG emissions between the two types of trees is insignificant compared to bigger polluters, like vehicles. He pointed out that one could offset the carbon emissions of either tree by carpooling or biking to work just one to three days a year. The study is available online at: http://www.ellipsos.ca/modules/content/?id=24

An end to plastic bottle pollution? Feb 2009

An end to plastic bottle pollution may be in sight. ENSO Bottles, of Phoenix, Arizona is introducing a biodegradable PET plastic bottle that will change the way we think about plastic. In 2007, there were more than four billion pounds of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) plastic bottles that were burned or ended up in landfills, roadsides, streams and oceans. Thousands of years from now they will still be there. “The pollution problem is enormous and continues to grow,” said Danny Clark, founder of ENSO Bottles, LLC. Clark said ENSO has developed a more “Earth Friendly" biodegradable plastic bottle. “ENSO knows that biodegradable bottles are just part of the solution, and that’s why ENSO is developing a recycling partner program for consumers, local and state governments,” said Clark. Clark added that, “Enso bottles are not oxo-biodegradables or PLA (Polylactic Acid). ENSO bottles are 100 per cent biodegradable and 100 per cent recyclable PET plastic bottles. Our PET bottles will biodegrade in anaerobic (no oxygen, no light) and aerobic compostable environments.” The demand for plastic bottles is growing over 12 per cent annually. PET plastic bottling is being used for everything from food, personal care to cleaning products and the demand for plastic beverage bottles continues to grow. ENSOs' biodegradable plastic products provide a solution to one of our growing environmental problems. Clark says, "The world is changing, people are becoming more involved and at ENSO we want to be part of making this a better planet for us and future generations." Visit http://ensobottles.com

Blue-box leftovers go to China and back Feb 2009

Oliver Stephenson drives a forklift into bales of paper at the Dufferin Processing Facility in Toronto Feb. 5, 2009. Toronto sent up to 20,000 tonnes of mixed paper to a China's Nine Dragons mill in both 2007 and 2008. Will firms bankroll recycling? Within five years, Ontario taxpayers will no longer be paying for half of the blue box program if a draft plan to have producers pay the full cost of recycling the items they create is approved. Ontario's recycling scraps – dirty peanut butter jars, plastic toys, and unsorted paper – are being shipped to Asia at a rate of thousands of tonnes a month. The blue-box castoffs are sorted by low-paid workers in huge factories, and recycled into inexpensive toys, shoes and colourful cardboard packages, before being sold back to Ontarians, where they fill the blue boxes once again. Garbage experts say this revolving door is a necessary evil that will continue until the province has better recycling facilities so cities can process their own garbage. "The question is, how much do we want to transport materials around?" said Glenda Gies, executive director of Waste Diversion Ontario, which oversees the provincial blue-box program. "We really do want to support the Ontario economy, we want to process these materials here." Most residents recycle with the belief they are helping the environment and are unaware that their municipalities are shipping materials to China and South Korea, creating a huge new carbon footprint. "It is a contentious issue here," said Jo-Anne St. Godard, executive director of the Recycling Council of Ontario. "We took advantage of (China's) cheaper labour force to have them clean, or re-clean, our recyclables, to sort out the more valuable items from the less valuable." With the downturn in the recycling commodities market, China's demand for low-end mixed paper and plastic "residue" from blue boxes dropped considerably. But, Toronto, which sent up to 20,000 tonnes of mixed paper to China's massive Nine Dragons mill in both 2007 and last year, reports that in January, the mill began requesting more of the city's paper. Toronto gets paid roughly $30 to $40 per tonne of mixed paper sent to China. According to Geoff Rathbone, general manager of Toronto's solid waste department, that worked out to be about $600,000 to $800,000 in 2007 and 2008. In addition to shipping to China, Rathbone said the city sends about 10,000 tonnes a year of its "polycoat" milk and juice cartons to South Korea. If Toronto moves ahead with plans to recycle disposable coffee cups, it will send them to the same South Korean facility, as long as the owners can handle the influx, he said. Still, Rathbone believes local paper mills and recycling facilities are the best option. "In the long term, I don't think (shipping to Asia) is a sustainable way to go," he said. It is not clear how many tonnes of Ontario's recycled goods are sent to Asia each year. A study published by Waste Diversion Ontario looked at shipping data – voluntarily supplied by municipalities and private recyclers. Based on their information, the authors of the report concluded that four per cent of the 937,979 tonnes of blue-box materials sold in 2006 went to China, and a lesser number to South Korea. WDO's Gies said more ongoing studies are needed before the full picture is known. St. Godard said North American mills generally require materials be properly sorted and clean. But some municipalities, like Toronto, allow all recycled goods to be mixed into the same blue bin, because it is cheaper and easier for residents. "You end up co-mingling materials that have to be sorted and re-sorted and re-sorted and by the time they actually reach the end market they are still so contaminated that the mills here cannot take them. But China has an extra layer of labour that can sift through them," she said. To get to China from Toronto, the mixed paper is stacked in bales, placed in shipping containers and sent across country to the port of Vancouver by train, said Jake Westerhof, of Canada Fibres, which sells Toronto's paper to Nine Dragons. From Vancouver, it is placed on a large freighter ship and spends several weeks at sea before arriving in one of China's southern ports. It is moved into a truck a driven several hours before arriving at the massive Nine Dragons paper mill in the province of Guangdong. Rathbone believes the increase in orders from China means the market will slowly rebound. He says Toronto will continue shipping its paper to Nine Dragons, and pointed out the city's contract requires that the mill adhere to environmental standards, along with health and safety rules for its workers.

Green bin waste trucked to N.Y March 2009

Peel Region shipped 50 truckloads of unfinished compost to Cornerstone Landscaping in Barrie because its organics processing facility in Caledon had to shut down due to odours. Ontario municipalities 'scrambling' to cope with surge in kitchen refuse and plant closings Mar 01, 2009 Ontario facilities that compost kitchen waste are in such short supply that thousands of tonnes have been sent to the United States for incineration and at least one municipality has improperly dumped truckloads within the province. Severe odour problems are the main reason for the closing of facilities, including Peel Region's compost-curing location in Caledon and two plants in Quebec that took thousands of tonnes from Toronto and York region. At the same time, new facilities in Ontario can barely meet the surging demand from municipal green bin programs that recycle food waste into high-grade compost. "If somebody goes out of business then we've got a real problem – there is no extra capacity in the system," said Durham Region's Cliff Curtis, chair of Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario. "In many ways, we are victims of our own success. There have been more (organics) collected than expected, and we are scrambling." Pushed by the Ontario government to recycle organics, municipalities collected 251,368 tonnes of kitchen scraps in green bins in 2007 – a jump of nearly 30 per cent over 2006. Those numbers will only go higher. Toronto is expanding its green bin program into apartments, increasing organic collections from about 115,000 tonnes a year to 170,000 tonnes within the next 16 months. The green bin program has grown so fast that it has outstripped the ability of municipalities to process the organics locally, creating a new carbon footprint since the material is trucked to facilities hundreds of kilometres away. The program collects mountains of leftover steak, hamburgers, vegetables and (depending on the municipality) diapers and pet waste, diverting them from the landfills into compost. It is the meat products that tend to cause the odours. The vast popularity of organic recycling has placed cities in a vulnerable position. When a facility shuts down, city managers need backup plans because excess rotting food cannot be stored in warehouses. Despite pressuring municipalities to recycle organics, the Ontario government has not created a comprehensive plan to help them do so, although ministry sources say the current review of the Waste Diversion Act will bring change. Some cities, like Toronto, have decided to get into the processing business, with long-term plans to own facilities that will provide two-thirds of the processing capacity. "We've been shuffling since our program started in 2002," said Toronto's Geoff Rathbone, general manager of solid waste. "It has been a challenge every day to find sufficient capacity for organics ... they have to flow every day." Among recent contingency plans: • York Region trucked 11,864 tonnes of kitchen waste to Covanta Energy, an incinerator in Niagara Falls, N.Y., between March and August 2008 when its Quebec processor was shut down. • The City of Guelph ships 10,000 tonnes of kitchen waste every year to Covanta Energy. During the mid-1990s, the city was considered a composting pioneer but closed its facility in 2006 due to odours and structural weakness caused by ammonia. • Peel Region shipped 50 truckloads of partially composted kitchen waste to Barrie topsoil company Cornerstone Landscaping in 2007. The company did not have environment ministry approval to accept "unfinished" compost, which contains inorganic material, an environment ministry spokesperson said. Mounds of the compost – including tattered plastic bags – remain on the site. Ministry of environment spokesperson Kate Jordan said investigators responded to an odour complaint about Cornerstone in late 2007 but did not issue an order against the company because it co-operated in the cleanup. Jordan said plastic bags included in the compost defined it as "unfinished." Cornerstone and Peel are now working under the oversight of the province to remove thousands of tattered plastic bags that held the organics, Jordan said. Cornerstone's owner, Rick Sova, said his company did not need ministry approvals to take the organics, saying the compost was already finished when it arrived on site. "We took the material, we screened it, we processed it into a good organic medium for growing results, the Region of Peel is taking back the plastic and they're processing it," Sova said. Larry Conrad is the acting director of waste management for Peel Region. He said Peel sent the material to Cornerstone because odour problems forced the region to close its outdoor curing facility in Caledon. He said they also believed it was a finished product. The region is seeking approvals to build a new composting facility in Caledon. "Composting is a tough industry," Conrad said. "It is an industry that has a lot of odour problems. We operated our composting plant in Caledon for many years with no odour issues, but obviously we weren't immune to it." Every municipality collects different items and uses a slightly different composting process, but the system generally works like this: Bags of kitchen waste are picked up from neighbourhood curbs and taken to processing facilities, where the food is dumped into enormous vats and separated from the plastic bags and errant shampoo bottles. It continues through the system, sometimes taking weeks, until the organics have turned into a thick, dark material with a heavy ammonia-like odour. It is then trucked to a composting facility, which turns it into the compost that is given to residents or sold in stores to be spread on gardens and lawns. The juggling act to keep composting – and diverting from overflowing landfills – has forced cities to look further afield for their processors. Toronto, for example, had shipped roughly 1,000 truckloads of organic waste a year to Quebec. That arrangement ended last November when the Quebec environment ministry limited the company's intake due to odour problems. In that case, Toronto quickly ramped up their contracts with two new Ontario facilities, Orgaworld, a Dutch-owned company that opened a facility near London, and Universal Resource in Welland. The city also has plans to build two processing facilities, at the Disco Transfer Station in north Etobicoke and the Dufferin Waste Management Facility in North York.

Green bins: A wasted effort? July 2009