alberta capital region integrated waste management...

CAPITAL REGION WASTE MINIMIZATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

A PARTNERSHIP OF PLANS

PHASE 1 REPORT – INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

APRIL 2013

ISSUED FOR USE

EBA FILE: C22501183

EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company 14940 - 123 Avenue

Edmonton, AB T5V 1B4 CANADA

p. 780.451.2121 f. 780.454.5688

LIMITATIONS OF REPORT

This report and its contents are intended for the sole use of the Capital Region Waste Minimization Advisory Committee and

their agents. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company (EBA) does not accept any

responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis, or the recommendations contained or referenced in the report

when the report is used or relied upon by any Party other than the Capital Region Waste Minimization Advisory Committee.

Any such unauthorized use of this report is at the sole risk of the user. Use of this report is subject to the terms and conditions

stated in EBA’s Services Agreement. EBA’s General Conditions are provided in Appendix A of this report.

ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE

Acknowledgements

This report is the product of the Capital Regional Waste Management Waste Minimization Committee’s (CRWMAC) many contributions. The Committee is made up of urban and rural municipal representatives from the region, and has non-voting representation from the Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development and the Recycling Council of Alberta. Input was also provided by recycling and waste management professionals. Their hard work and commitment to the Alberta Capital Region planning process has made this report possible.

CRWMAC: Voting Members

Councillor Louise White-Gibbs Jarret Esslinger

Town of Beaumont

Ed Melesko Town of Calmar

Mayor Anita Fisher (Chair) Rod Fraser

Town of Devon

Alderman Ben Henderson Bud Latta

City of Edmonton

Grant Schaffer City of Fort Saskatchewan

Alderman Terry Lazowski Kerra Chomlak

City of Leduc

Councillor Ruth Harris Darcy Bryant

Leduc County

Councillor Dianne Allen Parkland County

Councillor Cathy Heron Christian Benson

City of St. Albert

Councillor Jason Gariepy Leah Seabrook

Strathcona County

Alderman Bill Kesanko Amber Nicol

City of Spruce Grove

Councillor Judy Bennett Tony Lew

Town of Stony Plain

Susan Berry Sturgeon County

CRWMAC: Non-Voting Members

Christine Della Costa Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development

Don Hughes Christina Seidel

Recycling Council of Alberta Recycling Council of Alberta

Prepared by:

EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company



i

Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approach

EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company (EBA) was retained by the

Capital Region Waste Minimization Advisory Committee (CRWMAC; the Committee) to prepare an

Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) for the Alberta Capital Region (ACR) as outlined in the

Committee’s Request for Proposals.

The CRWMAC includes representatives from urban and rural municipalities in the ACR as well as non-

voting members from Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) and the

Recycling Council of Alberta. The urban municipalities are Beaumont, Calmar, Devon, Edmonton, Fort

Saskatchewan, Leduc, Legal, Spruce Grove, St. Albert and Stony Plain, and the rural municipalities are Leduc

County, Parkland County, Strathcona County and Sturgeon County.

The general approach used to complete the proposed scope is defined in the below Figure whereby Phase 1

was to define the current system through the collection of existing system baseline logistical information

and best management practices. This enabled an assessment which included a gap analysis (to determine if

the current system of policies and programs can meet the established targets and if not, what needs to be

done) and a SWOT analysis to assess the current system’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and

threats. The factual information from the gap/SWOT analyses enabled the consulting team to use its solid

waste management experience and conduct an assessment of key issues surrounding the establishment of

a regional system through the ACR (Phase 1). Based on a review and assessment of the current system

together with stakeholder input, suitable policies and programs were identified to supplement the existing

system. These programs and policies will enable the region to meet Provincial and ACR waste reduction

targets of 80% diversion by 2032 and be defined and assessed in more detail through Phase 2 of this

project.

General Approach

Alberta Capital Region

The ACR is comprised of 19 urban and five rural municipalities. They are the Town of Beaumont, Town of

Bon Accord, Town of Bruderheim, Town of Calmar, Town of Devon, City of Edmonton, City of Fort

Saskatchewan, Town of Gibbons, Town of Lamont, Lamont County, City of Leduc, Leduc County, Town of

Legal, Town of Morinville, Parkland County, Town of Redwater, City of St. Albert, City of Spruce Grove,



ii


Town of Stony Plain, Strathcona County, Sturgeon County, Village of Thorsby, Village of Wabamun and

Village of Warburg.

The ACR covers approximately 11,500 square kilometres with a total population of about 1,161,000

(Statistics Canada, 2011 Census). The municipalities range in size from the City of Edmonton with a

population density of 1,187 persons per square kilometre (persons/km2) to Lamont County with a

population density of 1.6 persons/km2.

Currently the ACR is a voluntary organization without any formal governance structure or authority to

implement legislation.

Rationale for Waste Diversion

Waste diversion can be driven by three sets of objectives – environmental, economic and social. Diverting

certain materials from landfills can, for example, reduce the potential for leachate generation that can

contaminate surface and ground water. Landfills are also estimated to generate significant quantities of

methane and other gases, commonly referred to a greenhouse gases because of their effect on climate

change. They are also the source of more aesthetic problems such as odours and litter.

From an economic point of view, landfills built to current standards are expensive. For example, EBA

estimated in 2009 that the capital cost to replace the existing landfill operated by the Leduc and District

Waste Management Authority would be approximately $4.2 million which doesn’t include other costs

related to other land use opportunities that are lost, reclamation of the landfill, and remediation of the

property (i.e. not the true cost of landfilling). Reclamation itself can cost anywhere from $0.65/m3 to

$7.85/m3 of landfill material (soil and garbage) as well as Opportunity Costs for alternate uses of the land

(Guerriero, 1996). Capital costs to be considered include site testing, land purchase, facility design and cell

construction. Operational costs also need to be considered and must include closure and post-closure care

costs. Alberta’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) requires a minimum post-closure

care period of 25 years; so even after a landfill has been successfully closed and capped it still carries an

operating cost for maintenance. For older facilities without adequate leachate management systems, this

cost can be significant.

Diverting various waste streams from landfills has the potential to reduce environmental impacts, extend

the life of existing facilities and reduce landfill capital and operating costs.

The driving force behind solid waste minimization is to reduce the impacts of the human population on our

planet. Generated waste includes the discharge of pollutants to land, water, and air, and the discharge of

greenhouse gases which contribute to global climate change. Waste reduction measures include the

reduction of these discharges, the use of renewable resources, and the conservation of non-renewable

resources. In summary, waste minimization helps to maintain the standard of living for us and future

generations we all now enjoy.

Overall ACR MSW Projections

The Figure below summarizes the effects of achieving the MSW minimization targets suggested in this

study . The average diversion rate calculated by averaging the diversion rates between the years 1996 and

2008 from the Statistics Canada studies was subtracted from the MSW generation rates projected into the



iii


future based on population trends. From 2013 until the 2032, maintaining the 2008 MSW generation rates

and average diversion rate each year will result in a continued growth of MSW being disposed within the

ACR (approximately 1,800,000 tonnes in 2032). If the target MSW diversion rate is achieved in 2032 at an

equal rate of change during 2013 to 2032 over the same years, the MSW disposal rate will have declined

from 2013 (approximately 500,000 tonnes in 2032) despite the population increases.

Total Waste Generation

Assessment of the Existing Solid Waste Management System

Having completed SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats), gap and best practices

analyses, committee member and private company interviews, and the input from the consulting team

based on their experience in regional solid waste systems, the key drivers that were determined to be

needed to be addressed in the new system have been identified in the following:

Current diversion rate trends will not achieve the Provincial waste minimization targets;

Much more attention, and effort, need to be put toward developing waste minimization and regulatory

programs in the ICI and C&D waste sectors as they are the source of highest amount of MSW going to

disposal;

The ICI and C&D sectors are significant in size and will require any changes to be implemented

consistently and equitably amongst businesses, while being engaged directly by the ACR to gain both

an understanding and consensus prior to the development of any major initiatives going forward;



iv


Harmonization of service levels, programs, acceptable materials, contract language, and promotion

and education programs will increase the overall economies of scale and benefit residents with greater

efficiency in service delivery;

The low disposal tipping fee and lack of disposal bans are major barriers to providing a financial

incentive for increasing waste diversion;

Programming in the ACR should focus on those that are strategic, universal and/or transferable to

benefit all member municipalities and ensure customized programs of a particular municipality are the

responsibility of that host municipality;

A consistent decision process is needed to maintain ACR values to ensure new programs and Plan

amendments in the future are consistent with the values, programs and targets of this current Plan;

The existing infrastructure capacity is insufficient in meeting the diversion targets within this Plan;

municipalities are open to either municipal or privately constructed and operated facilities being

constructed/developed to meet expected demand;

Organics and fibre are the primary sources for achieving waste diversion targets;

There is currently insufficient legislation to encourage, enable and empower Alberta municipalities in

their efforts to minimize waste and achieve targets;

Current Provincial stewardship programs do not meet the principles of CCME’s Canada-Wide

Principles for Extended Producer Responsibility.

Development of Assessment Criteria

A triple bottom line assessment (TBL) of high priority programs planned for Phase 2 will help to detail all

the advantages and disadvantages of particular programs consistent with widely accepted values amongst

ACR member municipalities. Prioritizing these programs based on a scoring system is a useful tool for

decision-making and will also help to improve implementation.

After a review of member municipality strategic plans, the evaluation criteria needed to conduct a later TBL

assessment has been provided in this report for use in Phase 2.

Long List of Policies and Programs

Developed by the consulting team after the existing system assessment, a long list list of recommended

policies and programs to provide municipal staff members alternatives to directly address sytem

deficiencies and achieve waste minimization targets. The policies and programs are organized into the four

groupings at the center of the following Figure (defined in following paragraphs) and are prioritized from

top to bottom based on the 6 Rs categories. The outer rings follow best practices and provide clear

implementing each program and policy.



v


Organizational Structure of Long-Listed Policies and Programs

Vision and Strategic Policies

ACR municipalities express their ideals through policies and guiding principles that spell out a vision, goals

and principles on which to base future decision-making. To ensure these policies are fully considered in the

context of ISWMP, these leading policies have been partly assessed from the standpoint of achieving

continual improvement through four steps: plan, do, check and act. Ensuring that these leading policies are

reflected in the day to day decision-making at the operational and programming level will contribute to

ACR achieving its solid waste management goals.

Management Systems and Tools

There are a variety of initiatives already in-place in some of the municipalities in the ACR aimed at

expanding the current solid waste system and increasing diversion. These policies and programs have been

assessed to determine if they fully reflect the ideals of participating municipalities and whether or not they

are the most efficient ways to achieve ACR goals in future.

Operational Infrastructure and Services

Operating equipment and services in an efficient manner not only increases output and maintains basic

health and safety objectives, but also reduces funds spent on inefficiencies. For this reason the project team

reviewed policies and programs directly related to ACR’s waste management infrastructure and operations

are suggested programs for improvement.



vi


Promotion and Education

Fostering behaviour change to create new cultural norms for waste minimization is vital to ensuring

system users rethink waste, innovate to reduce and reuse, and utilize recycling systems efficiently. Best

management practices including the use of social marketing, social media, and other methods of reinforcing

behaviour change to establish new norms were incorporated into recommendations. It is suggested that all

of these programs and policies be retained as a reference list from which to draw at the discretion of the

ACR in the short term, but also to be reviewed in 5 years to ensure they are considered in the longer term.

Recommended Short List

Drawn from the short-list, the following recommendations are provided to the ACR as the selected priority

policies and programs to be implemented within the next five years. Once endorsed by the ACR, these

short-listed policies and programs will undergo a preliminary feasibility analysis in Phase 2 through a

triple bottom line assessment to guide selection and priority, program design, and an estimation of needed

resources.

General Residential Recycling Programs

Provide a Working Group to guide a Waste Diversion Coordinator and to review collection contracts

involving a cross-section of municipalities particularly as it relates to term, service levels and contract

clauses;

Begin the process of determining what a standardized curbside collection program would involve,

focusing on collection frequency and materials collected;

Establish consistency in materials collected at drop-off depots across the region to harmonize drop-off

systems; and

Institute common promotion and education programs throughout the ACR and focus on standardizing

messaging, colours used, system types, etc. to ensure residents are not confused between systems as

they move within the ACR. This will also reduce the duplication of effort between municipal staff

members at the individual municipal level and provide opportunities of bulk buying of related

published materials and consulting service contracts.

Organics Waste Reduction Strategy

Develop a comprehensive Organics Diversion Strategy that engages this sector and develops clear

programs to address its needs and wants in a regional sense, building on existing organics collection

and processing systems currently in place;

Begin the process of standardizing these services in a regional approach to collection and processing

which includes food waste;

Current system resiliency and capacity is a major concern in this regard and needs to be analyzed to

provide long term assured composting facilities in place either in the private or the public sector; and



vii


Where applicable, increase organics collection to weekly and provide bi-weekly garbage collection

(can also collect organics weekly and collected garbage & recyclables bi-weekly and alternating –

therefore each week only need two collection trucks or one truck if truck has a split load).

ICI Waste Reduction Short Term Strategy

Engage the ICI sector in a meanful, constructive dialogue to identify opportunities for understanding

and collaboration to address waste diversion issues;

Develop a comprehensive ICI Waste Management Strategy that:

Addresses the long term capacity issues involved with current development trends and harmonizes

materials collected;

Considers existing models such as the Abbotsford Environmental Pledge Program to provide a

reward and encouragement system that rewards the continual improvement of activities within

businesses. This program could be tailored specifically for MSW or could be maintained as is for a

‘one stop shop’ for environmental issues; and

Uses an education, facilitation and legislation approach in that order to motivate change towards

these desired activities. This approach would use Community-Based Social Marketing Techniques.

Lobby provincial government to increase the Designated Materials List and expand Product

Stewardship to clearly put the responsibility for increasing diversion in this sector on the shoulders of

the waste generators;

Ban certain materials from disposal as diversion services expand and ban designated materials from

regular diversion programs entirely; and

Immediately develop a ‘ICI Waste Diversion toolkit’ and establish an award system that annual

recognizes “Environmental Champions” in this sector.

C&D Waste Reduction Short Term Strategy

Develop a comprehensive C &D Waste Management Strategy that:



Build on current C&D waste diversion initiatives and include the Edmonton R&D facility as a key

part of this strategy;

Lobby the provincial government to expand the number of materials legislated under the Designated

Material Recycling and Management Regulation; and


regular diversion programs entirely when programs become available (e.g. Extended Producer

Responsibility - EPR).



viii


Immediately expand or add areas to existing landfills to focus on areas to sort and separate recyclable

C&D materials while other materials are stockpiled to be used for Alternate Daily Cover at the landfill

or are shipped as feedstock to co-gen facilities;

Immediately develop a Contractors ‘Construction Site Diversion Toolkit’ to be provided through the

Building Permit system to inform Contractors on choices they can make to source separate materials

to increase diversion;

After initial education and promotion of better C&D material in the first couple of years, set up a

consistent system in cooperation of all municipalities to require both proper disposal and materials

diversion plans from Contractors along with a system of enforcement by making proof of their

commitments as a requirement of gaining an Occupancy Permit; and

Review the recommendations of the C&D Waste Management Strategy and implement accordingly.

Infrastructure

Periodic review of disposal, recycling and organics system capacity.

Waste Collection

Standardize the terms and conditions of collection and processing contracts for use in municipal

contracts.

Waste Management Policy

Encourage ESRD to review waste management policies developed in 2004.

Despite the specific recommended policies and programs a group of additional ones are specified

separately below as mandatory to meet best management practices for implementation.

Implementation

Annual Reporting

Prepare annual reports summarizing the actions carried out in a particular year and review individual

programs to determine if they are effective and if not, can be adjusted or dropped. Review all compiled data

between municipalities and consider systems and how to continually improve. Build excitement and

urgency within the Plan as a tool to both promote and educate the public going forward.

o Divide CR up into areas that reflect geographic areas and organize the annual report

according to those areas as follows: North, Northwest, West, South, East, and Central

An example of how a public annual report could be promoted to the public is provided in the following

Figure.



ix


Measure Program Performance

Decision-Making Process and Plan Amendment Procedure

To ensure the key community values and best management practices are being followed during both

implementation of policies and programs, and during any amendments of the IWMP as it is adapted to

future needs, the following decision-making process has been designed to be used by committee members

at their discretion.

The following Figure provides a summary graphic of this recommended decision process.



x


Decision-Making Steps

When decisions affecting the partnership are made through these steps, it is recommended that and

amendment process be developed to ensure agreements are made and the IWMP is updated to reflect the

current reality. This would flow out of the governance structure discussed in Section 11.4

Community-Based Social Marketing

As defined by Doug McKenzie-Mohr, an environmental psychologist, CBSM draws upon research in the

social sciences. Most initiatives to foster sustainable behaviour rely upon large-scale information

campaigns that utilize education and/or advertising to encourage behaviour change. While these strategies

can be effective in creating public awareness and changing attitudes, numerous studies show that

behaviour change rarely occurs as a result of simply providing information. It is recommended that CBSM

techniques be employed by the ACR at a level commensurate with the task at hand to implement new

initiatives and improve upon others. CBSM involves five primary steps:

1. Selecting behaviours;

2. Identifying the barriers and benefits to an activity;

3. Developing strategies that utilize “tools” that have been shown to be effective in changing behaviour;

4. Piloting the strategy; and

5. Broad scale implementation and evaluation.

Funding

EBA recognizes that the municipalities each have their own set of internal issues and priorities regarding

candidate project for funding applications and that waste management may not always be high on



xi


everyone’s priority lists. Therefore, there will be variations in the degree of commitment to participating in

the plan and its implementation. Municipalities will need to prioritize waste management when

establishing funding priorities to implement policies and programs required to meet waste minimization

targets.

Municipalities interested in working together on regional waste management initiatives should pursue

grant funding under RCP for costs associated with formalizing roles, responsibilities and commitments.

Funding from GMF can also be pursued if the initiative involves private sector participation. Once decisions

have been made with respect to developing capital works, participating municipalities can use MSI funds to

fund engineering, construction and other related costs.

The Provincial government should be encouraged to include funding requirements as a component of any

review of its provincial waste reduction strategy. Restoration of dedicated programs such as the Waste

Management Assistance Program that supported the development of regional waste management systems

would be a significant step in the right direction.

Governance

At the outset of the project, the scope of what “governance structure” was described as the following basis

for the requirements of the IWMP. The following definitions were proposed:

Governance - the process by which decisions are taken within or among organizations, including: who

is involved, the assignment of responsibility, the prioritization of goals, and the rendering of

accountability; and

Governance Structure - the informal and formal ways in which different institutions interact within

particular political and administrative settings to develop policy goals, select among means, cope with

uncertainty and controversy, and foster legitimacy and support for policies.

The implication from the above is that the governance entity will need to be the crucial link between ACR

members and the implementer(s) and operator(s) or service provider(s) of the approved waste

minimization initiatives described previously within this document. The governance entity will need to

give the ownership the controlling authority or power for accountability to ensure its successful

implementation and subsequent ongoing operations.

The governance structure also should integrate synergistic approaches of both the National Quality

Developing Governance Structure

To develop a recommended governance structure, a highly collaborative process is required to engage all

pertinent ACR members. Ideally, it would proceed according to the following process:

Define the Solution Goal:

Describe what success of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan looks like.

Establish Solution Evaluation Criteria:

Identify from impacted, pertinent stakeholders (i.e., members of the CRWMAC) the prioritized

attributes of the desired solution.



xii


Define a Continuum of Alternatives

Based on the solution goal and evaluation criteria, a short list of viable governance structure

alternatives can be identified which can be considered by the CRWMAC.

Evaluate the Alternatives

The CRWMAC will evaluate the alternatives based on how well they satisfy the prioritized evaluation

criteria and implementation feasibility / viability.

At this Phase 1 juncture of this project, initial regional waste minimization strategies and initiatives have

been identified and proposed in order to obtain the vision of 80/20 waste diversion goal within the ACR.

Upon ACR’s approval of the recommended initiatives, a next step would be to focus its representatives on

what the governance attributes or basis for evaluating alternative governance structure alternatives should

be. From there, a range of viable governance alternatives can be identified, considered and evaluated.

Next Steps

Following endorsement of the recommended policies and programs along with the assessment criteria, the

consulting team will:

Prepare preliminary program designs for planning purposes to allow the estimation of the resources

required for implementation;

Conduct a triple bottom line assessment to score each program for the purpose of prioritizing the

program choices in the first 5 years of implementation; and

Prepare a recommended implementation schedule to achieve the waste minimization targets;

Define governace structure; and

Prepare a final Integrated Waste Minimization Plan for the ACR.



xiii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... i

Approach ........................................................................................................................................................... i

Alberta Capital Region ...................................................................................................................................... i

Rationale for Waste Diversion .......................................................................................................................... ii

Overall ACR MSW Projections .............................................................................................................. ii

Assessment of the Existing Solid Waste Management System ........................................................... iii

Development of Assessment Criteria ................................................................................................... iv

Long List of Policies and Programs................................................................................................................. iv

Recommended Short List ................................................................................................................................ vi

Implementation .............................................................................................................................................. viii

Next Steps ...................................................................................................................................................... xii

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Scope......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 General Approach .................................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Consultation ........................................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Rationale for Waste Diversion ............................................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Waste Minimization at a Glance ............................................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Opportunities for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction .............................................................. 6

2.2 Alberta Capital Region Setting ............................................................................................................... 7

3.0 WASTE COMPOSITION, QUANTITIES AND PROJECTIONS ............................................... 9

3.1 Waste Composition and Quantities ....................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Residential Waste Quantities ............................................................................................................... 12

3.3 Residential Waste Projections ............................................................................................................. 14

3.4 Overall ACR MSW Projections ............................................................................................................ 16

4.0 EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ......................................................................... 16

4.1 Vision and Strategic Policies ............................................................................................................... 16

4.2 Management Systems and Tools ........................................................................................................ 18

4.3 Operational Infrastructure and Services .............................................................................................. 20

4.3.1 Collection ................................................................................................................................ 20

4.3.1.1 Residential ................................................................................................................. 20

4.3.1.2 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional ..................................................................... 24

4.3.2 Processing .............................................................................................................................. 25

4.3.2.1 Waste Disposal .......................................................................................................... 25

4.3.2.2 Recycling ................................................................................................................... 26

4.3.2.3 Organics..................................................................................................................... 27

4.3.2.4 Construction and Demolition ..................................................................................... 27



xiv


4.4 Promotion and Education .................................................................................................................... 28

4.5 Provincial Policy Framework ................................................................................................................ 29

4.6 Material Markets .................................................................................................................................. 30

4.6.1 Paper ...................................................................................................................................... 30

4.6.2 Plastics .................................................................................................................................... 31

4.6.3 Glass ....................................................................................................................................... 31

4.6.4 Organics .................................................................................................................................. 32

4.6.5 Material Processing Options ................................................................................................... 32

Composting ............................................................................................................................. 32

Anaerobic Digestion ................................................................................................................ 33

4.6.5.1 Material Recovery Facilities ....................................................................................... 33

Refuse-Derived Fuel ............................................................................................................... 34

Bio-Fuel Production ................................................................................................................ 34

Construction and Demolition................................................................................................... 35

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING SYSTEM ..................................................................................... 35

5.1 SWOT Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 35

5.2 Gap Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 36

5.3 Best Approaches to Waste Diversion .................................................................................................. 38

5.3.1 Waste Minimization Targets ................................................................................................... 38

5.3.2 Advanced Programming ......................................................................................................... 38

5.3.3 Best Management Practices ................................................................................................... 42

5.4 Results of Existing System Assessment ............................................................................................. 43

6.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ........................................................................ 45

6.2.1 Assessment Criteria - Descriptions ........................................................................................ 46

6.2.2 Weighting of Criteria ............................................................................................................... 47

7.0 LONG LIST OF POLICIES AND PROGRAMS .......................................................................... 48

8.0 RECOMMENDED SHORT LIST .................................................................................................. 50

8.1 Implementation of the ACR Waste Minimization Plan ......................................................................... 50

8.2 Performance Measurement ................................................................................................................. 51

8.3 General Residential Recycling Programs ............................................................................................ 51

8.4 Organics Waste Reduction Strategy.................................................................................................... 51

8.5 ICI Waste Reduction Short Term Strategy .......................................................................................... 52

8.6 C&D Waste Reduction Short Term Strategy ....................................................................................... 53

8.7 Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................................ 54

8.8 Waste Collection .................................................................................................................................. 55

8.9 Waste Management Policy .................................................................................................................. 55

9.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ......................................... 55

9.1 Performance Measurement ................................................................................................................. 55

9.2 Decision-Making Process and Plan Amendment Procedure ............................................................... 58



xv


9.3 Community-Based Social Marketing ................................................................................................... 59

9.4 Funding ................................................................................................................................................ 61

9.4.1 Funding Sources ..................................................................................................................... 61

9.4.2 Funding Recommendations .................................................................................................... 61

9.5 Governance ......................................................................................................................................... 62

9.5.1 Defining Governance .............................................................................................................. 62

9.5.2 Developing Governance Structure ......................................................................................... 63

10.0 NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................................. 63

11.0 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................................... 64

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 66

TABLES

Table 1a 2001 Summary of Residential Tonnes Collected for Municipalities with Readily Available Data

Table 1b 2011 Summary of Estimated Residential Tonnes Collected for Municipalities

Table 1c 2011 Summary of All Municipalities

Table 2 Projected Curbside Waste Management Needs

Table 3 Vision and Strategic Policies Summary

Table 4 Management Systems and Tools Summary

Table 5a Municipal Solid Waste Collection Systems – 2011

Table 5b Recyclable Materials Collection – 2011

Table 5c Organics Collection Systems – 2011

Table 6 Summary of Class II Landfills

Table 7 Summary of Class III Landfills

Table 8 Summary of Material Recovery Facilities

Table 9 Summary of Organics Processing Facilities

Table 10 Supporting Policies

Table 11 Gap Analysis Summary

Table 12 Best Practices Reports Informing the Study

Table 13 Assessment Criteria Weighting

In “Tables” Section

Table 1.4-1 CRWMAC Consultation Contacts

Table 1.4-2 Private Sector Survey Questions

Table 4.4-1 Education and Promotion Summary

Table 5.0-1 Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)

Table 5.3.3-1 IC&I Economic Waste Diversion Best Management Practices

Table 5.3.3-2 IC&I Regulatory Waste Diversion Best Management Practices

Table 5.3.3-3 IC&I Voluntary Waste Diversion Best Management Practices

Table 7.0-1 Vision and Strategic Policies

Table 7.0-2 Management Systems and Tools

Table 7.0-3 Operational Infrastructure and Services

Table 7.0-4 Promotion and Education



xvi


FIGURES

Figure 1 General Approach

Figure 2 Waste Management at a Glance

Figure 3 GHG Savings per Tonne by Recyclable Material

Figure 4 Population Distribution – Alberta Capital Region

Figure 5 Waste Generation by Sector

Figure 6 ICI Waste Generation

Figure 7 C&D Waste Generation

Figure 8 Residential Waste Generation

Figure 9 Policy and Program Organization

Figure 10 Measure Program Performance

Figure 11 Decision-Making Steps

In “Figures” Section

Figure A Solid Waste Management Facility Locations

Figure B Recyclables Processing

Figure C Organics Processing

Figure D Waste Disposal

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

EBA’s General Conditions

Municipal Summaries

Detailed Summaries of Municipal Waste Quantities

Capital Region Processing Facilities

Continuum of Regional Governance Options



xvii


ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

ACR Alberta Capital Region

AD Anaerobic Digestion

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

C&D Construction and Demolition

CRWMAC Capital Region Waste Minimization Advisory Committee

eCO2 Carbon Dioxide Equivalents

EPEA Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

EPR Extended Producer Responsibility

ESRD Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development

FCM Federation of Canadian Municipalities

GHG Greenhouse Gases

GMF Green Municipal Fund

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

ICI Institutional, Commercial and Light Industrial

ISO International Organization for Standardization

IWMP Integrated Waste Management Plan

Kg Kilograms

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

Km Kilometre

LLDPE Linear Low Density Polyethylene

MGA Municipal Government Act

MRF Material Recovery Facility

MF Multi-Family

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

NQI National Quality Institute

PET Polyethylene Terephthalate

PVC Polyvinyl Chloride

PPP Packaging and Printer Paper

RCA Recycling Council of Alberta

RCBC Recycling Council of British Columbia

RFP Request for Proposals

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

TOR Terms of Reference

t Tonnes

WM Waste Management



1


1.0 INTRODUCTION

EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company (EBA) was retained by the

Capital Region Waste Minimization Advisory Committee (CRWMAC; the Committee) to prepare an

Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) for the Alberta Capital Region (ACR) as outlined in the

Committee’s Request for Proposals (RFP).

The CRWMAC includes representatives from urban and rural municipalities in the ACR as well as non-

voting members from Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) and the

Recycling Council of Alberta. The urban municipalities are Beaumont, Calmar, Devon, Edmonton, Fort

Saskatchewan, Leduc, Legal, Spruce Grove, St. Albert and Stony Plain, and the rural municipalities are Leduc

County, Parkland County, Strathcona County and Sturgeon County.

1.1 Project Scope

The project scope is divided into two phases. The progression of the project to Phase 2 will be determined

by the Committee on the outcome of the first phase of the project.

Phase 1: IWMP Development

Phase 1 is the development of the IWMP to provide a framework and roadmap to guide regional waste

management over the short, medium and long term that will enable the ACR to achieve a goal of 80%

diversion/recovery and 20% landfill disposal and the Provincial goal of 500 kg/per capita per year of

municipal solid waste (MSW). The IWMP evaluates the feasibility of these goals and provides a strong

business case for implementation. As presented in the RFP, the IWMP will need to include policy,program,

funding and governance recommendations for the following components:

Residential, Institutional, Commercial and (light) Industrial (ICI), and Construction and Demolition

(C&D) waste sectors;

Opportunities to reduce waste generation;

Efficient options for reuse of waste materials;

Greater emphasis on recycling;

Opportunities for education;

Innovative recovery and disposal options;

Most efficient use of present and future regional infrastructure; and

Consistent measurement and reporting framework.

A major outcome of this evaluation will be the prediction of dates for achievement of targets.

Phase 2: IWMP Implementation Strategy

Phase 2 will proceed immediately after review and approval of the IWMP by the Committee. The

Committee anticipates a need to validate the overall strategy and objectives of the plan among



2


stakeholders. The results of the stakeholder consultations will inform the development of the more

detailed implementation plan, which may include, but may not be limited to, the following:

A workable timeline identifying key activities and milestones, including sub projects;

A process to put in place the proposed governance structure;

Cost for each component in the plan with a financing plan including potential funding sources from

government; and

Other specific actions/decisions that may be required to enable the achievement of the goals and

objectives for solid waste management.

1.2 General Approach

The general approach used to complete the proposed scope is defined in the below Figure 1 below whereby

Phase 1 was to define the current system through the collection of existing system baseline logistical

information and best management practices. This enabled an assessment which included a gap analysis (to

determine if the current system of policies and programs can meet the established targets and if not, what

needs to be done) and a SWOT analysis to assess the current system’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities

and threats. The factual information from the gap/SWOT analyses enabled the consulting team to use its

solid waste management experience and conduct an assessment of key issues surrounding the

establishment of a regional system. Based on this assessment of the current system together with

stakeholder input, suitable policies and programs were identified to supplement the existing system. These

programs and policies were will enable the region to meet Provincial and ACR waste reduction targets and

be defined and assessed in more detail through Phase 2 of this report.

These policies and programs were compiled into a long list for consideration at any time during the term of

the Plan. Based on a variety of concerns relating to the implementation of a regional system in the ACR, a

shortlist of priority policies and programs were recommended for short-term implementation. This

shortlist was divided into two categories: 1) programs to be individually assessed through a triple bottom

line process and ranked to create a guideline for implementation and; 2) programsconsidered mandatory

for the successful implementation of a regional waste management system. These recommendations are

presented in Section 11 of this report.

Based on recommendations in this report and Committee feedback, an endorsed shortlist of policies and

programs will be finalized. This will be implemented within the next five years, during Phase 2 of the Plan.

The shortlist will be evaluated through a triple bottom line process with established criteria and weighting

reflecting the common values of member municipalities. Through this Phase, planning level resource needs

are to be determined for successful execution of these programs as well as the mandatory governance,

performance measurement, and data tracking recommendations.

Throughout the IWMP, the waste management system is grouped into four categories:

Vision and Strategic Policies;

Management Systems and Tools;

Operational Infrastructure and Services; and



3


Promotion and Education.

Figure 1: General Approach

1.3 Consultation

In preparing this report, EBA obtained information and input from a variety of sources. Principal among

these was the information gathered through interviews and discussions with representatives of

municipalities participating in the Committee and from other municipalities in the ACR. A summary of

municipal contacts is provided in Table 1.4-1 in the Tables Section. EBA was able to make contact with

representatives of 22 of the 24 municipalities in the ACR and was able to interview 16 individuals. EBA also

interviewed representatives for ESRD and the Recycling Council of Alberta. Information about waste

management programs was also obtained from individual municipal websites. Follow-up interviews were

undertaken to attempt to fill-in information gaps with respect to waste and diverted material quantities.

EBA also solicited information from a cross-section of private sector companies involved in waste

management activities for the ICI and C&D sectors. Six companies were selected to provide additional

feedback through an email survey. One company was interviewed directly and two others responded to the

survey. The survey questions are presented in Table 1.4-2 and the companies consulted are listed below:

Ever Green Ecological Services Inc.

Waste Management of Canada

BFI Canada

Standstone Enviro-Waste Services Ltd.

Klondike Disposal and Recycling

A&A Disposal

2.0 BACKGROUND

The ACR is comprised of 19 urban and five rural municipalities. They are the Town of Beaumont, Town of

Bon Accord, Town of Bruderheim, Town of Calmar, Town of Devon, City of Edmonton, City of Fort

Saskatchewan, Town of Gibbons, Town of Lamont, Lamont County, City of Leduc, Leduc County, Town of

Legal, Town of Morinville, Parkland County, Town of Redwater, City of St. Albert, City of Spruce Grove,



4


Town of Stony Plain, Strathcona County, Sturgeon County, Village of Thorsby, Village of Wabamun and

Village of Warburg.

The ACR covers approximately 11,500 square kilometres with a total population of about 1,161,000

(Statistics Canada, 2011 Census). The municipalities range in size from the City of Edmonton with a

population density of 1,187 persons per square kilometre (persons/km2) to Lamont County with a

population density of 1.6 persons/km2.

Outside the City of Edmonton, 12 of the 23 municipalities have organized regional systems to manage their

solid waste disposal. They are the Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Authority, the Roseridge

Waste Services Commission and the Lamont County Regional Solid Waste Commission. These management

structures are reviewed further in Section 4.2 Management Systems and Tools.

Within the ACR, there are a large number of private service companies who provide waste collection

services to the member municipalities. These include large international waste hauling companies, such as

Waste Management of Canada and BFI Canada that provide multiple types of collection services through to

smaller family-based businesses, such as Ever Green Ecological Services Inc. that service a particular niche

within the ACR. Also included in this group of service providers are the many re-use, drop-off, reprocessing,

recycling and landfill operators that, together with haulers, form an integral part of the Alberta solid waste

management infrastructure.

2.1 Rationale for Waste Diversion

Waste diversion can be driven by three sets of objectives – environmental, economic and social. Diverting

certain materials from landfills can, for example, reduce the potential for leachate generation that can

contaminate surface and ground water. Landfills are also estimated to generate significant quantities of

methane and other gases, commonly referred to a greenhouse gases because of their effect on climate

change. They are also the source of more aesthetic problems such as odours and litter.

From an economic point of view, landfills built to current standards are expensive. For example, EBA

estimated in 2009 that the capital cost to replace the existing landfill operated by the Leduc and District

Waste Management Authority would be approximately $4.2 million which doesn’t include other costs

related to other land use opportunities that are lost, reclamation of the landfill, and remediation of the

property (i.e. not the true cost of landfilling). Reclamation itself can cost anywhere from $0.65 /m3 to $7.85

/m3 of landfill material (soil and garbage) as well as Opportunity Costs for alternate uses of the land

(Guerriero, 1996). Capital costs to be considered include site testing, land purchase, facility design and cell

construction. Operational costs also need to be considered and must include closure and post-closure care

costs. Alberta’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) requires a minimum post-closure

care period of 25 years; so even after a landfill has been successfully closed and capped it still carries an

operating cost for maintenance. For older facilities without adequate leachate management systems, this

cost can be significant.

Diverting various waste streams from landfills has the potential to reduce environmental impacts, extend

the life of existing facilities and reduce landfill capital and operating costs.



5


2.1.1 Waste Minimization at a Glance

The driving force behind solid waste minimization is to reduce the impacts of the human population on our

planet. Generated waste includes the discharge of pollutants to land, water, and air, and the discharge of

greenhouse gases. Waste reduction measures include the reduction of these discharges, the use of

renewable resources, and the conservation of non-renewable resources. In summary, waste minimization

helps to maintain the standard of living for us and future generations we all now enjoy.

The life cycle and management of MSW with its associated greenhouse gas emissions is presented in Figure

2a. The four general stages of product life cycles (raw materials acquisition, manufacturing, recycling, and

waste management) are highlighted in the second column. MSW – the subject of this plan – is generated by

three sectors: residential, ICI and C&D. With the implimentation of MSW reduction, reuse, and recycling

systems, the amount of materials being sent to landfills is reduced; this MSW management system is

illustrated in Figure 2b.

Figure 2a: MSW Lifecycle, Management and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (US EPA Website, 2012)



6


Figure 2b: Community MSW Management System (Advanced Disposal Website, 2013)

2.1.2 Opportunities for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction

In addition to GHG savings from transportation, research shows that GHG savings can be achieved by

recycling and composting rather than disposing of waste in garbage. The June 14, 2012 City of Edmonton

Report entitled “City Operations Greenhouse Gas Management Plan” states that by “diverting waste from

landfill (through composting operations) the City avoids the production of more potent greenhouse gas

emissions such as methane. The carbon credits from this effort are certified for trading [under the

Provincial cap-and-trade system].” Additionally, a 2011 study done in the Metro Vancouver region

determined that the average carbon dioxide equivalent (eCO2) for combined MSW recycling and

composting saved 1,837 kg per tonne (Sound Resources Management Group Ltd., 2009). Figure 3 below

shows the range of GHG savings gained by recycling various materials, which ranges from 9,827 kg eCO2

per tonne savings for aluminum cans diverted for feedstock for. new cans, to a low of 14 eCO2 per tonne

savings for glass used as construction aggregate. While aluminum has more recovery-related cost savings

than glass, from a material-use perspective, glass recovery actually has a much lower carbon footprint.

In contrast, landfilling has minimal GHG reduction value. For a landfill with a 75% methane recovery rate

and an efficient energy recovery system, GHG savings per tonne is approximately 270 kg eCO2 (Sound

Resources Management Group Ltd., 2009). The metrics clearly indicate that recycling and composting

actively contribute to GHG savings as compared to disposal.



7


Figure 3: GHG Savings per Tonne by Recyclable Material as Compared to Disposal

(Source: Sound Resources Management Group Ltd., 2009)

2.2 Alberta Capital Region Setting

Increases in population result in direct increases in the quantities of waste generated. In addition, per

capita waste generation rates are also directly related to the strength of the economy. Therefore,

population growth along with economic growth increases the amount of waste at different rates across the

municipalities in the ACR, as determined by a number of socio-economic factors. Figure 4 shows the

distribution of population in the ACR. The City of Edmonton represents about 70% of the population in the

region. The rest of the population is almost equally divided between urban and rural municipalities.

A figure showing a detailed population breakdown is presented in Appendix B.

Population growth in the ACR has prompted policy makers to initiate and implement programs on land use

planning. According to the information provided in the RFP, it has been estimated that the ACR population

will increase by over 600,000 people and reach 1.7 million people in the next 35 years. To plan for this level

of growth, the ACR municipalities have committed to more intensified development in the form of density

targets in designated priority growth areas. These types of development strategies and initiatives will

impact the waste management setting in the region and will need to be considered. The differences in the

municipalities create separate and distinct community wastesheds (like watersheds), each of which require

specific strategies within a Regional IWMP. As communities grow and as populations increase, the plan will



8


be able to provide continuous improvement through the following approach: monitor, respond, improve

and update. This approach allows for ongoing response to changes.

Increases in waste generation could exert stress on the budgets of municipalities, which are already

stretched to provide other services to the public. Additionally, lack of available land for traditional waste

disposal in the vicinity of some municipalities has forced them to spend a large portion of their waste

management budget on hauling solid waste longer distances. This problem will be best addressed through

implementation of an Environmentally Sustainable, Economically Viable and Locally Socially Acceptable

(Triple Bottom Line) Integrated Waste Management System.

Several initiatives, frameworks, plans and strategy documents have been published by the Albert

government and the ACR on sustainable use of resources. Many of these documents are focused on

development, land use and reducing human footprint on land (e.g. the Provincial Land Use Framework and

the Capital Region Growth Plan). The province has also provided guidance on solid waste initiatives in the

province through its Too Good to Waste Provincial Waste Strategy and the Provincial Waste Action Plan.

These policy and planning documents are described in more detail in Section 4.1. The IWMP for the ACR

will need to align with and complement the policy direction identified in these background documents. A

sustainable solid waste management system will contribute to reducing the human footprint on land and is

an essential component of sustainability planning.

70%

16%

14%

Figure 4: Population Distribution - Alberta Capital Region (Source: Statistics Canada, 2011 Census)

City of Edmonton Others Urban Municipalities Rural Municipalities



9


3.0 WASTE COMPOSITION, QUANTITIES AND PROJECTIONS

A determination of accurate MSW composition and quanities throughout the ACR would require a

consistent annual measurement system that includes private and public facilities; this does not currently

exist. This report recommends such a system be implemented as soon as possible; however, for the

purposes of providing a reasonable start to an estimation of composition and quantities in the ACR other

less accurate or dated sources were used and compared to Canadian trends.

3.1 Waste Composition and Quantities

Waste monitoring has been done at the Provincial level to determine waste generation by sector as well as

to determine the composition as it relates to each sector. The graphs below depict Alberta’s waste

composition by generation sector. The IC&I and C&D sectors (the private sector) typically produce the

greatest portion of the MSW stream (67%) and this is where municipalities have the least control. The ACR

MSW waste stream is expected to be similar to this Provincial average. Achieving MSW reduction targets

will require that these sectors are the primary focus of waste reduction efforts within the ACR.

Figure 5a: Waste Generation by Sector

(Source: Alberta Environment, 2005)

The available ACR data on waste quantities was sketchy and did not fully account for the IC&I and C&D

sectors primarily due to a number of private facilities being operated where detailed data has not been

collected by the ACR. To overcome this deficiency, surveys from 1996 to 2008 were conducted by Statistics

Canada to determine the total annual MSW quantity for the ACR. The IC&I and C&D sectors were grouped

as non-residential MSW. Figure 5b compares three streams, residential, non-residential and organics which

comes from both streams. The purpose of this Figure is to demonstrate the larger overall quantity and high

rate of growth of MSW disposed from non-residential sources as compared to the smaller and more

moderate growth in the residential sector. This further confirms the need to address these sectors to

achieve waste diversion targets.



10


Figure 5b: Total Waste Generation by Sector

(Source: Statistics Canada, 1996-2008)

The surveys were conducted by Statistics Canada across Canada and thus we were able to compare the

more meaningful per capita disposal rates during those years in Alberta to the rest of Canada. Figure 5c

demonstrates that the per capita waste disposal rates in Alberta are higher than the National average while

the per capita diversion rates are below the National average.

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000

4500000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Ma

ss (

ton

ne

s)

Year

Organics

Non-Residential WasteDiverted

Residential Waste Diverted

Non-Residential WasteDisposed

Residential Waste Disposed



11


Figure 5c: Per Capita Waste Generation by Sector

(Source: Statistics Canada, 1996-2008)

From Provincial waste composition studies the composition of the IC&I and C&D streams is made up of a

variety of materials, but paper and organics (which include wood) are the major contributers similar to the

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

To

ns

Pe

r C

ap

ita

Year

Waste Disposed - Canada

Waste Diverted - Canada

Organics Diverted - Canada

Waste Disposed - Alberta

Waste Diverted - Alberta

Organics Diverted - Alberta



12


residential stream and should be a primary focus of the waste minimization efforts in the ACR.

Figure 6: ICI Waste Generation

(Source: Provincial Waste Characterization Framework, 2005)

Figure 7: C&D Waste Generation (Source: Provincial Waste Characterization Framework, 2005)

3.2 Residential Waste Quantities

The quantity of municipal/residential waste generated in the ACR was determined using a combination of

measured quantities from those municipalities where information was readily available and an estimation

of waste quantities for the other municipalities based on data from other similar municipalities. In some

cases, partial information was available and that has been included in the review. A detailed summary of

the waste quantities is provided in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c with additional supporting information provided in

Appendix B.

3% 2% 1% 4%

25%

33%

10%

10%

12%

C&D

Glass

Industrial Waste

Metal

Organics

Paper

Other

Plastics

Wood and Soil

1% 1%

10%

13%

6%

26%

10%

33%

AsphaltBrick/StoneConcreteDrywallMetalOtherRoofingWood



13


Figure 8: Residential Waste Generation

(Source: Alberta Environment, 2010)

It was estimated that in 2011, approximately 406,944 tonnes (t) of residential waste was managed via the

curbside collection program by the municipalities in the ACR; specifically recyclables, organics and waste.

Edmonton, at 281,274 t, was the source of about 69% of the residential waste generated in the ACR. The

next two largest sources were Strathcona County at 29,602 t and St. Albert at 19,923 t. These three

municipalities accounted for over 80% of the residential waste in the ACR in 2011.

Edmonton, Strathcona and St. Albert also led the way in terms of the diversion of residential material from

disposal. The three municipalities diverted approximately 180,351 t through recycling and composting

programs. This was 90% of the estimated 200,351 t of residential waste diversion in the ACR. Overall,

approximately 49% of the residential waste generated in the ACR was diverted from landfills in 2011. Of

this, 75,645 t (19% of residential waste) was recyclable materials collected through blue bag, blue bin and

depot programs, and 124,707 t (30%) was organics diverted to composting or similar facilities. The

organics data does not include local yard and garden waste composting operations undertaken by

individual municipalities.

Note that the per capita waste generation in the tables below reflects only residential generation, and does

not factor in ICI and C&D tonnage for each jurisdiction. This information was not readily available for the

ACR by municipality, nor by disposal facility. Combined tonnage for all sectors divided by population is

needed to accurately determine the ACR’s progress towards the Provincial target of 500 kg/capita/year.

That said, in 2005 the regional generation of residential MSW was estimated to be 1146.1 kg/capita/year

based on mathematical modelling (ISL and EBA, 2007).

Table 1a: 2011 Summary of Residential Tonnes Collected for Municipalities with Readily Available Data

Municipality Population Recyclables Organics Waste Total Total Kg/

Capita/Year

Diversion

Rate

Beaumont 13,287 898 372 4,448 5,718 430 22.2%

35%

5%

7% 3%

25%

25%

Organics

Metals

Plastic

Glass

Paper

Waste



14


Bon Accord 1,488 56 123 601 780 524 22.9%

Calmar 1,970 0 106 653 759 385 13.9%

Devon 6,510 632 230 2,264 3,126 480 27.6%

Edmonton1 812,201 51,063 98,856 131,355 281,274 346 53.3%

Fort

Saskatchewan 19,051 1,190 1,000 4,225 6,415 337 34.1%

Leduc (City) 24,279 1,697 1,052 7,883 10,633 438 25.9%

Leduc

(County) 13,260 17 13 2,179 2,209 163 1.4%

Parkland 30.568 1,462 266 7,283 9,012 295 19.2%

St. Albert 61,466 5,113 7,929 6,881 19,923 324 65.5%

Spruce Grove 26,171 1,844 1,844 5,531 9,218 352 40.0%

Stony Plain 14,177 1,222 1,662 3,213 6,097 405 47.3%

Strathcona 92,490 6,755 10,635 12,212 29,602 320 58.7%

Thorsby 797 0 1 202 203 254 0.4%

Note: 1. Edmonton compost tonnage based on estimated quantity diverted to co-composter at Edmonton Waste Management Centre.

Table 1b: 2011 Summary of Estimated Residential Tonnes Collected for Municipalities (Data Estimated)

Municipality Population Recyclables Organics Waste Total Est. Kg/

Capita/Year

Diversion

Rate

Bruderheim 1,155 142 0 476 618 535 22.2%

Gibbons 3,030 148 0 915 1,063 351 22.9%

Lamont

(County) 3,872 204 0 1,031 1,118 319 7.7%

Lamont (Town) 1,753 195 0 652 846 483 22.9%

Legal 1,225 139 0 467 606 495 22.9%

Morinville 8,560 561 561 2,947 4,068 475 27.6%

Redwater 1,915 57 57 704 818 427 13.9%

Sturgeon 19,578 2,250 0 10,193 12,443 636 18.1%

Wabamun 661 0 0 135 136 205 0.4%

Warburg 789 0 0 142 142 180 0.0%

Table 1c: 2011 Summary of All Municipalities Residential Only

Municipality Population Recyclables Organics Waste Total

(tonnes)

Kg / Capita /

Year

Diversion

Rate

All 1,161,418 75,645 1214,707 206,592 406,944 350 49.2%

3.3 Residential Waste Projections

The projections for the quantity of municipal/residential waste in the ACR was determined using the

typical residential waste composition (refer to Section 3.1 above), the population projections as noted in



15


the Capital Region Growth Plan, December 2009 and target residential material type capture rate by

municipality type (Waste Diversion Ontario Guidebook, March 2010).

With respect to the target capture rates, municipalities of different sizes tend to have different degrees of

resources available. Typically, larger and more urban municipalities tend to achieve higher capture rates

in-part from greater consumption rates than smaller, rural municipalities with less per capita consumption.

For example, the City of Edmonton would be considered a large urban municipality whereas Lamont

County would be considered a rural municipality. Edmonton, with its higher population and greater

population density as well as having access to greater human and financial resources as compared to

Lamont County, would likely be able to achieve a higher capture rate of materials. In order to project the

potential recovery of material for a given municipality over time, each municipality’s specific

characteristics are typically taken into account to calculate their respective and individual targets.

However, for the purposes of this Plan, the future projections of the material available to be recovered

across the ACR was grouped so as to present the information in aggregate. For the purposes of the

projections, an aggregate target capture rate for recyclables of 78% (i.e. 78% of what is available for

collection would be realistically collected in the recycling stream) was calculated to be reasonable as was

an aggregate target capture rate for organics of 40%.

Assuming the current waste generation rates (expressed in kilograms per capita per year, kg/capita/yr)

remains consistent over time, the following table projects the anticipated residential waste management

needs of the ACR over time.

Table 2: Projected Residential Curbside Waste Management Needs

Item 2011 2014 2019 2029 2044

Population 1,126,147 1,213,598 1,305,640 1,475,276 1,728,182

Waste (disposal tonnes) 183,020 197,233 212,191 239,760 280,862

Divertible tonnes (i.e.

recyclables and organics) 171,156 187,274 201,478 227,655 266,682

Additional supporting information provided in Appendix C.



16


3.4 Overall ACR MSW Projections

Figure 9 below summarizes the effects of achieving the MSW minimization targets suggested in this study .

The average diversion rate calculated by averaging the diversion rates between the years 1996 and 2008

from the Statistics Canada studies was subtracted from the MSW generation rates projected into the future

based on population trends. From 2013 until the 2032, maintaining the 2008 MSW generation rates and

average diversion rate each year will result in a continued growth of MSW being disposed within the ACR

(approximately 1,800,000 tonnes in 2032). If the target MSW diversion target is achieved in 2032 at an

equal rate of change during 2013 until 2032 over the same years, the MSW disposal rate will have declined

from 2013 (approximately 500,000 tonnes in 2032) despite the population increases.

Figure 9: Total Waste Generation

4.0 EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

4.1 Vision and Strategic Policies

Several initiatives, frameworks, plans and strategy documents have been published by the provincial

government and the ACR on sustainable use of resources. Many of these documents are focused on

development, land use and reducing human footprint on land (e.g., the Provincial Land Use Framework and

the Capital Region Growth Plan). The province has also provided guidance on solid waste initiatives in the

province through its Too Good to Waste Provincial Waste Strategy and the Provincial Waste Action Plan.

Various municipalities have developed independent solid waste management plans, some examples are

listed in Table 3 below.



17


Table 3: Vision and Strategic Policies Summary

Policy Summary

National

Canada-Wide Action Plan for Extended

Producer Responsibility

CCME - The Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer

Responsibility (EPR) would seek the adoption by producers of full life-

cycle cost accounting for their products.

A Canada-Wide Strategy for Sustainable

Packaging

CCME - The purpose of the Canada-wide Strategy for Sustainable

Packaging is to build on the Canada-wide Action Plan for EPR to help

create a more consistent Canada-wide approach to EPR for

packaging and to support a shift by all packaging actors towards

greater packaging sustainability.

Provincial

Alberta Land Use Frame Work, 2008

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development –

Designed to develop regional accountability and responsibility for an

integrated approach to land use planning.

Too Good to Waste: Making Conservation a

Priority, 2008


Alberta’s road map for waste reduction and management. It identifies

the issues and opportunities, and outlines the outcomes, strategies

and priority actions to help Alberta advance innovative waste

management programs

Alberta Municipal Waste Action Plan 2004-2006,

August 2004


Objective of plan is to strengthen Alberta’s policy and legislative

framework, in consultation with stakeholders, to develop a long-term

approach to managing municipal, industrial and hazardous waste in

the province.

Regional

Capital Region Growth Plan – Growing

Forward, 2009

-Capital Region Board- Growth Plan addresses a regional approach

for growth projections, core and social infrastructure needs, alternative

approaches to governance, and potential models for sharing regional

costs.

ISL Engineering and Land Services and EBA - Waste management

section provides an overview of waste generation and diversion for the

ACR and provides a series of system improvement options.

Municipalities

Town of Beaumont Environmental Baseline

Report, 2012

Maintains an environment that enhances human health and fosters a

transition towards sustainability, preserving carbon sinks, reducing

GHGs.

Environmental Management Plan in preparation.

City of Edmonton Environmental Strategic

Plan: The Way We Green, 2011 Prioritizes waste reduction and sets zero waste goals.

City of Edmonton Waste Management Policy,

2007

City’s commitment to leading technology and sustainable waste

management services. Supports initiative to move into non-residential

waste services area.



18


Table 3: Vision and Strategic Policies Summary

Policy Summary

City of Leduc Environmental Plan – Phase 1,

2012

Presents the City’s commitment to protect and enhance the local

natural environment. Waste is one of the key action areas.

Parkland County Solid Waste Management

Plan, 2010

The County has affirmed the residents long term desire to increase the

local waste diversion rates and level of service beyond the current

drop off program.

City of St. Albert Environmental Master Plan,

2008 Lists specific goals and measures of success.

City of St. Albert Solid Waste Program Review,

2008 Guidance document for recent waste management program changes

City of Spruce Grove Environmental

Sustainability Plan, 2011

Identifies five strategic areas and outlines policy goals, objectives and

action items.

Town of Stony Plain Environmental

Stewardship Strategy, 2007

Prioritizes waste reduction and proposes limits on the amount of waste

placed at the curb and a partnership with Spruce Grove to seek

funding for a compost facility

Town of Stony Plain Policies and Procedures

Manual, 2010 Informs Town’s Recycling Program; including procurement practices.

4.2 Management Systems and Tools

Management system and tools, ranging from various regulatory levers—including bylaws, contracts and

financial drivers such as tipping fees—to data tracking and performance measures, are summarized in the

table below.

Table 4: Management Systems and Tools Summary

Type Summary

Regulatory Levers for Waste Minimization Municipal Government Act gives municipalities the ability to regulate

waste management without limitation

Bylaws - SW

A majority of municipalities in the ACR have bylaws that set standards

for what materials are collected in their communities and how

collection and/or drop off takes place

Bylaws – Fire and Nuisance Some bylaws exist to restrict open burning of MSW in urban areas;

some open burning exists in rural areas

Composition Audits (Regional) Material composition is derived from Provincial estimates

Contracts

Contracts are in place for hauling and terms are clearly defined so

adjustments can be adjusted for continual improvement

Collection and processing costs are not publically accessible

Data Tracking

Communities generally have residential data but minimal tonnage

numbers were available for ICI and C&D sectors

Mathematical modeling was used to estimate tonnage by sector in the

ACR (ISL and EBA, 2007)

Financial

Several municipalities have adopted a user pay system to promote

diversion

Grant funding through the Province or other is available to support



19


Table 4: Management Systems and Tools Summary

Type Summary

WM capital funding projects

Governance

Minimal governance over waste and limited ability to control flow of

materials, build efficiencies, track performance and provide continual

improvement

Partnerships

Both formal and informal partnership exist with municipalities

throughout the region, and three commissions/authorities exist to

oversee waste management activities

Performance Measures

Some WM data is collected periodically throughout the region,

especially for the residential sector

Product stewardship programs provide some annual reporting

Personnel Most communities have a designated waste manager or some staff

time allocated for waste management

Outside the City of Edmonton, 12 of the 23 municipalities have organized regional systems to manage their

solid wastes. They are the Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Authority, the Roseridge Waste

Services Commission and the Lamont County Regional Solid Waste Commission.

Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Authority

The Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Authority (Authority) represents Leduc County, City of

Leduc, Town of Beaumont, Town of Devon and Town of Calmar. The municipalities signed an agreement in

the 1970s to establish a waste management authority to provide waste management services for the

member municipalities. The Authority is essentially a committee acting on behalf of its members. Each

municipality appoints a member to the Board that oversees the Authority’s business. The Board members

elect one of their group to be Chairman, usually for one year. Authority management and administration is

contracted to one of the member municipalities. The City of Leduc currently provides this service.

The Authority is not a legal entity and does not have any Provincially delegated authority. Therefore, it

does not have the ability to own property or borrow money. All fiscal responsibility rests with the councils

of the member municipalities. Each member municipality is required to approve the Authority’s capital and

operating budgets. Any major expenditure in excess of the Authority’s approved budget requires approval

of the respective municipal councils. Generally the Authority operates off of revenue generated by

materials that cross the facility’s weigh scale. This includes waste delivered from the member

municipalities and other municipal and commercial clients.

The Authority operates a regional landfill located east of the City of Leduc. The original landfill developed

by the Authority is on Public Land held under a Crown lease by Leduc County on behalf of the Authority. A

recent expansion of landfill operations is on land purchased by Leduc County for the Authority. Operation

of the landfill and associated waste management activities is contracted to MCL Waste Services. (ESRD has

issued an approval to the Authority for the landfill.)

Initially established to provide waste disposal services, activities have evolved over time to the point that

more emphasis is being placed on waste diversion including providing a consolidation area for organics

from member municipalities.



20


Roseridge Regional Waste Management Services Commission

The Roseridge Regional Waste Services Commission (Roseridge) was established in 2001 by an Order-in-

Council under Part 15 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA). It was preceded by a waste management

authority representing the same municipalities. Its members are Sturgeon County, Town of Redwater,

Town of Morinville, Town of Legal, Town of Gibbons and Town of Bon Accord. Each municipality appoints a

councillor to be member to the Board of Directors. The Directors are responsible for managing Roseridge.

While the Directors are municipal councillors, they report to the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect

to fiscal matters.

As a regional services commission, Roseridge has real person powers and can own property, borrow

money and operate at a deficit within limits established by provincial regulations. Therefore, Roseridge has

ownership of its land either through clear title or a Crown lease. ESRD has issued an approval for the

landfill and associated facilities, and Roseridge is wholly responsible for compliance.

Roseridge’s waste management facilities include a landfill, recycling areas for metals, batteries, tires, and

other similar material. It also includes composting facilities that were expanded and upgraded in 2012 to

provide a capability to process food waste in addition to the usual yard and garden waste composted in the

past. Operation of the facilities is contracted to MCL Waste Services. Sturgeon County provides

administration and management services for the Commission.

Lamont County Regional Solid Waste Commission

The Lamont County Regional Solid Waste Commission (Lamont) was created by an Order-in-Council under

the MGA in 1999. Its members include Lamont County, Town of Lamont, Town of Bruderheim, Town of

Mundare, Village of Andrew and Village of Chipman. (The last three municipalities are not part of the ACR.)

As a regional service commission, it has real person powers and can own property, borrow money, etc. Its

assets at the time it was established included office and service buildings, a weigh scale, a tracked loader

and sundry other related equipment. It is possible therefore that Lamont operates its own landfill.

The Lamont’s landfill is classified as a small Class II landfill and as such it is registered with ESRD under

EPEA. It must operate in compliance with the Code of Practice for Landfills.

4.3 Operational Infrastructure and Services

4.3.1 Collection

4.3.1.1 Residential

Appendix B provides a detailed overview of the information gathered on municipalities in the ACR. Most of

the municipalities provide curbside collection of waste from their residents and a few provide only a depot

/ drop-off location. For those that provide curbside collection, the majority provide the service on a weekly

basis (four provide collection on a bi-weekly schedule).

Many municipalities have a curbside collection system which includes garbage, recycling, organics, spring

and fall cleanups, etc. Some smaller communities, on the other hand, have drop-off facilities for collection of

waste and recyclable materials. The IWMP must, therefore, consider the capabilities, infrastructure and

different community objectives that exist in the ACR, while still achieving overall regional objectives.



21


Waste management services provided by municipalities in the ACR are summarized in Tables 5a, 5b, and

5c. Information was gathered for 19 urban and 5 rural municipalities. A more detailed summary of the

waste collection programs, including materials collected by waste stream, and by community can be found

in Appendix B. For the purposes of this report, residential waste refers to waste from single- and multi-

family units that are collected by or on behalf of the respective municipalities.

Fourteen of the urban municipalities have, or will have in 2013, automated collection for their mixed waste

which limits the amount of waste that can be placed at the curb for collection. Three urban centres also

operate transfer stations that accept mixed waste, and 11 have access to regional landfills for the direct

disposal of mixed waste and miscellaneous large objects such as furniture. Two of the rural municipalities

provide no direct waste management services to their residents although both provide administrative

services for their respective regional waste management facilities. For the most part, this is a function of

the dispersed populations found in largely rural areas. Two other rural municipalities provide residents

with waste management services through combinations of transfer stations and recycling centres. The

other rural municipality, Strathcona County, is unique in that most of its residents live in the Hamlet of

Sherwood Park and receive full curb-side service for mixed waste, organics and recyclables. Rural residents

also have the option of subscribing to these services..

With respect to organic material, 13 urban municipalities have programs for the collection of yard waste.

Of these, 10 use automated collection systems while the others use manual collection and/or drop-off

locations. Seven urban municipalities collect food wastes co-mingled with their yard waste. Three only

collect food waste between April/May and October/November in conjunction with their yard waste

programs.

Most of the materials included in municipal recycling programs were very similar. The predominant

materials were clean paper, plastics and metals. Twelve of the 22 municipalities with recycling programs

also accepted clean, clear glass jars and bottles although there were indications that some or all of this

particular material was destined for landfill disposal. The types of paper generally accepted include

newsprint, office paper, magazines, boxboard and cardboard. Plastics accepted are usually limited to “rigid”

numbered plastics such as low and high density polyethylene (L/HDPE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET),

polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polypropylene, and polystyrene. Plastic bags and plastic film, which are

commonly made of linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE), are often not included. Only one municipality

accepts Styrofoam. Metals are restricted to aluminum and steel food or beverage cans. Some programs,

however, also accept aluminum containers commonly used for “take-out” foods. The emphasis in all

recycling programs is that the material must be clean and dry. Any co-mingling with other wastes usually

results in the material not being collected.

Table C-1 in Appendix C provides a detailed listing, by municipality, of the materials accepted in the

recycling and organics stream. As shown in that table, there is limited uniformity between municipalities;

in particular, there is little uniformity even among those municipalities that utilize the same collection

contractor.



22


Table 5a: Residential Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Collection Systems – 2011

Municipality Population1

Total # of

Households

Serviced

Waste Collection

Frequency

Curbside

Collection

Technique

Waste

Collection

Contractor

Beaumont 13,287 4,369 Weekly Automated Ever Green

Bon Accord 1,488 541 Weekly Automated Standstone

Bruderheim 1,155 489 Weekly Automated Standstone

Calmar 1,970 735 Weekly Automated Ever Green

Devon 6,510 2,112 Weekly Automated Ever Green

Edmonton 812,201 341,000 Weekly Manual City and

Contractor

Fort Saskatchewan 19,051 8,398 Weekly Automated BFI

Gibbons 3,030 1,075 Weekly Automated Standstone

Lamont (County) 3,872 1,581 Weekly N/A Standstone

Lamont (Town) 1,783 645 Weekly Manual Town

Leduc (City) 24,279 9,290 Biweekly Automated Ever Green

Leduc (County) 13,541 6,333 Weekly N/A Ever Green

Legal 1,225 440 Weekly Manual Town

Morinville 8,569 2,746 Weekly Automated Standstone

Parkland 30.568 10,931 None Depot None

Redwater 1,915 776 Weekly Automated Standstone

Spruce Grove 26,171 9,619 Weekly Automated Standstone

St. Albert 61,466 19,052 Biweekly Automated City

Stony Plain 15,051 4,417 Biweekly Automated Ever Green

Strathcona 92,490 32,579 Biweekly Automated Ever Green

Sturgeon 19,578 6,546 None

Private collection

in rural

subdivisions

Standstone,

Calahoo, Waste

Management

Thorsby 797 334 Weekly Automated Ever Green

Wabamun 662 265 Weekly Automated Ever Green

Warburg 789 308 Weekly Manual Ever Green

Notes:

1. Population figures for 2011 Census, Statistics Canada.

Table 5b: Recyclable Materials Collection – 2011

Municipality Population

Total # of

Households

Serviced

Program Style

(cart, bag, box)

Curbside

Collection

Technique

Contractor

Beaumont 13,287 4,369 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green

Bon Accord 1,488 541 Blue Bag Manual Sandstone

Bruderheim 1,155 489 Bag & Cart Automated Sandstone



23



Total # of

Households

Serviced

Program Style

(cart, bag, box)

Curbside

Collection

Technique

Contractor

Calmar 1,970 735 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green

Devon 6,510 2,112 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green

Edmonton 812,201 341,000 Blue Bag Manual City & Contractor

Fort Saskatchewan 19051 8,398 Blue Bag Manual BFI

Gibbons 3,030 1,075 Blue Bag at Depot N/A Sandstone

Lamont (County) 3,872 1,581 None N/A N/A

Lamont (Town) 1,783 645 Box Manual N/A

Leduc (City) 24,279 9,290 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green

Leduc (County) 13,541 6,333 Cart & Depot N/A Ever Green

Legal 1,225 440 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green

Morinville 8,569 2,746 Blue Bag Manual Sandstone

Parkland 30,568 10,931 Depot N/A None

Redwater 1,915 776 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green

Spruce Grove 26,171 9,619 Blue Bag Manual Sandstone

St. Albert 60,466 19,052 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green

Stony Plain 15,051 4,417 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green

Strathcona 92,490 32,579 Bag & Box Manual Ever Green

Sturgeon 19,578 6,546 Depot N/A Standstone

Thorsby 797 334 N/A Manual Ever Green

Wabamun 662 265 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green

Warburg 789 308 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green



24


Table 5c: Organics Collection Systems – 2011

Municipality

Total # of

Households

Serviced

Program

Type

Curbside

Collection

Technique

Organics

Contractor Organics Collection Frequency

Beaumont 4,369 Cart Automated Ever Green Weekly

Bon Accord 541 Cart Automated Standstone Weekly, May-Oct only

Bruderheim 489 Drop-off N/A None None

Calmar 735 Bag Manual Ever Green Weekly, May-Oct only

Devon 2,212 Bag Manual Ever Green Weekly, May-Oct only

Edmonton 341,000 Bag/Can

Manual,

Comingled

waste

None Weekly, collected with and sorted

from mixed waste at EWMC

Fort

Saskatchewan 8,398 Depot None None None

Gibbons 1,075 None None Standstone None

Lamont (County) 1,581 None None None None

Lamont (Town) 645 None None N/A None

Leduc (City) 9,290 Cart Automated Ever Green Weekly Apr-Nov; biweekly Nov-Apr

Leduc (County) 6,333 Drop-off N/A None None

Legal 440 None None None None

Morinville 2,746 Cart Automated Standstone Biweekly, Apr-Nov

Parkland 10,931 Drop-off N/A None None

Redwater 776 Cart Automated Standstone Weekly

Spruce Grove 9,619 Cart Automated Standstone Weekly Apr-Nov only

St. Albert 19,052 Cart Drop-

off Automated Standstone Weekly May-Nov; biweekly Dec-Apr

Stony Plain 4,417 Cart Automated Ever Green Weekly, Apr-Oct Biweekly Nov-Mar

Strathcona 32,579 Cart Automated Ever Green Weekly urban, biweekly rural

Sturgeon 6,546 None None None None

Thorsby 334 None None None None

Wabamun 265 Cart Automated Ever Green Weekly, May-Oct only

Warburg 308 None None None None

4.3.1.2 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional

Addressing waste management issues in the ICI sector may require a broader approach than dealing with

the residential sector. The main difference is one of “control”. Municipalities have control of residential

waste and, for the most part, have allowed the private sector to manage itself. While business may

generally want to “do the right thing”, it is driven by financial issues.

There is reluctance on the part of haulers to divulge any information on the specifics of their business for

fear of creating an economic advantage for their competitors. There is general consensus of support for

diversion within the ICI sector where there is an opportunity to increase profitability for the hauler. While



25


responses from the private sector were limited, they were unanimous in their objection to any move

toward introducing franchise systems. In order to provide a more substantive response we reviewed

responses highlighted within similar reports within the Province. The concerns raised were consistent with

the local service providers.

4.3.2 Processing

The municipalities in the ACR utilize a variety of processing locations for recyclables and organics as well

as a variety of landfills for the disposal of waste. Maps 1 to 4 (in the Figures Section) outline the locations of

each facility and the respective flow of material to them.

The following sections summarize which processing facility for each of the respective curbside collected

materials are used by each of the municipalities in the ACR. With the exception of the landfills, the available

processing capacities of the MRFs and composting facilities are unknown. This information gap would need

to be closed in order to ensure that that the processing needs of the ACR can be met in future years.

Disposal capacity, on the other hand, appears to be sufficient for the long term. Materials from the ICI

sector are also processed at these facilities.

4.3.2.1 Waste Disposal

Table 6: Summary of Class II Landfills

# Location Municipalities Currently

Using

Annual Quantity

(tonnes / year)

Remaining Airspace

(i.e. life expectancy)

1 Lamont County

Lamont (County) <10,000 75 years

Lamont (Town)

Bruderheim

2 Leduc County

Beaumont

100,000 +15 years

Leduc (City)

Leduc (County)

Calmar

Devon

Thorsby

3 Sturgeon County

Redwater

50,000 (est.) 50 years

Legal

Bon Accord

Gibbons

Morinville

Sturgeon County

St. Albert

Spruce Grove

Stony Plain

Strathcona County

4 Beaver County Edmonton

250,000 +50 years Parkland County (est. 1/3)

5 Brazeau County Parkland County (est. 1/3) Unknown +15 years



26


Table 6: Summary of Class II Landfills

# Location Municipalities Currently

Using

Annual Quantity

(tonnes / year)

Remaining Airspace

(i.e. life expectancy)

Warburg

6 Lac Ste. Anne County Parkland County (est. 1/3)

<10,000 Unknown Wabamun

7 Paintearth County

(Coronation) Fort Saskatchewan Unknown +50 years

8

Camrose County

(West Dried Meat Lake

Regional Landfill)

“Ever Green”

(≈55,000t/yr from

Strathcona County)

386,000 50 years

Table 7: Summary of Class III Landfills

# Location Users Capacity (tonnes / year) Permit

1 Parkland County (Cholla) Private haulers (dry waste) Unknown <5 yrs

2 Parkland County

(Northland) Private haulers (dry waste) Unknown <5 yrs

4.3.2.2 Recycling

Table 8: Summary of Material Recovery Facilities

# Location and

Operator Municipalities currently using

Capacity

(tonnes / year)

Typical Current Throughput

(tonnes / year)

1

Spruce Grove,

Standstone Enviro-

Waste Services

Spruce Grove

Unknown Unknown

Bon Accord

Bruderheim

Gibbons

Lamont (Town)

Morinville

2

Sherwood Park,

Ever Green

Ecological Services

Beaumont

Unknown Unknown

Leduc (City)

Leduc (County)

St. Albert

Strathcona

Calmar

Devon

Legal

Redwater

Stony Plain

Thorsby

Wabamun

Warburg

3 City of Edmonton Edmonton 70,000 51,000



27


4.3.2.3 Organics

Four destinations for organics containing food waste were identified – the new composting facility at the

Roseridge Regional Landfill, Cleanit-Greenit’s composting facility, an anaerobic digester operated by

Growing Power Hairy Hill at its facility in Two Hills County, Alberta,and the City of Edmonton’s co-

composting facility.

Table 9: Summary of Organics Processing Facilities

# Location and Operator Municipalities currently

using

Capacity

(tonnes / year)

Current Annual Through-Put

(tonnes / year)

1 Edmonton, City of

Edmonton Edmonton 125,000 ≈125,000

2 Morinville, Roseridge

Compost Facility St. Albert 12,600 6,975

3 Edmonton, Cleanit

Greenit Spruce Grove Unknown

Unknown

4 Two Hills, Growing

Power Hairy Hill

Strathcona

Unknown Unknown

Stony Plain Calmar

Calmar Leduc (City)

Leduc (City)

Leduc (County)

Devon

The City of Edmonton’s co-composting facility processes the organics-rich fraction of the collected MSW

after pre-processing to remove the bulk of non-organic materials. It also processes a significant amount of

biosolids (digested sewage sludge). The capacity does not include the biosolids. The facility operates at

capacity in summer months.

Information available from the municipalities of Fort Saskatchewan, Parkland, Bon Accord, Morinville, and

Redwater indicates that while some organics are collected for processing at centralized facilities, some yard

waste is processed at composting facilities operated by the municipalities.

Class 3 Landfills

Cholla Sand & Dry Waste Inc. and Northland Material Handling Inc. are Class 3 landfills located within the

ACR that accept dry waste as fill for sand pit reclamation.

4.3.2.4 Construction and Demolition

The City of Edmonton has C&D recycling capability. About 40,000 tonnes per year of source-separated

material has been recycled for several years. A new mixed material processing facility opened in March

2012 and is expected to recover nearly 70% of the material processed (City of Edmonton 2012). The

facility has a capacity to process up to 100,000 tonnes per year. The Leduc, Roseridge, and Beaver regional

landfills are currently accepting C&D waste as well for disposal. The City of Spruce Grove also accepts

concrete and asphalt rubble for recycling at its public works yard.



28


There are other private facilities that provide C&D recycling in the ACR. These may be single stream

providers such as for asphalt and concrete or multi-stream facilities that will take mixed C&D and will

separate it. There is also a growing interest in the deconstruction business.

Based on the 2011 C&D tonnages from the Leduc, Roseridge and Beaver regional landfills and the City of

Edmonton’s C&D waste processing facilities, just over 79,500 tonnes of C&D waste was processed. The City

of Edmonton’s C&D recycling facility is predicted to be capable of handling the current C&D material from

the entire ACR. What is not known, however, is the quantity of C&D waste placed in the Cholla and

Northlands Class 3 landfills. The approvals for both landfills will expire by 2018 and it is unknown whether

they will be renewed. Additional capacity to process C&D waste may be required in the medium to long

term.

4.4 Promotion and Education

Some jurisdictions use additional education tools to educate residents, promote the collection system and

help to maximize diversion. Examples of these tools include the use of social media, such as phone

applications, Facebook, and Twitter. Some programs are branded with names such as: W.O.W. (Wipe Out

Waste) in Stony Plain, Waste Wise (St. Albert) and The Green Routine (Strathcona County). Edmonton has a

robust educational component to its waste reduction program. Some examples of Edmonton’s educational

programs are a Know Before You Throw campaign, offers Let’s Talk Trash sessions with business and

community groups to review waste minimization options, comprehensive information about materials

accepted at its Eco Stations, facility tours, and offers a Master Composter Recycler Program. The Eco Station

information provided on Edmonton’s website is referenced by many other municipalities in the area to

assist their residents in disposing of items that should not be landfilled. Municipalities that have converted

to automated collection have information to advise residents how to use and/or place their bins properly. A

few other communities also have backyard composting information and/or offer public workshops.

Trends identified included the following:

Jurisdictions with curbside pickup often had more user friendly information available about what

materials could be recycled;

There was minimal adoption of neighbouring education strategies or sharing of programs;

Information amount and location varied by website and often links were either not in a logical

progression or were not functioning; and,

For both online and brochure publicity overall, visuals were minimal and text was verbose.

Some ICI and C&D service providers have recycling and diversion information available on their websites

as promotion material in regard to their particular part of the industry. There is little information that is

cohesive or comprehensive and prepared for broad distribution within the ACR other than that prepared

by government, organizations such as the Recycling Council of Alberta, organizations that administer

stewardship programs within the province, and local government. A majority of local governments within

the ACR post online information and downloadable brochures to inform residents about what materials are

accepted either at curbside or at nearby collection depots. Municipalities with curbside pickup programs



29


generally post online collection schedules. Other online written information includes recycling fact sheets,

A-Z listings for how to recycle or dispose of materials appropriately, and other web links as appropriate.

4.5 Provincial Policy Framework

The Province of Alberta has established a variety of key policies that govern the management and

minimization of MSW through a number of documents to encourage municipalities to do the same on the

path to reducing Alberta’s MSW being disposed in landfills. Table 10 provides a summary of these

documents and key policy statements:

Table 10: Supporting Policies

Provincial Policy Sources

Alberta Environment, Too Good to Waste, 2008

Alberta Environment, Alberta Municipal Waste Action Plan 2004-2006, 2004

Alberta Environment, Alberta Land Use Framework, 2008


Respectful of Private Property Rights

Respectful of Constitutionally Rights of Aboriginal Communities

Government Wide Vision and Implementation


Supported by a Land Stewardship Ethic

Collaborative and Transparent

Integrated

Knowledge-Based

Responsive

Fair, equitable and timely

Respectful of Private Property Rights

Government Wide Vision and Implementation

Best Practices

Place-Based Approaches

Flexible Tools and Incentives

Shared Responsibility

Revise and update legislation to focus on the achievement of environmental

outcomes.

Continue to enhance standards for waste management.

Continue to minimize risk to environment and human health.

Accountable and Responsible

Operational Infrastructure and

Services

Establish and enhance stewardship programs for priority waste streams.

Continuous reduction of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) disposed of in

municipal landfills.


Collaborative and Transparent

Shared Responsibility

Revise and update legislation to focus on the achievement of environmental

outcomes.

Strengthen Alberta’s policy and legislative framework, in consultation with



30


Table 10: Supporting Policies

Provincial Policy Sources

Alberta Environment, Too Good to Waste, 2008

Alberta Environment, Alberta Municipal Waste Action Plan 2004-2006, 2004

Alberta Environment, Alberta Land Use Framework, 2008

stakeholders that will strengthen and shape pollution prevention and waste

management and diversion systems to 2010.

Increase awareness and understanding of waste management and pollution

prevention issues and solutions.

Promote leadership in innovative research and development to further pollution

prevention and waste reduction goals.

4.6 Material Markets

Having markets for products is critical for the sustainability of waste diversion, for without markets or

alternative end-uses, diverted material will eventually end up back in landfills. Markets also play an

important role in determining the most effective methods for material processing. In 2012, EBA in

conjunction with Cascadia Consulting Group prepared a study of recycling markets for Metro Vancouver.

While the study looked at markets in a British Columbia context, much of the information presented is

applicable to this report and is discussed in the following sections.

4.6.1 Paper

The Metro Vancouver study focused on mixed waste paper, newspaper, cardboard and office paper. The

major market for recovered paper is China and the demand continues to grow. However, Burke and Moore

(WasteExpo, 2012) reported that the demand for paper has lessened to the point that, world-wide, no new

paper mills have been built or are planned. The newest mills built in China are designed solely for recycled

paper fibre. Domestic markets for paper have declined and that is expected to continue. The major decline

has been in the use of “knowledge grade” paper (e.g., newspaper, books, printing and writing paper).

Municipalities in the ACR have the infrastructure in place to collect paper and there are municipal and

private facilities processing the material that is collected. A significant increase in paper recovery would

probably induce the construction/expansion of such facilities.

Mixed waste paper has a strong export market with over 99% of material being sent off-shore. The average

price for this material in the Pacific Northwest was $140/tonne in 2011. Most office paper is also exported

although a decline in the newspaper supply may create a domestic demand for it as a fibre source.

Newspaper has the strongest domestic market but more sorting is required to maintain or increase value.

Cardboard is a highly-valued commodity with approximately 57% exported off-shore. Paper prices, like

most commodities, suffered a downturn with the economy in 2008, but have rebounded. Prices are

influenced by the quality of the material. “Cleaner” paper streams are more valuable because less effort is

required on the part of the end user.

There has been and will continue to be some volatility in the market place. Current demand is strong and is

expected to continue so for the next 10 to 15 years. Market experts are concerned about the long-term



31


viability of export markets. As mentioned previously, consumption of some types of paper is in decline

primarily due to the increase in the use of electronic devices and social media.

4.6.2 Plastics

The Metro Vancouver study examined all “numbered” rigid plastics, clean single-use plastic retail bags and

other plastic film. Generally the study found that while some materials had strong markets, prices were

highly volatile. The materials with the most promising outlook were HDPE and PET. Both have substantial,

long-term markets. Natural HDPE can be reprocessed into other non-food containers easily, and coloured

HDPE often is used for such things as irrigation pipe and oil containers. PET is most commonly processed

into textiles. PET and natural HDPE have similar values while coloured HDPE has about half the value.

Plastics numbered 3 through 7 have less value and weaker, less consistent markets. Plastic film, including

single-use retail bags, has moderate markets if material is clean and colour-sorted. Bales of mixed plastics

generally are difficult to market and often are shipped off-shore to China and other Asian markets.

Deposit-bearing beverage containers are a significant portion of the recovered plastics stream. PET and

HDPE (milk jugs) are the most common non-metallic beverage containers in the marketplace. Returning

beverage containers of all types provides a revenue source for municipalities and helps to offset collection

costs.

The average price for baled PET in the US in January 2012 was US$540/tonne and natural HDPE was

US$496/tonne. By contrast, the average price for mixed plastics was only US$22/tonne. Prices are higher

for all plastics sold as clean flakes or pellets, but further processing (i.e. more than just collection, sorting

and baling) is required to achieve the high prices.

The quantity of plastics available for recycling is misleading if only judged by weight. Plastics as a whole are

light-weight materials (that is one of their characteristics that make them attractive for packaging). On

average, the bulk density of un-compacted mixed plastics (WRAP, 2010) is about 34 kg/m3. By comparison,

newspapers and magazines have an un-compacted bulk density of about 290 kg/m3. Therefore, from a

volume perspective each tonne of plastics is equivalent to 8.5 tonnes of newspapers and magazines.

While the preference is always to reuse or recycle material, one should not overlook the caloric value of

plastics. At 31.96 MJ/kg, mixed plastics has at least 20% more heating value than coal and only 31% less

than natural gas. It also has the potential to be converted back to the petroleum feedstock from whence it

came through currently available technologies.

4.6.3 Glass

Markets for glass vary depending on the type of glass and the quality of the material. Glass is generally

divided into two types when considering recycling – refundable and non-refundable. The Metro Vancouver

study found that B.C.’s deposit-refund system for beverage containers drives their current high level of

recovery. The same situation exists in Alberta. Refillable containers, predominantly domestic beer bottles,

were returned to breweries for refilling. Non-refillable containers were sent to Vitreous Glass Inc. to be

eventually turned into fiberglass insulation. Non-refundable glass containers collected through curb-side

programs can be recycled the same way provided there is a demand for the material. There is also a smaller



32


niche market for clear or flint glass as glass beads for reflective paint. A new facility is under construction

by Greys Paper Recycling Ltd. at Edmonton’s Waste Management Centre that will process glass.

Two major problems affect glass marketing. The first is the quality of the product. Clean sorted glass,

regardless of colour can be marketed although MRF operators in the Vancouver area were paying

processors to take the material. High quality cullet can be remade into new glass containers. The Metro

Vancouver study reported that this may be a growing market as making containers from recycled glass

requires less energy than using virgin silica. The second problem is the weight of the material. This makes

shipping any distance costly. The Metro Vancouver study determined that if glass processors in the lower

mainland or Washington State were not available, it would be not be cost effective to ship glass to Vitreous

Glass Inc. in Alberta. One can assume that the reciprocal would also be the case.

The study also found that curbside collection contributes to some of the marketing problems for glass by

comingling different colours of glass. Once broken, glass becomes harder to sort. New technology may help

in this regard as optical sorters are becoming more available. Technology carries a price, however, which

adds to processing costs to achieve the high quality cullet required for sustainable markets.

4.6.4 Organics

The primary “market” for organics is facilities that can process this material aerobically or anaerobically

into other usable products such as compost and bio-fuels. The organics stream consists of yard and garden

waste such as grass clippings, tree trimmings, leaves and plant material, food waste, and soiled paper and

cardboard (pizza boxes). Outside of Edmonton, yard and garden materials the predominant material

collected and its goes almost exclusively to relatively small windrow composting operations. On the other

hand, the City of Edmonton composted about 125,000 t of material with a diversion rate of about 75

percent despite the facilities being shutdown for upgrading. The City of Edmonton sells or uses internally

all of its compost.

Another market destination for organics is anaerobic digestion (AD) facilities. Organics are processed

under anaerobic conditions to produce methane and other combustible gases that can be used to produce

energy or processed further into bio-fuels. The federal government has mandated that all diesel and

gasoline sold in Canada must have a minimum renewable content of 2 and 5% respectively.

4.6.5 Material Processing Options

Composting

Composting is the most common process used to convert organics into a usable product. By providing the

proper blend of nutrients, moisture and oxygen, natural biological processes convert wastes into a humus-

like material that can be used as a soil amendment applied directly to lawns and gardens or mixed with soil

to create a growth medium.

The most common composting methods are based on static piles or windrows. In the presence of water and

oxygen, naturally-occurring bacteria will flourish and break down the degradable components in the waste.

The aerobic biological process converts the waste to carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapour and an earthy

humus material and generates sufficient heat to raise the temperature inside the windrow to over 60˚C. If

sustained for sufficient time, this temperature will destroy pathogens and seeds in the compost. Aerobic



33


conditions are maintained by turning and mixing the material periodically during the composting process.

Once tests show that the compost has stabilized, it will be allowed to cure for a period of time which allows

the biological processes to slow down and the compost cools off. The composted material is then screened

to remove any foreign material such as glass and plastics and any bulking agents such as wood chips that

may have been added to allow air flow through the composting material.

Because the natural biological processes occur relatively slowly, static pile and windrow composting can

required large land areas for both the primary composting operation and for curing. The typical time

period for windrow composting is four to six months followed by a curing period. This timeframe works

well for yard and garden waste as the composting process that starts in summer is usually completed by

the next spring. This coincides with the growing season in the ACR.

Other composting technologies exist that require less land and can complete the process in a much shorter

time. These are commonly referred to as in-vessel processes. Construction and operating costs are higher

than windrows, but they have the benefit of not being affected by weather and can function consistently all

year round. They also can process feedstock quicker than windrow processes.

Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic digestion (AD) as a technology has been around for many years. It has been used extensively to

process animal manure and waste from the food processing industry. More recently, anaerobic digester

feedstocks have expanded to include organic waste from municipal sources.

Wastes are mixed in a closed vessel in the absence of oxygen. Anaerobic bacteria extract oxygen for the

feedstock and/or added inorganic oxides. The digestion process to optimize methane production is

complex requiring control of temperature and pH. The higher the temperature, the faster the bacteria

produce methane. Mesophiles (mesophilic bacteria) operate in an ambient temperature range between

20°C and 45°C while thermophiles (thermophilic bacteria) operate in a temperature range between

49°C and 70°C. While mesophiles don’t produce methane as efficiently, they are more stable and less

affected by changes in the operating process. Thermophiles produce methane more efficiently but the

process is harder to control and requires more energy input.

AD processes can operate on a batch or continuous basis. In continuous processing more material is added

and processed material or digestate is removed. AD can be done as a single stage or as a multi-stage

process. AD systems are considered “wet” or “dry” depending on the solids content in the digester.

Large-scale AD systems can be expensive depending on the type of process and equipment required.

Continuous processes require tankage constructed of concrete and/or steel and include pumping facilities.

Feedstock contamination can be a significant problem requiring additional feedstock processing to protect

equipment and ensure continuous operation.

AD processes are more complex than the aerobic processes involved in composting and require greater

control. However, waste can be processed much faster than some composting processes.

4.6.5.1 Material Recovery Facilities

Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) are facilities used to sort a variety of recyclable materials and from a

variety of sources. Curbside collected recyclables can be set to MRFs either co-mingled (i.e., single stream),



34


dual stream (i.e., separate collection of fibre and containers) and multi-stream (i.e., separate collection for

plastics, metals, glass and fibre products).Material collected and transported to a MRF for processing from

the ICI and C&D sectors may be typical recyclables (i.e., containers and fibres) but may also include wood,

drywall, metals, shingles, and so on. The complexity of the MRF process depends on the materials being

sorted and the desired product quality. It can be as simple as a conveyor with workers hand-picking

materials off the belt or as complex as an automated systems using a combination optical and pneumatics

sorters and magnets to sort mixed material.

The most common form of a MRF uses conveyors and an elevated sort table. Waste material is dumped

onto the conveyor and as it passes a series of stations, workers remove either desired material or

contaminants. Selected material drops into bins below the sort table and then is usually baled or

compacted for shipping to specific material processors.

The City of Edmonton operates a MRF at the Edmonton Waste Management Centre dedicated to processing

the recyclables collected through the City’s blue bag and blue bin programs. Edmonton’s Integrated

Processing and Transfer Facility at the waste management centre performs a similar task by processing

mixed waste to sort out feedstock for the co-composter from feed stock for other waste processes such as

the biofuel project currently under construction.

Refuse-Derived Fuel

Processing waste to produce what is called Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) has also been around for some time.

In the past, it referred to the processing undertaken to produce a product that could be burned to produce

heat for steam and/or electricity generation. Waste is shredded and blended. Various sorting techniques

are used to remove non-combustible materials such as metals and glass. The feedstock may or may not

contain food wastes and other similar materials. The resulting product can be baled, compressed or left as

loose “fluff” depending on the intended market.

The heating value, moisture content and ash content vary with the feedstock. One of the new units at

Edmonton’s Waste Management Centre is an RDF plant to produce feedstock for Enerkem’s bio-fuel plant.

When Enerkem’s plant is fully operational, it will consume about 100,000 tonnes per year of feedstock

from the RDF unit in Edmonton’s Integrated Processing and Transfer Facility.

Bio-Fuel Production

Waste can be used as feedstock for biofuel production. The basic principle behind biofuel production is the

conversion of carbon-rich material into synthetic gas such as carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2) or

methane (CH4) in the presence or absence of oxygen. First generation biofuel processes use sugar and/or

oils derived from plants while second generation processes can use more complex feedstocks including

carbon-rich components of your typical solid waste. Two biofuel projects in the Edmonton area are in

development.

Growing Power Hairy Hill (GPHH) is an integrated bio-refinery in Two Hills County, Alberta based on

Himark bioGas’ IMUS technology to convert agricultural and municipal waste and wheat into fuel ethanol.

The wastes are processed in an anaerobic digester to produce methane which is used to drive the rest of

the process. Capacity information on the GPHH plant is available.



35


Enerkem Inc. is building a biofuels plant at Edmonton’s Waste Management Centre. When in full production

the plant will convert 100,000 t of RDF in methanol and ethanol. Enerkem will use a proprietary

thermochemical process to convert carbon-rich residuals into synthetic gas (“syngas”, CO and H2). Syngas

then undergoes a reaction in the presence of a catalyst to produce alcohols (methanol and ethanol) and

other chemicals.

Construction and Demolition

C&D services are provided by a variety of techniques such as commercial blue bin recycling programs

which services that include providing bins for all types of construction waste, delivery, pick-up and

tracking of all the waste streams from the site. Waste is converted into recycled products. There are other

service providers within ACR who specifically deal with metal recycling. These services cover the pick-up,

processing, brokering and shipping of a vast array of metals. There are also facilities that recycle wood

waste and produce wood fiber for landscaping, compost and “hog fuel” for energy production. There are a

number of plants that produce aggregate from used concrete within the ACR. There are also reuse

companies for asphalt which turn a number of components such as roadbed and asphalt shingles into new

roadbed.

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING SYSTEM

A variety of methods were employed to aid the solid waste management team to assess the existing system

including: SWOT analysis, gap analysis, and a review of best practices. The results of these methods and the

assessment of the existing system is contained in the following subsections.

5.1 SWOT Analysis

There are currently various sustainable solid waste initiatives in place across the municipalities in the ACR.

Implementation of many of these relied on initiatives from individual municipalities, often without a

regional outlook.

The experiences and successes in many municipalities and communities are localised and their efforts have

not transferred to regional success at all levels. Lessons learned from the unique experiences in individual

municipalities are compiled; so potential benefits can be applied across the region. Compilation of these

programs and initiatives will be key to the development of a comprehensive IWMP that will contribute to

long-term regional sustainability.

Table 5.0-1 in the Tables section following the report provides a summary of the strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats (SWOT) within the existing ACR waste management system. This information

was assembled based on various methods of discourse with each stakeholder and consulting team

members familier with the ACR system. The aim of the discourse was to identify programs to take

advantage of opportunities and strengths and build from successful programs currently in place while

protecting against weaknesses and threats.

The SWOT matrix is split by the waste management groupings below. This analysis was used to produce a

gap analysis that, along with best practices, informs the development of the policy and program options.

Vision and Strategic Policies;



36


Management Systems and Tools;

Operational Infrastructure and Services; and

Promotion and Education.

5.2 Gap Analysis

A growth in understanding and a system to monitor performance from the time a program is implemented

to both determine its advantages or to respond to itsdisadvantages are key aspects in a programs’

continuous improvement. Policies are required to monitor performance and respond to change.

Mechanisms for adequate review of consulting reports, strategy development to implement initiatives, and

administration of contracts by solid waste service providers are all key elements of this system approach.

These studies, once completed, may not be reviewed or lack proper mechanisms for future monitoring and

improvements due to lack of human resources, lack of funding or technical expertise. Therefore, these

studies could bring short-term benefits, but their recommendtions may not be able to be implemented

within a long-term sustainable system.

Waste disposal issues have been a concern for many municipalities due to lack of accessible disposal

capacity and longer hauling distances. One way to reduce this burden is to work together, through a

cooperative approach.

Implementing certain elements of the Provincial Waste Strategy may be possible in some municipalities,

but not feasible in others. Therefore, a target, with flexibility, could help to minimize stress to local

governments, stresses which could result in solid waste system failures. As such, programs should be

implemented in a systematic way, with continuous monitoring of overall progress.

Table 10 identifies gaps within the current system preventing the ACR from reaching the Provincial target

of 80% reduction by 2020 as compared to current baseline generation rates.

Table 11: Gap Analysis Summary

Item Gaps


Waste and Land Use Plans

Provincial policies set ambitious goals but are not clearly defined and are

minimally backed by regulation

No regional land use plan

Waste management is not considered a high priority as per the Capital

Region Growth Plan, which addresses population and economic growth

Waste Management Plans by Jurisdiction Inconsistency in waste management and sustainability planning across

region; where plan is available the policies and programs are different


Regulatory Levers for Waste Minimization Provincial policies and strategies are not supported by regulations.

Bylaws – Solid Waste Municipalities don’t use bylaws to direct waste management policies.

Bylaws – Fire and Nuisance Open burning is permitted in rural areas

Composition Audits (Regional) Unknown composition by material stream

Unknown percentage material, by stream, by sector available for collection



37



Item Gaps

Unknown potential recovery by material type within each material stream

Contracts Term (particularly end date) of collection and processing unknown

Collection and processing costs are not known

Data Tracking

Not all municipalities have reported collected tonnages (thus, tonnages

estimated for approximately half of the municipalities)

Unknown if historical tracking of tonnages (by month) is performed

Minimal records available by ICI and C&D sectors, especially as

disaggregated by jurisdiction

Tonnage should be tracked based on post-processed material vs. collected

Financial

Waste management initiatives have to compete with other needs for

funding

General perception by the public and decision-makers that diversion costs

more requires addressing as this is not always the case

Governance

Minimal governance over waste and limited ability to control flow of

materials, build efficiencies, track performance and provide continual

improvement

No regional governance structure to manage measurement and tracking.

Partnerships Partnerships between municipalities are primarily informal and not as well

leveraged as they could be

Performance Measures No regional performance measures with respect to diversion or processing

Personnel Some staff are in place to support waste management and waste reduction

initiatives, but resources are limited overall


Collection

Unknown what Lamont and Sturgeon Counties accept in the recycling

stream

A number of jurisdictions were not collecting glass as part of their curbside

collection or recycling depot systems, including deposit glass.

Processing Facilities

Unknown annual capacity and current throughput of the MRFs and

composting facilities in use.

Unknown processing efficiency (i.e., residue rates and end product quality)

of the MRFs and composting facilities

Life span of CleanIt-GreenIt composting facility is unknown.

Some population segments don’t have access to processing facilities

Material Exchange Few jurisdictions provide opportunities for material exchange; no regional

exchange system


General

No regional branding or regional campaigns (e.g., promote holiday waste

minimization or organics diversion)

Minimal sharing of more developed branding, programming or other

diversion-oriented initiatives

Less information was available for residents accessing depot and land fill

drop off sites, as compared to those receiving pickup service

Minimal government supported educational efforts for C&D and ICI waste



38



Item Gaps

diversion efforts, through consistent signage, campaigns or other

coordination with haulers

Online Sites Some information is difficult to find on site; minimal shared branding

Minimal visuals of what is and isn’t accepted

Innovative Programs

Minimal behaviour change incentives/programming to promote diversion,

especially as it pertains to community-based social marketing and other

hands on programming; programs exist but aren’t distributed across ACR

5.3 Best Approaches to Waste Diversion

5.3.1 Waste Minimization Targets

In the waste management goals in Alberta’s strategy document, Too Good to Waste, it is recommended that

the ACR adopt more stringent waste reduction targets and feedback mechanisms over a longer period. The

first target sets an 80% diversion (and energy recovery) goal by 2020. The second sets a 500 kilogram

(kg)/capita/year target based on waste generated across all sectors.

The targets need to be set against a baseline established using data from 2011, and can be adjusted

regularly as waste composition by sector shifts and new programs are adopted. As specific programs are

implemented, interim targets can be developed to focus on recyclable and compostable materials in the

existing waste stream by sector. GHG savings can also be quantified based on the lower carbon footprint for

processing recyclables and compostables rather than disposing of them as garbage. Updated population

projections can be used to map out per capita targets to align with future ACR goals and move towards

meeting the Provincial target of 500 kg/capita/year.

For the process to be meaningful, the municipalities need to establish strong, long-term goals. Once these

are established, interim goals can be crafted and the policies, programs and infrastructure can be selected

to achieve the interim and long-term targets. This is a collaborative exercise that needs to be undertaken as

part of Phase 2 of the project.

5.3.2 Advanced Programming

There are many growing trends in waste management program delivery as it pertains to waste diversion

programs. According to SERA (2008), an American Consulting company, waste diversion programs range

from having an impact of 1-25% diversion on residents in municipalities. Curbside yard waste collection

varies on the season and cost of the program but has a typical impact of 15-25% on waste reduction.

Additionally, User Pay/ Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) programs generally have an impact of 6-17% and

increased education has an impact of 1-3%. The examples below provide an overview of programmatic

options popular in provincial, federal and international juridictions.



39


Product Stewardship – This has recently evolved into Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), having

the definition of “a policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility, physical and/or financial, for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle” (CCME, 2009). The responsibility is shifted upstream in the product life cycle from the consumer and municipalities to the producer. Incentives are provided to producers to incorporate environmental considerations in their products’ designs. This policy shift to EPR is extremely popular in Europe and is gaining traction across Canada, especially in British Columbia and Ontario.

C&D Programs – Several C&D waste diversion programs are currently being practised in North America

that either aim to recycle the used products or encourage waste diversion up front in the construction process.

The City of Calgary, Alberta has increased tipping fees for loads containing materials on a “Designated

Materials List”. Common C&D materials such as concrete, brick and masonry block, asphalt, and scrap

metals are currently included on the Designated Materials List. As of July 2, 2013, recyclable wood and

drywall will also be included on the list.

The City of Calgary currently accepts clean, source-separated loads of C&D material at one of its

landfills for diversion. Starting July 2, 2013 a second City landfill will also accept C&D material and a

third such landfill is to open in 2014. The materials that are currently accepted are recyclable wood,

drywall, asphalt shingles, and cardboard.

Aquatera Utilities Inc., the City of Grand Prairie’s solid waste service provider, offers a cardboard

recyclng program for commercial customers. Cardboard recycling are located at strategic locations

throughout the city. The program is funded by a $12.88 per month cardboard recycling fee on

commercial customer utility bills. To encourage participation, the landfill tipping fee for loads

containing large amounts of cardboard is double the normal $89 per tonne.

The City of Oakland, California requires all new construction, demolition, and addition/alteration

projects exceeding $50,000, to submit a Material Recovery Plan as a part of the permit application

process. The Plan requires diversion of 50% or more by weight of all the excess or wasted C&D

materials used on the project site.

ICI Diversion – There are various programs being utilised across the continent that target the waste from

the ICI industry ranging from economic and regulatory options to voluntary options.

The Town of Jasper, Alberta has collection sites around town for businesses to take their recyclables,

organics, and waste. Additional individual organics bins are available for all businesses that wish to

participate in the program. The Town collects the materials from the community collection sites and

participating businesses and hauls it to the transfer station.

The City of Red Deer, Alberta has a Franchise Waste System which requires the City’s waste haulers to

report waste quantities on an annual basis. Having annual waste data provides the City with a baseline

for measuring waste diversion progress.

The Regional District of Nanaimo, British Columbia has a mandatory food waste diversion program for

the ICI sector and has banned food waste from their landfill.



40


The City of San Francisco, California has implemented a commercial organics source separated

program. The collection of the food waste is provided by the City’s two franchised waste haulers.

Organics – Because the MSW stream usually contains mostly organics by weight , many municipalities

have made organics diversion programs a primary focus to achieve desired targets.

The City of Calgary has conducted an organics curbside green cart pilot project in four of its

communities. Acceptable material for the green cart includes all food scraps, compostable paper,

animal waste and litter, grass clippings, and yard and garden debris. The City hopes to bring the

project full scale once a suitable organics facility has been developed.

The City of Edmonton processes its residential waste stream through a co-composter. The acceptable

material is composted and the end-product is sold or used internally by the City.

The City of Toronto, Ontario offers complimentary organics collection to its customers that participate

in the Yellow Bag program (recycling program for the commercial sector).

Curbside Recycling – Several municipalities in North America provide curbside recycling to its residents

in order to encourage recycling and waste diversion in the household.

Biweekly Garbage Collection – The reduction of garbage collection to biweekly, alternating with

recyclables and/or organics has become a common practice in many areas in order to help encourage residents to recycle and divert more organic material.

The Town of Olds, Alberta has biweekly garbage collection in black carts (360 L/ 96 gal) that

alternates with organics collection.

Strathcona County, Alberta has had biweekly automated garbage collection in black carts (240 L/ 65

gal) that alternates with organic green cart (240 L/ 65 gal) collection. This program has been in effect

since July of 2008.

The City of Calgary included biweekly garbage as a part of its organics green cart pilot program. The

garbage black carts (360 L/ 96 gal) were collected biweekly and the organic green carts (120 L/ 32

gal) were collected weekly.

Several jurisdictions in Ontario and Nova Scotia have biweekly garbage collection. It is alsoa growing

trend on the West Coast in municipalities such as Nanaimo and in several Metro Vancouver cities

including Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and West Vancouver.

User Pay or Pay As You Throw (PAYT) – Encourages residents to take advantage of opportunities to

reduce their waste, as well as take advantage of waste diversion opportunities. It is implemented by limiting container size, or offering a few choices of disposal carts with a price differential that promotes the smaller size.

Over the past decade, PAYT programs have become the standard approach adopted by small and large

communities to promote effective waste diversion among the residential sector. Communities in Western

Canada have fully embraced PAYT, which is now considered the norm for managing and financing MSW

systems. Some PAYT programs are more flexible and provide greater options to residents while others are

very simple in their approach.



41


The City of St. Albert initiated PAYT in 1996 and has evidenced a 25% drop in waste generation

(Sonnevera International Corp., 2008).

The City of Victoria, British Columbia allows residents to put only one can of garbage on the curb,

which is covered by an annual fee. Otherwise, residents must purchase tags for additional garbage.

The City of Prince George, British Columbia implemented an automated variable cart collection system

in order to permit the homeowners a choice of the size of their garbage bin. The resident has a choice

between three bins: a large 360 L (95 gal), a medium 250 L (65 gal) and a small 135 L (35 gal), with the

smallest bin size having the lowest annual fee.

Promotion and Education – Promotion of waste diversion in the commercial sector. Promotion and

education can encourage waste diversion awareness and increased participation in existing programs. Community-based social marketing (CBSM) is a common approach to fostering behaviour change in residents and businesses. CBSM first identifies the barriers and benefits to an activity, such as recycling, and utilizes “tools” that have been demonstrated to be effective in changing behaviour. For example, in order to increase recycling participation rates, first the barriers and benefits to recycling must be identified. Lack of convenience and understanding are examples of barriers for recycling. Strategies are then developed to increase the recycling behaviour among individuals. Curbside recycling is a result of CBSM since it solves the convenience problem for most residents. Additionally, seeing your neighbour put out their recycling bin, encourages you to do so as well, making it the norm and placing guilt on non- participants with no recycling bin placed on the curb.

Monitoring – Measurement is a critical component of any good waste management system.

Comprehensive and accurate measurement provides the foundation for decision making through

monitoring system performance. Measurement also provides the basis for benchmarking, based on

baseline program information, as well as comparative analysis between jurisdictions.

Disposal bans from landfill – Materials, such as recyclables or yard waste, can be prohibited from

disposal to require residents to participate in reduction and diversion programs. The diversion delivered can be significant but depends on the extent of the bans, and the level of education and enforcement.

The Regional District of Nanaimo, British Columbia banned ICI food waste from entering its regional

landfill in 2005. On average the district now process about 3,500 tonnes of organics in its organics

facility. Their regional landfill lifespan has also been significantly increased.

Differential Tipping Fees – Increased fees for loads containing specified/ designated materials. Readily

recyclable materials are generally placed on a “Designated Materials List” and if loads coming into the landfill contain any materials on the list, the load is charged a higher tipping fee than general MSW.

Disposal Surcharges – Levy or surcharge placed on waste entering city landfills. This surcharge serves the

dual purpose of creating a financial disincentive, while also providing a funding mechanism for diversion programming. This program can work in concert with the ban of recyclables in garbage.

All of these waste diversion programs help increase the participation of waste diversion amongst residents

and/ or businesses. With the increase of waste diversion programs across North America, municipalities

are experiencing higher waste diversion rates, extending the life of their landfills, reducing the emission of



42


greenhouse gases, and improving economic performance with the many spin-off businesses involved in the

recycling industry.

5.3.3 Best Management Practices

Established best practices have been identified to guide the development of new programs within the ACR.

In addition to policies and plans reviewed from Alberta and the ACR, several best practices documents

were reviewed as part of this study from across Canada, and are noted in the Table 11. More specifics on

best practices can be found in Figures 5.5.3-1, 5.5.3-2 and 5.3.3-3 in the Figures Section following the

report.

Table 12: Best Practice Reports Informing the Study

Report Description

Sustainable Community Planning in

Canada: Status and Best Practices, 2009

Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) – Purpose was to undertake

research on current best practices in sustainable community planning in

Canadian municipalities to develop an integrated approach towards the

implementation of sustainability goals using a long-term perspective in an

adaptive framework.

Waste Diversion Success Stories from

Canadian Municipalities, 2009

FCM – Summary of Keys to Success, Leading Edge Trends and Lessons

Learned from communities across Canada.

Solid Waste as a Resource Guide for

Sustainable Communities, 2004

FCM – Developed to assist municipal governments in developing

management systems that minimize waste and maximize the use of

resources.

A Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended

Producer Responsibility, 2009

CCME – Objective is to achieve common and coordinated policies and

commitments for government action.

A Canada-wide Strategy for Sustainable

Packaging, 2009

CCME – Objective is to develop a strategy to reduce packaging waste and

promote sustainable choices across the supply chain.

Blue Box Program Enhancement and Best

Practices Assessment Project, 2007

Prepared for Stewardship Ontario, this report involved a significant analytical

exercise and consensus building process, using a fact-based approach –

rooted in site visit evidence, expert contributions and statistical analysis – to

finalize a set of Best Practices for municipal recycling programs.

Policy Statement on Waste Management

Planning: Best Practices for Waste

Managers, 2007

Ontario Ministry of Environment - Articulates and outlines a framework and

principles for decision making by all waste managers and provides specific

direction to guide the development of long-term municipal waste

management plans. The intension is to achieve consistent and timely waste

management planning and to make the decision making process

transparent.

Report Description

Guide to the Preparation of Regional

Solid Waste Management Plans, 1994

British Columbia Ministry of Environment – Intended to assist municipalities

in preparing or amending waste management plans and to provide a

blueprint for reducing waste generation and waste disposal to achieve a

(minimum of) 50% diversion from landfill.

Solid Waste Resource Management

Strategy, 1995

Nova Scotia Environment – Developed with extensive input and consultation,

the document outlines how achieving maximum environmental and economic

benefits while minimizing cost in the management of solid waste.

Best Practices for Multi-Family Food

Scraps Collection, 2011

Recycling Council of BC (RCBC) – Developed by the RCBC Organics

Working Group to establish best practices through a review of literature and



43


direct interviews with a variety of leading municipalities.

The City of Edmonton, through the Edmonton Waste Management Centre of Excellence, contributes to the

development and implementation of best management practices in solid waste management. Activities

focus on three areas – technology development, applied research, and education and training.

Fundamental best practices that apply to all communities—regardless of size or location in Canada—

include:

6. Develop and implement an up-to-date solid waste management plan (e.g., this Plan)

7. Develop a multi-municipal planning approach to collection and processing

8. Establish defined performance measures, including diversion targets, monitoring and a continuous

improvement program

9. Optimize operations in collection and processing

10. Train key program staff in core competencies

11. Follow generally accepted principles for effective procurement and contract management

12. Adopt an appropriately planned, designed and funded promotion and education program and

13. Establish and enforce polices that induce waste diversion.

Once designed, each policy or program needs to apply these fundamental best practices and be

implemented, measured, monitored and continuously improved to ensure the respective goals and targets

are met, as discussed further in Section 9.

5.4 Results of Existing System Assessment

Many members of the ACR have undertaken various initiatives to address solid waste management within

their respective jurisdictions; as well as providing many strategic policies to guide decisions, while solid

waste infrastructure and programming is well developed. To achieve the Provincial 80/20 goal by the year

2020, the ACR will need to expand waste diversion programs and regionalize systems to improve efficiency

and consistency.

Having completed SWOT, gap and best practices analyses, committee member and private company

interviews, and the input of the experienced consulting team, the key elements that need to be addressed in

the new system have been identified :

1. Current diversion rate trends will not achieve the Provincial waste minimization targets

2. The ACR will need a clear waste minimization target on which to base the selection and design of

related programs

3. Waste disposal rates per capita should be used to measure the success of waste minimization within

municipalities to ensure that rural municipalities (that typically generate less MSW, but do not have

the waste minimization infrastructure typical of urban municipalities) are compared equitably



44


4. Programs should encourage and build from several examples of cooperation between ACR

municipalities (i.e. waste authorities/commissions)

5. Much more attention, and effort, need to be put toward developing waste minimization and regulation

programs in the IC&I and C&D waste sectors as they are the source of highest amount of MSW going to

disposal

6. The IC&I and C&D sectors are significant in size and will require any changes to be implemented

consistently and equitably amongst businesses, while being engaged directly by the ACR to gain both

an understanding and consensus prior to the development of any major initiatives going forward

7. Harmonization of service levels, programs, acceptable materials, contract language, and promotion

and education programs will increase the overall economies of scale and benefit residents with greater

efficiency in service delivery

8. An annual detailed performance measurement program is needed to improve the understanding of

waste stream compositions and quantities including regional and seasonal variability in order to track

improvement and design suitable waste minimization programs to target areas needing more

attention

9. Municipal program information and performance data should be distributed and shared by all ACR

member municipalities

10. The low disposal tipping fee and lack of disposal bans are major barriers to providing a financial

incentive for increasing waste diversion

11. Programming in the ACR should focus on those that are strategic, universal and/or transferable to

benefit all member municipalities and ensure customized programs of a particular municipality are the

responsibility of that host municipality

12. A consistent decision process is needed to maintain ACR values to ensure new programs and Plan

amendments in the future are consistent with the values, programs and targets of this current Plan

13. The existing infrastructure capacity is insufficient in meeting the diversion targets within this Plan;

municipalities are open to either government or privately constructed and operated facilities being

constructed/developed to meet expected demand

14. Plastics diversion and management are a major concern to members of the ACR

15. Organics and fibre are the primary sources of waste diversion

16. Relationships with adjacent jurisdictions should be fostered to the extent where the benefits are

mutually beneficial. Additionally, the Calgary Regional Partnership since together with the ACR the

majority of Alberta’s population is represented providing a strong ability to guide Provincial policy in

this regard

17. There is currently insufficient legislation to encourage, enable and empower Alberta municipalities in

their efforts to minimize waste



45


18. The ACR does not currently have the governance system, authority and resources to manage and

implement a regional waste management system

19. Because of the many differences in the many communities residing within the ACR, regional long range

strategies are needed to ensure all member municipality concerns are addressed; to that end programs

that can be universally applied and implemented quickly will be needed to demonstrate progress and

develop confidence in such a regional system

20. Best practices, Provincial and Recycling Council of Alberta initiatives should always be considered

prior to the development of new programs

21. Current Provincial stewardship programs do not meet the principles of CCME’s Canada-Wide

Principles for Extended Producer Responsibility

6.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

A triple bottom line assessment (TBL) of high priority programs planned for Phase 2 will help to detail all

the advantages and disadvantages of particular programs consistent with widely accepted values amongst

ACR member municipalities. Prioritizing these programs based on a scoring system is a useful tool for

decision-making and will also help to improve implementation.

After a review of member municipality strategic plans, the evaluation criteria needed to conduct a later TBL

assessment of the recommended short list in Phase 2 have been provided for this report .

The TBL assessment will not include detailed economic analyses, but rather high-level considerations

quantified at the planning level. This information will allow the ACR to identify and focus on the key values

needed to assess each major policy, or program, and will form the basis of the Integrated Waste

Management Implementation Plan (Phase 2). The following sections discuss the approach and the criteria

used for the assessment and comparison.

6.1 Category Selection

Specific criteria were grouped into three different areas typical of a TBL process as follows:

Economic Effect Potential;

Environmental Effect Potential; and

Social Effect Potential.

6.2 Development of Criteria

The criteria to be used to assess the options were based primarily on key values and priorities most

important to the Province of Alberta and the participating municipalities. These criteria were developed

following reviews of select municipal/Provincial literature, and interviews and meetings with members of

the ACR and private industry. Policies were identified and considered from the various sources noted

above providing an understanding of what was relevant to a regional system, the policies that were most

common, and as such, were weighted accordingly to provide a draft set of criteria for the ACR to consider



46


and amend if necessary. The following local strategic environmental reports were reviewed in addition to

Provincial literature identified in Section 4.5:

Town of Beaumont, Environmental Baseline Report, Urban Systems, July 2012;

Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Authority, Announcement, December, 2010;

St. Albert Proposed Corporate Business Plan, 2012;

Town of Stony Plain Policies and Procedures Manual, Recycling Program, July 12, 2012;

Town of Stony Plain Environmental Stewardship Policy, 2007;

Strathcona County Website, Sustainability, September, 2012; and

City of Edmonton, “The Way We Green”, The City of Edmonton’s Environmental Strategic Plan, July,

2011.

6.2.1 Assessment Criteria - Descriptions

The following sections provide a list of the developed criteria and their descriptions for the purpose of

assessing each select policy, and/or program specified in the recommended short list during Phase 2 of this

study:

Economic Effect Potential

Potential to increase business performance and economic opportunities - Increased business

performance and economic opportunities are being realized as a result of smart materials

management. Pertains to both material recovery businesses as well as other commercial sector

businesses seeking waste prevention and reduction measures.

Potential to be financially sustainable over the long-term – Because some programs may receive

up-front funding, the purpose of this criterion is to provide weighting on how affordable a program is

over the long term.

Potential to receive Provincial grant funding for start-up - Some programs are better candidates

for receiving Provincial funding and as such have little reason to be delayed. It is expected that most of

the recommended programs will be good candidates; however, if there are those with a much higher

probability of receiving grants, then they should receive a higher priority status.

Environmental Effect Potential

Potential to Reduce Solid Waste – ACR will strive to be close to meeting its 80/20 Goal by 2020 and

move progressively toward zero solid waste in a cost-effective, efficient and environmentally sound

manner. The food system is managed to minimize waste. Develop, expand and promote programs and

infrastructure that increase local recycling diversion rates, especially for food scraps.

Potential to reduce current GHG emissions – Substantially reduce GHG emissions associated with

solid waste management as it relates to landfill methane emissions, transportation and the upstream

impact of material management (i.e., manufacturing and transportation of products and packaging).

Factor in GHG savings achieved by recycling and composting as compared to disposal.



47


Potential to Reduce Toxics discharged into the environment – Substances and chemicals that are

potentially harmful to human, animal, and environmental health are being eliminated, replaced, or

managed in a way so that they are not discharged into the natural environment.

Social Effect Potential

Potential to improve convenient diversion opportunities to ACR residents and visitors – The

community is ‘closing the loop’ by providing appropriate and convenient opportunities for reducing,

reusing, composting, repairing and recycling materials. Since convenience diversion opportunities are

essential to a successful waste minimization program, convenience should be a factor in the

assessment.

Potential to develop or enhance partnerships to achieve positive outcomes – Partnerships are

developed such that collective procurement choices favour companies and suppliers that are

consistent with our identified materials and solid waste values (i.e., partnering for success).

Potential to be transferrable to all member municipalities - The ACR contains many municipalities

all with various solid waste disposal and minimization plans. Because cooperation is dependent upon

how useful a program is for a member municipality, then the ease of which a program can be adjusted

to suite each member municipality is an important consideration.

Potential for local government to successfully manage the program – Some programs have clear

goals consistent with policy; however, they may be very difficult to manage and control which can

undermine a municipality’s success during implementation.

6.2.2 Weighting of Criteria

Following the development of the criteria to be used for scoring purposes, it is necessary to develop

weights to reflect the importance of each criterion in the context of municipal policy. After a program is

scored according to a criterion, its score is multiplied by the weighting factor to reflect the comparative

importance in comparison to other criteria. The following factors (Table 17) have been recommended by

the consulting team to weight the various criteria for later assessment purposes.

In general, because of the ACR’s role and the need to work with numerous separate and distinct

municipalities with varying objectives and needs, the social effect potential relating to transferability and

partnering was scored highest in relation to other groupings. Under environmental effect potential there is

a level of interdependency between criteria; however, waste minimization was weighted highest with GHG

reduction a close second. This weighting was based on these two criteria being the most talked about

environmental goals in current strategic plans. Economic Effect Potential (as a total in column 3) was

weighted equally overall to Environmental Potential Effect due to the seeming equal need or importance

attached to affordable programming.

Table 13: Assessment Criteria Weighting

Assessment Criterion Weighting Best Possible1

Social Effect Potential 30 300



48


Table 13: Assessment Criteria Weighting

Assessment Criterion Weighting Best Possible1

Potential to improve convenient diversion opportunities to ACR residents and visitors 5 50

Potential to develop or enhance partnerships to achieve positive outcomes 10 100

Potential to be transferrable to all member municipalities 15 150

Environmental Effect Potential 30 150

Potential to Reduce Solid Waste 15 75

Potential to Reduce Current GHG Emissions 10 50

Potential to Reduce Toxics discharged into the environment 5 25

Economic Effect Potential 30 150

Potential to increase business performance and economic opportunities 10 50

Potential to be financially sustainable over the long-term 10 50

Potential to receive a Provincial grant funding for start-up 10 50

Total marks 90 600

1 – The relative weights of social, environmental, and economic effect potential are 10, 5, and 5, respectively and were the multipliers used in column 3.

7.0 LONG LIST OF POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Developed by the consulting team after the existing system assessment, a long list list of recommended

policies and programs to provide municipal staff members alternatives to directly address sytem

deficiencies and achieve waste minimization targets. Tables 7.0-1, to 7.0-4 in the Tables Section provide a

variety of waste management policies and programs assembled to address system deficiencies identified in

the assessment, gap and SWOT analysis, along with best management practices. The policies and programs

are organized into the four groupings at the center of the following Figure 9 (defined in following

paragraphs) and are prioritized from top to bottom based on the 6 Rs categories. The outer rings follow

best practices and provide clear implementing each program and policy



49


Figure 9: Organizational Structure of Long-Listed Policies and Programs

Vision and Strategic Policies (Table 13)

ACR expresses its ideals through policies and guiding principles that spell out a vision, goals and principles

on which to base future decision-making. To ensure these policies are fully considered in the context of

ISWMP, these Table 13 leading policies have been partly assessed from the standpoint of achieving

continual improvement through four steps: plan, do, check and act. Ensuring that these leading policies are

reflected in the day to day decision-making at the operational and programming level will contribute to

ACR achieving its solid waste management goals.

Management Systems and Tools (Table 14)

There are a variety of initiatives already in-place in some of the municipalities in the ACR aimed at

expanding the current solid waste system and increasing diversion. These Table 14 policies and programs

have been assessed to determine if they fully reflect ACR’s ideals and whether or not they are the most

efficient ways to achieve ACR goals in future.

Operational Infrastructure and Services (Table 15)

Operating equipment and services in an efficient manner not only increases output and maintains basic

health and safety objectives, but also reduces funds spent on inefficiencies. For this reason the project team

reviewed policies and programs directly related to ACR’s waste management infrastructure and operations

and summarized in Table 15 are suggested programs for improvement.



50


Promotion and Education (Table 16)

Fostering behaviour change to create new cultural norms for waste minimization is vital to ensuring

system users rethink waste, innovate to reduce and reuse, and utilize recycling systems efficiently. Best

management practices including the use of social marketing, social media, and other methods of reinforcing

behaviour change to establish new norms were incorporated into the Table 16 recommendations.

Programs and policies have been related to the Section 5.4 assessment terms and have a suggested

timeframe in which to be implemented; however, because they are at a lower priority to those shortlisted

(in next section), it is suggested that they be retained as a reference list from which to draw at the

discretion of the ACR in the short term, but also to be reviewed in 5 years to ensure they are considered in

the longer term. A short list of recommended priorities for implementation within the next five years was

identified from this long list. The objectives, milestones, resource needs (staff, capital, operational), and

implementation schedule of the highest priority policies and programs will be defined to a higher level of

detail in Phase 2.

This Phase 1 report focuses more on the system as a whole and the goals specified in Section 1.2.

Stakeholder input from the consultation process (Section 1.4) was incorporated through the assessment

and final short list recommendations with the intention of building upon existing successful programs.

8.0 RECOMMENDED SHORT LIST

The following recommendations are provided to the ACR as the selected policies and programs to be

implemented within the next 5 years. These short-listed policies and programs will undergo a preliminary

feasibility analysis through a triple bottom line assessment to guide selection and priority, program design,

and an estimation of needed resources.

8.1 Implementation of the ACR Waste Minimization Plan

To institute the programs being considered in the following strategies, the ACR would need both a

governance structure and ability to draw on staff resources from member municipalities to complete these

activities. It is our experience due to the very nature of the differing goals and objectives throughout the

ACR that would likely be ineffective. It is for this reason that the following recommendations to put in place

a system to empower and enable the IWMP to be implemented:

Ensure the paradigm of being a Partnership of Plans is maintained and that all individual

municipalities, or smaller partnership waste diversion efforts and plans, are acknowledged and fully

considered through all activities,

Establish, through the governance exercise, a greater level of autonomy than is currently the case for

the CRWMAC or its successor with a focus on regional thinking to provide a forum to encourage and

support partnership development on MSW initiatives between participating municipalities,

Hire a “Waste Diversion Coordinator” to establish a resource that immediately focuses on this issue to

support implementation and assistance to member municipalities.



51


8.2 Performance Measurement

EBA recommends that a comprehensive reporting structure be developed and implemented that will

enable municipalities to not only track waste and diversion quantities, but also provide information on

material processing. More detail on this is provided in Section 9.1.

8.3 General Residential Recycling Programs

The review undertaken by EBA of existing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) found

that one strength that the municipalities have at this point is that the basic infrastructure required to

increase waste diversion is either in place or under development. Despite the varying material types being

collected through the residential recycling system across the ACR, municipalities are using mostly the same

contractors. There is, however, a disparity between what is “acceptable material” as collected by some

municipalities and what the respective MRFs accept. Similarly, collection frequencies vary between

municipalities from weekly, biweekly to monthly. Opportunities exist to expand the acceptable material list

and follow Best Management Practices for collection (i.e. recycling collection equal to or greater than waste

collection frequency).

Because of the significant efforts already in place in most municipalities in the ACR, the focus of a regional

approach is on partnering opportunities and the harmonization of programs including promotion and

education. On this basis, the following is recommended:

Provide a Working Group to guide Waste Diversion Coordinator and to review collection contracts

involving a cross-section of municipalities particularly as it relates to term, service levels and contract

clauses;

Begin the process of determining what a standardized curbside collection program would involve,

focusing on collection frequency and materials collected;

Establish consistency in materials collected at drop-off depots across the region to harmonize drop-off

systems; and

Institute common promotion and education programs throughout the ACR and focus on standardizing

messaging, colours used, system types, etc. to ensure residents are not confused between systems as

they move within the ACR. This will also reduce the duplication of effort between municipal staff

members at the individual municipal level and provide opportunities of bulk buying of related

published materials and consulting service contracts.

8.4 Organics Waste Reduction Strategy

Organics is a specific focus in this strategy due in-part to its unique nature and difficulties associated with

the compost industry, but also because it is a primary material to be diverted in any successful waste

diversion strategy during this time.

Organic wastes generated by the residents are typically relatively easy to divert based on the type of

collection systems and municipal controls/responsibilities in place. Organic wastes from ICI sources is

more difficult to capture as each generator is responsible for themselves, and collection programs are often

handled by many different private contractors with differing equipment and systems. Despite this, ICI



52


organic wastes present a significant opportunity for diversion while the organic material from this sector

makes excellent feedstocks for composting or dry anaerobic digestion facilities outside the City of

Edmonton where a co-composting process is employed.

Since providing processing facilities for ICI organic waste is outside ACR’s direct mandate, it is

recommended that they instead encourage the private sector to develop the necessary processing

infrastructure. This should be done through non-monetary measures to ensure there is a level playing field

amongst all potential developments.

In the residential sector, currently not all participating municipalities collect food scraps. As such, they are

missing a primary opportunity to meet diversion goals. Collection services vary considerably between

weekly, bi-weekly, or no service at all from one municipality to another. As collection evolves in

municipalities across Canada, there are many examples the shift to a greater level of service for organics

collection to either be equal or greater than the frequency for garbage collection. Following best practices

research, there are significant opportunities in the ACR to expand the acceptable material list and follow

best practices for collection to achieve these service goals. Based on the current state, the following is

recommended for both the ICI and Residential sectors in the short term:

Develop a comprehensive Organics Diversion Strategy that engages this sector and develops clear

programs to address its needs and wants in a regional sense, building on existing organics collection

and processing systems currently in place;

Begin the process of standardizing these services in a regional approach to collection and processing

which includes food waste;

Current system resiliency and capacity is a major concern in this regard and needs to be analyzed to

provide long term assured composting facilities in place either in the private or the public sector and

Where applicable, increase organics collection to weekly and provide bi-weekly garbage collection

(can also collect organics weekly and collected garbage & recyclables bi-weekly and alternating –

therefore each week only need two collection trucks or one truck if truck has a split load).

8.5 ICI Waste Reduction Short Term Strategy

Solid waste services for the ICI sector are typically managed by private sector waste haulers. In most cases,

cost for solid waste services is a governing factor for retaining ICI customers. To provide the lowest costs,

waste haulers are driven to minimize the frequency of waste pick-ups and the duration for collection at

each stop. These are two factors that can it make difficult to encourage the ICI sector to implement

voluntarily waste diversion programs.

Comprehensive ICI waste diversion programs require a mandate and an enforcement structure. A list of

potential waste diversion programs that could be implemented in the ICI sector are provided in Section 7.4

Most communities in across Canada apply voluntary measures as a “first step” in order to provide some

guidance, and garner support and participation from the ICI sector. If waste diversion targets are not met

using voluntary measures, the communities would move to introducing regulatory and economic measures

to stimulate behaviour changes.



53


The complexity of addressing the ICI community waste diversion issues demands an on-going, intensive

engagement of this sector through focus groups, surveys, etc. to building on existing programs and expand

a harmonized approach throughout the Capital Region. As a result the following recommendations have

been made:

Engage the ICI sector in a meanful, constructive dialogue to identify opportunities for understanding

and collaboration to address waste diversion issues;

Develop a comprehensive ICI Waste Management Strategy that:



Considers existing models such as the Abbotsford Environmental Pledge Program to provide a

reward and encouragement system that rewards the continual improvement of activities within

businesses. This program could be tailored specifically for MSW or could be maintained as is for a

‘one stop shop’ for environmental issues; and

Uses an education, facilitation and legislation approach in that order to motivate change towards

these desired activities. This approach would use Community-Based Social Marketing Techniques.

Lobby provincial government to expand existing Product Stewardship programs increase the number

of regulated Designated Materials and to clearly put the responsibility for increasing diversion in this

sector on the shoulders of the waste generators;


regular diversion programs entirely; and

Immediately develop a ‘ICI Waste Diversion toolkit’ and establish an award system that annual

recognizes “Environmental Champions” in this sector.

8.6 C&D Waste Reduction Short Term Strategy

C&D waste can make up 30 to 40% of the disposal stream. By weight, 70 to 90% of the C&D waste stream is

divertible. The waste categories that can be diverted from landfill include concrete, asphalt, soil, wood

waste, metal, gypsum/drywall, cardboard/paper and plastic.

Communities such as Metro Vancouver divert approximately 70% of the C&D waste stream from disposal.

High disposal costs/tipping fees and lower cost recycling/diversion options prompted the C&D industry to

divert its waste stream rather than dispose of it through landfill.

There is ample opportunity to develop a “source separated C&D collection program” to encourage C&D

waste diversion in the region. Having collection areas for C&D waste at the regional landfills would be

convenient locations for haulers and individuals. Additionally, the introduction of a “designated materials

list” would further encourage haulers to promote source separation with their customers. Haulers would

be charged increased tipping fees for loads containing materials on the designated materials list. Examples

of materials included on such a list are cardboard, wood, concrete, drywall, and asphalt. Alongside the

implementation of these C&D waste diversion programs, education and awareness programs would need



54


to be developed. Industry and citizens need to be properly educated for the programs to be successful and

advancement made towards the region’s waste diversion goals.

Expand or having collection areas for C&D waste at regional landfills would provide waste haulers and

individuals a convenient location for dropping off C&D waste. Additionally, the expansion of the designated

materials list would further encourage haulers to promote source separation of divertible materials.

Haulers would be charged increased tipping fees for loads containing materials on the designated materials

list. . Alongside the implementation of these C&D waste diversion programs, education and awareness

programs would need to be developed. Industry and citizens would need to be properly educated for the

programs to be successful and advancement made towards the region’s waste diversion goals.

The following programs have been recommended as priority issues:

Develop a comprehensive C &D Waste Management Strategy that:



Build on current C&D waste diversion initiatives and include the Edmonton R&D facility as a key

part of this strategy;

Lobby the provincial government to expand the number of materials legislated under the Designated

Material Recycling and Management Regulation; and


regular diversion programs entirely when programs become available (e.g. EPR).

Immediately expand or add areas to existing landfills to focus on areas to sort and separate recyclable

C&D materials while other materials are stockpiled to be used for Alternate Daily Cover at the landfill

or are shipped as feedstock to co-gen facilities;

Immediately develop a Contractors ‘Construction Site Diversion Toolkit’ to be provided through the

Building Permit system to inform Contractors on choices they can make to source separate materials

to increase diversion;

After initial education and promotion of better C&D material in the first couple of years, set up a

consistent system in cooperation of all municipalities to require both proper disposal and materials

diversion plans from Contractors along with a system of enforcement by making proof of their

commitments as a requirement of gaining an Occupancy Permit; and

Review the recommendations of the C&D Waste Management Strategy and implement accordingly.

8.7 Infrastructure

Develop additional processing capacity to support increases in materials as the population in the ACR

increases and diversion rates improve. Additional capacity in the western part of the ACR would reduce

hauling distances and provide an alternative to existing processing facilities. The proposed initiative

between Parkland County, Spruce Grove and Stony Plain to study the development of an joint organics

processing facility is an example of the type of activity that should be supported in the ACR.



55


Periodic review of disposal, recycling and organics system capacity.

8.8 Waste Collection

EBA recommends the development of standardized contracts for waste collection. This should be

considered a priority item as a number of municipalities have contracts expiring in 2013 and 2014. The

objective of standardizing contracts is to ensure consistency in the way materials are collected and

processed and to ensure consistency in the reporting of material quantities collected, processed and

disposed.

Standardize the terms and conditions of collection and processing contracts for use in municipal

contracts.

8.9 Waste Management Policy

Alberta’s primary policy document on waste reduction entitled Too Good To Waste was published in 2004.

It has been nine years since that policy document was released and much has changed in that period from

an economic and environmental stand-point. EBA recommends that ACR, in collaboration with

municipalities in the Calgary Regional Partnership, encourage ESRD to revisit the policy and determine

what if any changes are needed to support its goal of achieving 80/20. A key consideration in developing

future waste management policies should be a requirement for stakeholders to report on waste generation

and diversion activities.

Encourage ESRD to review waste management policies developed in 2004.

To support the specifically recommended policies and programs identified in this section, a group of

policies and programs are specified in Seciton 9.0 to provide an overview of best management practices for

the implementation of these programs.

9.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Many strategic plans are completed with the best of intentions. However, they lack the necessary robust

tools to ensure that a strong performance measurement system is in place. This dynamic, all-encompassing

decision process is one that reflects the needs of all partners as the system changes, an amendment process

to ensure the plan is always current through committee-approved amendments, a clear understanding of

existing funding mechanisms and programs, and a governance structure that reflects the paradigm that this

is a Partnership of already existing plans and as such, requires the consensus of the committee members on

decisions affecting their communities.

9.1 Performance Measurement

The ACR has few systems in place to track performance for waste generation and waste composition in the

existing waste stream. Thus, there are additional measures that can be taken—or further honed—to utilize

best practices and tools for performance measurement, which are outlined below. Recommendations are

based on review of data as captured in Section 3.0 Waste Composition, Quantities and Projections.

Data Collection



56


Conduct waste composition studies for the existing waste stream, either via curbside audits or at

transfer stations, on a regular basis. Perform the studies in a way that provides disaggregated data,

especially to break out commercial streams from residential streams. To reflect the shift to EPR and

improve tracking, use product categories as being developed by ESRD in conjunction with the ACR;

Use scale tracking to confirm material or product in the ACR, especially as it pertains to bulking

materials for the composter;

Expand regulatory tools and relationships to acquire additional material generation data by product

and sector from haulers and businesses as relevant, to best gauge diversion progress over time; and

Implement a well- defined monitoring and measurement program that:

Requires receiving collected and/or processed tonnes by material or product type;

Requires recording and tracking the tonnes by day, week and/or month;

Requires regular review and analysis of the data; and

Data review should also include cost, recovery rates, contamination rates, residue rates.

Data Compilation

Separate materials, by product where viable, to reflect designated material collection, then

potentially use this later for understanding the costs and benefits associated with EPR programs

from the ACR perspective. For some products it will also be useful to understand if the source is

residential or ICI;

Break out organics streams to be able to more closely monitor diversion progress for residential and

commercial food scraps collection and also differentiates consumables from yard and garden waste

that have less upstream impact as it relates to GHG emissions;

Keep categories consistent between source and compiled data (recycling history) to ensure accuracy

and avoid confusion;

Document descriptions by each material category in a separate worksheet within the data compiled

to add clarity in reporting. Note any changes in material name or shifts to using product categories

so across year comparisons are possible; and

Include goal tracking in compiled data (e.g. per capita garbage reduction and material generation).

Target Tracking

Use waste disposed per capita, tonnage by material and overall tonnages as the primary tracking

methods. This will ensure that areas that generate less MSW, but can have lower diversion rates and

compared fairly understanding the reduction in total waste generated is the most desirous activity.

Assess results regularly (for example, annually) and adjust targets to achieve highest and best

results over time. This review can include by sector assessment to target specific materials for

reduction and diversion; and

Avoid use of a diversion rate to assess progress and focus on per capita disposal rates to be able to

compare equitably the performance of different communities and to reflect accurately waste

generation. Typically, waste generation rates in rural communities are considerably lower than



57


those in urban communities, despite that diversion rate with more sophisticated diversion systems

can be higher in urban centres.

Annual Reporting

Prepare annual reports summarizing the actions carried out in a particular year and review

individual programs to determine if they are effective and if not, can be adjusted or dropped. Review

all compiled data between municipalities and consider systems and how to continually improve.

Build excitement and urgency within the Plan as a tool to both promote and educate the public going

forward.

Divide CR up into areas that reflect geographic areas and organize the annual report according to

those areas as follows:

o North

o Northwest

o West

o South

o East

o Central

An example of how a public annual report could be promoted to the public in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Measure Program Performance



58


9.2 Decision-Making Process and Plan Amendment Procedure

To ensure the key community values and best management practices are being followed during both

implementation of policies and programs, and during any amendments of the IWMP as it is adapted to

future needs, the following decision-making process has been designed to be used by committee members

at their discretion. The process will strive to ensure the following:

That both ACR policies and local community visions are being considered;

That the long- and short-term impacts, both globally and locally, are being taken into account;

That implementers consider environmental, social and financial impacts; and

That key “windows of opportunity” are used to more suitably implement policies and programs

knowing the schedule of the Implementation Plan.

Step 1 – Reflect that the IWMP is a Plan of Partnerships

When thinking through decisions, implementers should be mindful that the

IWMP is considered a Partnership of Plans (e.g., Authorities, Commissions,

etc.). Partnerships will be fostered or enhanced with the Province, other

ACR member municipalities, and ACR unincorporated communities,

Product Stewards, First Nations, industry, small business and community

organizations.

Step 2 – Identify ACR Commitments to Implement Policy and Programs

The ACR should consider “windows of opportunity” and triggers for the implementation and management

of programs within the ACR and member municipality system of governance.

Step 3 – Use Community -Based Social Marketing (CBSM) Techniques

The most successful programs are ones that have fully considered community impacts and have

compassionately adjusted programs to reduce any negative local impacts. CBSM is detailed in Section 9.3.

Step 4 – Waste Minimization Plan Advisory Committee Involvement

When facing issues regarding the application or implementation of an IWMP policy, the ACR should be

consulted to offer multi-stakeholder advice.

Step 5 –The IWMP is a Living and Learning Document

The IWMP will adapt to both changes in policy and service with updates, as needed.

Step 6 – Fit into the 6R Waste Hierarchy

Within the context of the IWMP, and to abide by the hierarchy of rethink, reduce, reuse, recycle, recover,

and residual management, ACR staff should carefully consider how decisions can further encourage a

movement of diversion up the waste hierarchy chain.



59


Step 7 – Consider Pay As You Throw (PAYT) Approaches to Financing a Decision

PAYT is an ongoing process of shifting the monetary costs directly to the waste generator. When

implementing policies, careful consideration should be given to shifting this responsibility to the generator

in current and future cost recovery systems. Having a direct financial benefit for waste diversion will

encourage generators to reduce their wastes.

Step 8 – Consider the Big Picture

Considering the direct impacts upon a community with respect to social, economic, and environmental

issues within a triple bottom line (TBL) decision-making process will lead to a more successful program

design and implementation.

The following Figure 11 provides a summary graphic of this recommended decision process.

Figure 11: Decision-Making Steps

When decisions affecting the partnership are made through these steps, it is recommended that and

amendment process be developed to ensure agreements are made and the IWMP is updated to reflect the

current reality. This would flow out of the governance structure discussed in Section 11.4

9.3 Community-Based Social Marketing

As defined by Doug McKenzie-Mohr, an environmental psychologist, CBSM draws upon research in the

social sciences. Most initiatives to foster sustainable behaviour rely upon large-scale information

campaigns that utilize education and/or advertising to encourage behaviour change. While these strategies



60


can be effective in creating public awareness and changing attitudes, numerous studies show that

behaviour change rarely occurs as a result of simply providing information. It is recommended that CBSM

techniques be employed by the ACR at a level commensurate with the task at hand to implement new

initiatives and improve upon others. CBSM involves five primary steps:

1. Selecting behaviours;

2. Identifying the barriers and benefits to an activity;

3. Developing strategies that utilize “tools” that have been shown to be effective in changing behaviour;

4. Piloting the strategy; and

5. Broad scale implementation and evaluation.

Examples of tools to promote behaviour change are identified below, and are best when used in

combination.

Commitment – By agreeing to a small request, people have subsequently been found to be far more

likely to agree to a larger request. As a result, many CBSM-based programs ask people for a verbal or

written pledge or agreement. When commitments are made public through a website or newspaper,

behaviour change is more likely. When commitments help people to view themselves as

environmentally concerned, they are also more likely to commit to other sustainable activities.

Prompts – Prompts can also be used to encourage people to engage in positive behaviour. By providing

visual or auditory aids, people are reminded to perform a particular action. Prompts often take the

form of a sticker or tag posted in close proximity to the action.

Norms – Norms guide how we behave and are largely influenced by the behaviour of those around us. If

members of our community, especially our immediate networks, are living sustainably, we are more

likely to do the same. When norms have a visible element, be it a blue recycling box or a sign that says

“We Compost,” they can have a more significant impact on behaviour change.

Communication – The more relevant messages are to a group, the more likely it is to captivate someone’s

attention. It is also important to make messages easy to remember and provide personal or

community goals and targets, then provide feedback on success to the community. By generating

opportunities for person-to-person, word-of-mouth contact, personalized messages spread through

diffusion in an influential way, which ultimately personalizes the message.

Incentives – Closely pairing an incentive, or reward, to specific positive behaviour can have a substantial

impact on encouraging sustainable activities. This strategy is particularly useful when motivation to

engage in action is low or people are not doing the activity as effectively as they could. It is

recommended to use non-monetary awards, such as award certificates and social approval. Programs

with monetary incentives and budgetary implications, such as discount programs for compost bins,

serve as valuable incentives as well, on a case-by-case basis.

Behaviour change using the above tools will not be successful without first removing perceived and real

barriers identified through initial research. For example, if accessing the site where composters are

distributed is a barrier, then it should be addressed in the design of the program with neighbourhood sales

or home delivery options. It is also prudent to recognize what benefits people associated with the activity,



61


and then highlight those in the messaging. For more information and case studies on CBSM, visit

www.cbsm.com.

9.4 Funding

9.4.1 Funding Sources

Financial support for municipal waste management activities may be available from two sources. Alberta

Municipal Affairs has two programs that municipalities can access for waste management-related projects.

The Regional Collaboration Program (RCP) provides funding to eligible municipalities and regional services

commissions for initiatives aimed at improving the viability and sustainability of municipalities through

regional collaboration and capacity building. This project is an example of the type of activity that would be

eligible for RCP funding. It can also be used to offset costs associated with setting up regional services

commissions (maximum $10,000), undertaking public consultation, preparing communication strategies to

advise stakeholders of regional initiatives, and preparing contracts and agreement to formalize

collaboration structures and activities (maximum $250,000).

AMA also provides grant funding to eligible municipalities for capital projects through its Municipal

Sustainability Initiative (MSI) several years in advance. The program has a set funding formula that

determines the total MSI grant available to individual municipalities. The types of projects which may be

funded by these grants is also outlined in the program guidelines. Municipalities are responsible for

determining how they will use the MSI funding available. Based on information provided in program

guidelines, it appears that joint funding of projects with other municipalities is permitted as is “sharing”

grant funds with regional services commissions and not-for-profit organizations. Public-private

partnership projects do not appear to be eligible. Further investigation of this option will be undertaken for

Phase 2 of the project.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) administers a federal endowment of $550 million

through its Green Municipal Fund (GMF). GMF funding is available for “brownfield”, transportation, energy,

waste and water initiatives. Support may be provided for three types of activities – plans, studies and

projects. Preparing plans and undertaking feasibility studies may be eligible for direct grant funding.

Projects are generally supported by low-cost loans. Grant funds may also be provided for a portion of

eligible costs. FCM funding can be used for projects that include collaboration with the private sector.

Determination of eligibility is determined by the GMF Council which recommends projects on their merit.

Funding, however, is limited and may not be sufficient for large-scale projects.

Another alternative is to seek out funding from the private sector in terms of joint ventures or public-

private partnerships. A municipality’s contribution to these kinds of enterprises does not always have to be

monetary.

9.4.2 Funding Recommendations

EBA recognizes that the municipalities each have their own set of internal issues and priorities regarding

candidate project for funding applications and that waste management may not always be high on

everyone’s priority lists. Therefore, there will be variations in the degree of commitment to participating in

the plan and its implementation. Municipalities will need to prioritize waste management when

http://www.cbsm.com/



62


establishing funding priorities to implement policies and programs required to meet waste minimization

targets.

Municipalities interested in working together on regional waste management initiatives should pursue

grant funding under RCP for costs associated with formalizing roles, responsibilities and commitments.

Funding from GMF can also be pursued if the initiative involves private sector participation. Once decisions

have been made with respect to developing capital works, participating municipalities can use MSI funds to

fund engineering, construction and other related costs.

Without adequate funding, the best laid plan will be difficult to implement and sustain. Therefore, the

Provincial government should be encouraged to include funding requirements as a component of any

review of its provincial waste reduction strategy. Restoration of dedicated programs such as the Waste

Management Assistance Program that supported the development of regional waste management systems

would be a significant step in the right direction.

9.5 Governance

9.5.1 Defining Governance

At the outset of the project, the scope of what “governance structure” was described as the following basis

for the requirements of the IWMP. The following definitions were proposed:

Governance - the process by which decisions are taken within or among organizations, including: who

is involved, the assignment of responsibility, the prioritization of goals, and the rendering of

accountability; and

Governance Structure - the informal and formal ways in which different institutions interact within

particular political and administrative settings to develop policy goals, select among means, cope with

uncertainty and controversy, and foster legitimacy and support for policies.

The implication from the above is that the governance entity will need to be the crucial link between ACR

members and the implementer(s) and operator(s) or service provider(s) of the approved waste

minimization initiatives described previously within this document. The governance entity will need to

give the ownership the controlling authority or power for accountability to ensure its successful

implementation and subsequent ongoing operations.

The governance structure also should integrate synergistic approaches of both the National Quality

Institute (NQI)’s Public Sector approach to quality management, and the International Organization for

Standardization (ISO) management systems. Both provide specifications for PLANNING (say what you will

do), DOING (do it), CHECKING (monitor and track your performance along the way) and ACT/REVIEWING

(review, improve and act on new insights). The structure should guide specifications on:

Policy: governance and goals;

Planning: establishment of the strategic plan, its objectives, targets, measures of progress, and

programs;



63


Implementation: establishment of structure, communications, training, operational requirements,

policy instruments, documentation, and implementation of the plan and its programs;

Checking/Monitoring: establishment of monitoring, measurement, auditing and reporting activities,

as well as process improvement guidelines; and

Review: establishment of key stakeholder review of the IWMP strategic plan, its implementation, and

continual improvement.

9.5.2 Developing Governance Structure

To develop a recommended governance structure, a highly collaborative process is required to engage all

pertinent ACR members. Ideally, it would proceed according to the following process:

Define the Solution Goal:

Describe what success of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan looks like.

Establish Solution Evaluation Criteria:

Identify from impacted, pertinent stakeholders (i.e., members of the CRWMAC) the prioritized

attributes of the desired solution.

Define a Continuum of Alternatives

Based on the solution goal and evaluation criteria, a short list of viable governance structure

alternatives can be identified which can be considered by the CRWMAC.

Evaluate the Alternatives

The CRWMAC will evaluate the alternatives based on how well they satisfy the prioritized evaluation

criteria and implementation feasibility / viability.

At this Phase 1 juncture of this project, initial regional waste minimization strategies and initiatives have

been identified and proposed in order to obtain the vision of 80/20 waste diversion goal within the ACR.

Upon ACR’s approval of the recommended initiatives, a next step would be to focus its representatives on

what the governance attributes or basis for evaluating alternative governance structure alternatives should

be. From there, a range of viable governance alternatives can be identified, considered and evaluated.

To set the stage for the full range of potential governance structure alternatives, a table was developed

which describes the different options which could be considered, including their respective descriptions,

governance characteristics, and potential advantages vs. disadvantages. This is included in Appendix D.

Note that this is largely based on the Alberta Municipal Affairs “Governance Options for Municipal Regional

Services in Alberta” document.

10.0 NEXT STEPS

Following endorsement of the recommended policies and programs along with the assessment criteria, the

consulting team will:



64


Prepare preliminary program designs for planning purposes to allow the estimation of the resources

required for implementation;

Conduct a triple bottom line assessment to score each program for the purpose of prioritizing the

program choices in the first 5 years of implementation; and

Prepare a recommended implementation schedule to achieve the waste minimization targets; and

Prepare a final Integrated Waste Minimization Plan for the Alberta Capital Region.

11.0 CLOSURE

We trust this report meets your present requirements with respect to Phase 1 of the project. If you have

any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned.

Sincerely,

EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd.

Prepared by:

L. J. (Laury) North, P.Eng. Shaun Spalding, EP

Senior Environmental Engineer Team Leader, Solid Waste Management Planning

Environmental Practice, Prairie Region Environmental Practice

Direct Line: 780.451.2130 x514 Direct Line: 403.203.3305 x292

[email protected] [email protected]

Tamara Shulman, BA Lindsay Seidel-Wassenaar, E.I.T. Environmental Planning & Consultation Specialist Environmental Engineer Environmental Practice Environment Practice Direct Line: 604.685.0017 x300 Direct Line: 403.203.3305 x274 [email protected] [email protected]



65


Reviewed by:

Paul Ruffell, P.Eng. Mark Rowlands, P.Eng.

Senior Engineer Team Leader, Waste Management

Environmental Practice Environmental Practice

Direct Line: 780.451.2130 x230 Direct Line: 604.685.0017 x355

[email protected] [email protected]

PERMIT TO PRACTICE EBA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD.

Signature ________________________________

Date ____________________________________

PERMIT NUMBER: P245 The Association of Professional Engineers

and Geoscientists of Alberta



66


REFERENCES

Alberta Beverage Container Recycling Corporation, 2012. Annual Report; Market Details.

Alberta Environment, August 2004. Alberta’s Municipal Waste Action Plan 2004-2006.

http://www.environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/6360.pdf

Alberta Environment, 2005. Waste Not: Alberta’s Approach to Waste Management.

http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/6204.pdf

Alberta Environment, 2008. Alberta Land Use Frame Work.

https://www.landuse.alberta.ca/LandUse%20Documents/Land-use%20Framework%20-

%202008-12.pdf

Alberta Environment, 2008. Too Good to Waste: Making Conservation a Priority

http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7822.pdf

Alberta Environment, April 2010. Saving the World Begins At Home

http://www.environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/6270.pdf

British Columbia Ministry of the Environment December 1994. Guide to the Preparation of Regional Solid

Waste Management Plans.

British Columbia Ministry of the Environment. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/mun-waste/waste-

solid/sw-mgmt-plan/guideplan/pdf/guide-swmplan.pdf

Burke, J. and Moore, B., 2012. Shredded and Baled, Now What: Paper Markets, WasteExpo 2012,

Las Vegas, NV, USA.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), October 2009. A Canada-wide Strategy for

Sustainable Packaging. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/sp_strategy.pdf

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), October 2009. A Canada-wide Action Plan for

Extended Producer Responsibility. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/epr_cap.pdf

Capital Regional Board, December 2009. The Capital Region Growth Plan.

http://capitalregionboard.ab.ca/-/reports/10%20december%202009%20addendum-

revisedsept2010.pdfCity of Edmonton. March 2012, New Recycling Facility Cuts Construction

Waste Going to Landfill. http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/news/2012/new-recycling-

facility-cuts-construction-waste.aspx

CH2M Hill, 2011. Technical Memorandum. The City of Calgary ICI Waste Diversion Policy Options.

September 14, 2011

City of Edmonton, 2011. Environmental Strategic Plan: The Way We Green.

City of Edmonton, June 14, 2012, City Operations Greenhouse Gas Management Plan.

City of Edmonton, 2007. Waste Management Policy.

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/news/2012/new-recycling-facility-cuts-construction-waste.aspx

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/news/2012/new-recycling-facility-cuts-construction-waste.aspx



67


City of Leduc, 2012. Environmental Plan – Phase 1.

City of St. Albert, 2012. Albert Proposed Corporate Business Plan,

EBA Engineers Consultants Ltd. (EBA), 2012. Metro Vancouver Recycling Market Study. Prepared for Metro

Vancouver.

Edmonton Food Bank, 2013. Online at: http://www.edmontonsfoodbank.com/about/.

Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). March 2004, Solid Waste as a Resource Guide for Sustainable

Communities. http://www.fcm.ca/Documents/tools/GMF/Solid_waste_as_a_resource_en.pdf

FCM Green Municipal Fund, 2009. Waste Diversion Success Stories from Canadian Municipalities.

http://www.fcm.ca/Documents/tools/GMF/Getting_to_50_percent_en.pdf

Genivar, 2009. Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan – Waste Plan Regina Report. June.

Green Manitoba. An Agency of the Manitoba Government. Available at: http://greenmanitoba.ca/wrars/.

2013.

Marbek Resource Consultants (for FCM), March 2009. Sustainable Community Planning in Canada: Status

and Best Practices.

http://www.fcm.ca/Documents/reports/GMF/2009/Research_Report_Sustainable_Community_Pla

nning_EN.pdf

Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Authority, 2010. Announcement.

Nova Scotia Environment, 1995. Not Going to Waste Solid Waste Resource Management Strategy.

http://www.gov.ns.ca/nse/waste/docs/SolidWasteStrategyFinalReport1995.pdf

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, June 2007. Policy Statement on Waste Management Planning: Best

Practices for Waste Managers.

Ontario’s 3Rs Regulations, 1994. Available at:

https://www.rco.on.ca/uploads/File/RC_Resources_Waste_3Rs-Regs.pdf

http://216.119.79.78/rkn/pdf/June122007-Policy.pdf Parkland County, 2010. Solid Waste Management

Plan.

Plumptre & Graham, 2000 and Karen Baker, 2003.

Province of Alberta, “Governance Options for Municipal Regional Services in Alberta”

http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/documents/msb/Governance_Options_Final.pdf

Provincial Waste Characterization Framework, A Joint Project of Alberta Environment, Government of

Canada, Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change and the Recycling Council of Alberta, October 2005

http://www.recycle.ab.ca/uploads/File/pdf/WasteCharFinalReport.pdf

Sonnevera, 2012. Best Practices.



68


Sound Resources Management Group Inc. (2009). Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Waste

Management: Strategies with a Zero Waste Objective: Study of the Solid Waste Management System

in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia. http://www.belkorp.ca/Dr_Morris_Report.pdf

Statistics Canada, Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government Sectors, 1996-2008,

http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=16F0023X&CHROPG=1&lang=eng

Town of Beaumont, 2012. Environmental Baseline Report.

Town of Stony Plain, 2007. Environmental Stewardship Strategy.

Town of Stony Plain 2010. Policies and Procedures Manual.

Waste Diversion Ontario Continuous Improvement Fund Guideline to Waste Recycling Strategy

http://cif.wdo.ca/resources/planning.html

Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP), 2010. Summary Report – Material Bulk Densities; Project

Code: ROT039.




TABLES

Table 1.4-1 Consultation

Table 1.4-2 Private Sector Survey Questions

Table 5.3.3-1 IC&I Economic Waste Diversion Best Management Practices

Table 5.3.3-2 IC&I Regulatory Waste Diversion Best Management Practices

Table 5.3.3-3 IC&I Voluntary Waste Diversion Best Management Proctices

Table 7.0-1 Long List of ManageVision and Strategic Policies and Programs

Table 7.0-2 Long List of Management Systems and Tools Policies and Programs

Table 7.0-3 Long List of Operational Infrastructure and Services Policies and Programs

Table 7.0-4 Long List of Promotion and Education Policies and Programs


EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE

Table 1.4-1: CRWMAC Consultation Contacts

Contacted Interviewed Jurisdiction Contact Title Email

Y Y Town of Beaumont Jarret Esslinger

Environmental

Sustainability

Coordinator

[email protected]

Y N Town of Bon Accord Vicki Zinyk CAO [email protected]

Y N Town of Bruderheim CAO

Y N Town of Calmar Ed Melesko Director, Planning &

Development [email protected]

Y Y Town of Devon Rod Fraser Director, Planning &

Infrastructure [email protected]

Y Y City of Edmonton Bud Latta [email protected]

Y Y City of Fort Saskatchewan Grant Schaffer Director, Public Works [email protected]

Y N Town of Gibbons Debbie Turner CAO [email protected]

Y N Town of Lamont Sandi Maschmeyer CAO [email protected]

Y Y Lamont County Allan Harvey CAO [email protected]

Y Y City of Leduc Kerra Chomlak Environmental

Coordinator [email protected]

Y Y Leduc County Darcy Bryant [email protected]

Y N Town of Legal Robert Proulx CAO [email protected]

Y Y Town of Morinville Donald Fairweather Operations Manager

Y Y Parkland County Pat Vincent CAO [email protected]

Y Y Town of Redwater Debbie Hamilton CAO [email protected]

Y Y City of Spruce Grove Amber Nicol Sustainability Planner [email protected]

Y Y City of St. Albert Christian Benson [email protected]

Y Y Town of Stony Plain Tony Lew [email protected]

Y Y Strathcona County Leah Seabrook

Mgr., Waste Mgt. &

Community Energy

Services Utilities

[email protected]

Y Y Sturgeon County Susan Berry Mgr., Administration

Services [email protected]

N N Village of Thorsby Bob Payette CAO [email protected]

N N Village of Wabamun Linda Hannah CAO [email protected]

Y Y Village of Warburg Christine Pankewitz CAO [email protected]



Table 1.4-1: CRWMAC Consultation Contacts

Contacted Interviewed Jurisdiction Contact Title Email

Non-voting Members

Y Y

Alberta Environment and

Sustainable Resource

Development

Christine Della Costa [email protected]

Y Y Recycling Council of

Alberta

Don Hughes [email protected]

Y Y Christina Seidel

Notes:

Indicates on Committee

If there is not a regular administrative representative attending the meetings, the CAO is shown as the contact.

24 Capital Region jurisdictions – 22 contacted; 16 interviewed

14 Committee members – 14 contacted, 12 interviewed



Table 1.4-2: Private Waste Services Providers Survey Questions

What suggestions do you have to improve the current system especially the collection of organics and recyclables?

What is currently working well?

The trend in waste collection is towards weighing materials and garbage and charging by amount accordingly for each

household. Do you think in the near future that this would be feasible and if not, what are the barriers?

For the IC&I sector, how do you think the government who has no control, would be able to influence waste haulers and

businesses to cooperate and provide enhanced waste diversion systems?

What are your thoughts regarding the implementation of a Franchise system?

Where do you see opportunities to improve collection services in the Capital Region?

What are the general challenges in providing service throughout the Capital Region?

How could we help your business expand understanding the trend towards waste diversion?

What are your top 5 issues that need to be addressed in the Waste Diversion Plan?

What services do you provide for organics diversion?

Any suggestions on how best to manage waste from the construction and demolition sector?



Table 4.4-1: Education and Promotion Summary

Jurisdiction Description

Town of Beaumont

Online collection information in multiple separate links (i.e. blue bag

recycling, organics, e-waste, etc.); available from home page.to

maximize access

Town of Bon Accord Online collection information for what’s collected

PDF flyer for organics (grass clippings and leaves only)

Town of Bruderheim

Online collection information (i.e. recycling, community compost pile

[grass clippings and leaves only] available from home page

Link to Standstone Envirowaste Services guidelines for recycling and

waste pick-up

Town of Calmar

Online collection information (i.e. blue bag recycling, grass clippings,

organics, e-waste, etc…) via homepage

PDF flyer for organics recycling (grass clippings and leaves only), blue

bag, large items and hazardous materials

Town of Devon

Online collection information (i.e. waste, blue and brown bag

recycling) available via homepage

Multiple PDF flyers available (e.g. organics recycling (grass clippings

and leaves only), blue bag for drop-off at Recycle centre, etc.)

City of Edmonton

Online collection information, FAQs, (i.e. blue bag recycling, organics,

e-waste, etc…) available via home page

Multiple PDFs: map and schedule, What Goes Where? Recycling

Facts, Reuse and Recycling Directory, Reuse Centre Acceptable

Items, etc.

Other promotional efforts include Let’s talk trash sessions in the

community, a Know Before You Throw campaign and a Master

Composter Recycler Program, educational information at Eco Stations

(residents can take home free paint) and Reuse Centre

City of Fort Saskatchewan

Online collection waste, recycling information and static pile

composting available via homepage

PDF flyer on waste and recycling

Town of Gibbons Online collection schedule for recycling and garbage only

Lamont County Lamont County Landfill phone number, address, etc.; no link supplied

Town of Lamont

Online collection information (i.e. recycling, composting, drop-off for

clothing, anti-freeze and oil waste) available via homepage

PDF flyers available for recycling and home composting

City of Leduc

Online curbside cart collection (i.e. recycling, organics, waste)

available via home page

PDF recycling flyer

Leduc County

Online collection information in multiple separate links (i.e. blue bag

recycling, waste transfer stations) available via home page

PDF flyer with map, schedule and recyclable items list

Town of Legal Link to Ever Green recycling flyer via home page

PDF recycling flyer

Town of Morinville Online waste disposal information (i.e. blue bag recycling, organics, e-



Table 4.4-1: Education and Promotion Summary

Jurisdiction Description

waste, etc…) available via home page

PDF waste collection flyer

Parkland County

Online waste disposal information (i.e. blue bag and mixed paper

recycling, grasscycling, backyard composting, community composting,

special waste, etc…) available via home page

PDF solid waste and recycling “Blue is the new green” flyers

Town of Redwater

Online blue bag recycling information available via home page.

Links to Ever Green Site and recycling flyer via home page

PDF list of recyclable materials

Town of Spruce Grove Online waste disposal information (i.e. household waste, blue bag

recycling, organics, etc…) available via links from home page

City of St. Albert

Online collection information for refuse, organics and recycling via link

on home page

PDF recycling flyer

Town of Stony Plain

Online information (i.e. kitchen scraps, yard waste, recyclables, etc...)

on Wipe Out Waste campaign site available via home page

Each household provided with a kitchen catcher for food scraps

Free MyWaste phone app

Strathcona County

Online collection information (i.e. kitchen food scraps, yard waste,

recyclables, etc...) the Green Routine available via home page

PDF A-Z waste stream sorting list (recyclables, organics and more)

Excellent image/diagram of the four waste streams

Free Green Routine phone app available.

Town of Sturgeon

Online information about hiring a collection company or the address of

the two waste disposal sides available via home page

Link to list of Roseridge landfill list of acceptable materials

Roseridge PDF of recyclable, waste reusable and other materials

Town of Thorsby No online information available

Town of Wabamun No online information available

Town of Warburg No online information available

ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE

Table 5.0-1: Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)

Item Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats


Provincial Waste Policies Ambitious goals – 80% diversion by 2020 across all

sectors, 500 kg/capita/yr

No provincial mandate and enforcement for waste

reduction

Lack of reporting; localized reporting done based on

materials generated

Regulatory component doesn’t back up policies

Programs don’t map out how to reach goals as well as

they could

80% diversion is an undefined mix of material diversion

and energy recovery

Concern that goals are not reachable – across sectors;

discouraging

Encourage amendment of existing waste

management regulations to require regional waste

management (WM) reporting and promote product

stewardship

Lobbying senior government for continued

establishment of product stewardship programs, and

to stay aligned with CCME Canada-wide EPR Plan

(2009)

Work through New West Partnership to discuss waste

flow and harmonization in western Canada

Mandating source separation by sector

Regulatory

Use AUMA and AMDC as forums to advance issues

to lobby the Province for more authority (e.g. WM

Planning Function and OCs to private and public

facilities)

Consider establishment of landfill bans for priority

waste materials to stimulate further development of

diversion infrastructure

Unlimited landfill capacity

Un-level playing field which results in waste migration

Provincial Land Use Framework

Encourages regional thinking

Drives the regional planning process and harmonizes

the process while allowing site specific adaptation

Re-established only recently (2007)

There is no regional land use plan for the Capital

Region

The region can build on the principal plan and

establish a local land use plan

Facilities operating below standard impede installing

similar infrastructure for diversion elsewhere

Capital Region Growth Plan Waste management issues addressed to provide a

background document

Waste management was not determined to be a high

priority for the CR

One time occurrence to provide baseline conditions for

Capital Region Board

None at present No real or perceived crisis to push prioritization of WM


Regulatory levers to promote

diversion/waste reduction

Bylaws and acts exist for most jurisdictions

Province under EPEA can designate materials to be

controlled

Land use designations exist in most jurisdictions –

local determines how facility is implemented

Provincial regulation for all waste management

facilities

Facility and hauler licenses aren’t as strong as they

could be

Regulation process is not a full licensing process

Collection bylaws focused primarily on RES and are

exclusive

Not a history of development considering space

requirements for recycling/diversion space (e.g. space

for multiple bins)

Encourage planning process to include space for

recycling, green building, deconstruction etc. through

development permit process

Construction and demolition permitting to promote

diversion and proper disposal

LEED certification includes space for waste diversion

Bylaws - SW

Municipal Government Act gives municipalities the

ability to regulate waste management without

limitation.

Ability to build incentives for diversion into licensing

process (who has)

Most jurisdictions have bylaws

Bylaws aren't harmonized; not all build in diversion

strategies

Minimum set of solid waste policies for each

municipality in the CR for waste reduction for non-

residential and residential waste streams

Use by-law making authority to influence ICI waste

management practices

Some potential resistance to harmonizing bylaws




Bylaws – Fire and Nuisance Urban areas restrict open burning of MSW and leaves Open burning occurs in some rural jurisdictions

Fire Permit required in Sturgeon County

Ban burning in at least Country Residential

subdivisions to reduce nuisance and health issues Could be difficult to enforce.

Composition Audits

Some jurisdictions have done waste composition

studies (Edmonton and St. Albert )

Edmonton has ICI data

None previously done for whole region

Develop framework for quarterly audits by material

stream

Audit data will inform progress towards targets and

identify areas for improvement

Cost

Contracts

Contracts have limited terms and can be adjusted for

continual improvement – as relates to materials

collected, competitive pricing etc.

Municipalities have some certainties related to costs

Open bid process

Different acceptable materials for collection between

municipalities even though same contractor used

(recyclables and organics)

Waste collection customers pay a utility and

administrative fee for a contracted service

Joint tendering and/or harmonization of TOR to

improve service levels and create more uniform

pricing

Several contracts end in 2014

Difficult to change contract terms mid-contract and

may result in increased cost

Different term lengths (if applicable) would require

either extensions to some contracts or termination of

others to align end / start dates

Data Tracking

One municipality has an advanced fully functional

RFID system actively recording data for analysis and

operational uses to study waste with barcodes and

measurement

A number of municipalities have valid data for

organics, recyclables and garbage

Data measured differently, some missing, not collected

and aggregated in a consistent manner

Diversion measured via collected tonnes rather than

post processing

WM companies are not mandated to share data

No system or organization in place to gather , analyze

and report data from various sources

Develop framework for recording, trending and

tracking collected tonnes

Develop framework for reporting, trending and

tracking diversion based on post processing tonnages

Resource requirements

Contract language (i.e. current contract may not

require data management)

Financial

Province provides discretionary funding to support WM

capital funding; requested through an application

process

Municipalities have the ability to determine how they

want to use available grant funding within their

jurisdiction

Emerging user pay system to promote diversion

Mature brokerage (Allied) in the region

Disposal fee (and capacity) may be lower than

diversion fees (or capacity)

Municipalities use disposal (landfill) as a revenue

source

Charges don’t necessarily reflect the full cost of doing

business due to the lack of full cost accounting

Commercial disposal fees don’t embed diversion fees

in the overall collection cost

In some municipalties there is a high potential cost of

providing curbside service (e.g. the West is sparsely

populated while East is more dense)

Agree upon a rationalized set of tipping fees for the

region with a structure that could be effective in

achieving optimal flow of materials and optimal

reduction in landfill amounts (while not compromising

owner/operator net revenues and assuming flow

control can be managed)

Agree upon an approach to enhance the tipping fee

differential to promote diversion (i.e. clean wood,

drywall)

Use FCM grants for plans and feasibility studies; can

be leveraged in public/private partnerships

Leverage MSI grants from a number of municipalities

for joint projects

Landfilling is still cheaper

Choosing funding for MSW may preclude them from

other projects (competition for money and MSW many

not be the highest priority)




Governance

Three Waste Management Commissions/Authorities

exist in the ACR in Leduc, Sturgeon and Lamont

Counties

Committee 20 years old and has support from the ACR

CR Board makes decisions using equal parity and

double majority (no veto power)

Other utilities are managed through ACR commissions

to develop joint solutions

Commission/Authorities are landfill-oriented and don’t

have a mandate to influence diversion efforts and

overall waste management before it crosses the scale

Minimal governance over non-residential waste and

material flows

Limited ability to control flow of materials, build

efficiencies, track performance and provide continual

improvement

Regional approach is not mandated and left to

individual municipalities to determine priority

Opportunity to collaborate to determine the best

governance model

Learn from other regional utility infrastructure to

determine what can apply to CR WM

Build on partnerships to maximize diversion, cost

savings

Expand the mandate of existing Commissionsand

Authorities to have oversight of multiple material

streams and work towards waste reduction and

diversion

Establish working group for exploring ad hoc

partnerships and operational streamlining as interest

Establish regional cooperative framework

governance model

If there’s disagreement at the CR level about another

issue, it can negatively WM collaborative efforts

Un-level playing field can result in waste migration or

limited business opportunities

Partnerships

A variety of municipalities in the ACR are already

cooperating on waste management issues and have

signed agreements on issues of sustainability..

Partnerships exist through the three

Commissions/Authorities within the ACR

Different acceptable materials for collection between

municipalities even though same contractor used

(recyclables and organics)

No strong incentives or precedents for contractors to

partner

Grant money works against PPPs

Joint tendering and/or harmonization of Terms of

Reference (TOR) to improve service levels and create

more uniform pricing

GMF opportunity for PPP situation if applied for

correctly

Outside region opportunities like Beaver should be

explored (mostly facilities)

Technology providers are more willing to show case

and partner their technologies needing feedstock

certainty.

There is concern in the ACR about the potential to

standardize systems with a consistent program

throughout region in-part because some

municipalities may wish to remain independent.

Performance Measures

CR has some periodically collected WM data

Product stewardship programs provide annual

reporting for some provincially designated materials

Weak regulatory component to require and enforce

programs to support provincial performance

measures/goals

Not enough disaggregated data (by material, sector) to

determine if performance measures are being met

Develop framework for an effective and efficient

measurement and monitoring program

Set SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable,

Realistic and Timely) goals

Difficult to apply to ICI and C&D sectors

Personnel

Some communities have a designated waste manager

and/or staff with some waste reduction coordination

capacity





Collection

City of Edmonton provides a level of collection services

for the ICI and C&D sectors and there does not seem

to be any great concern about rates.

Only one municipality has a franchise system in the

ACR for residential and commercial sectors

Many jurisdictions are very actively involved in

diversion and improving their recycling programs

Most jurisdictions have transitioned to automated

collection services for recycling and garbage to reduce

costs.

Lots of depot types to provide convenience in many

CR urban areas

Some municipalities service multi-family developments

by either municipal service or private.

Muni provide round-up services but also permanent

facilities for Designated Materials

Have extra infrastructure capacity for blue bag, totes

for organics and mixed garbage

Some return to retail locations for DM

Existing an unintended consequence of existing

contracts is the leakage through BFI waste going to

Coronation

Some municipalities are limited in their ability to

automate due to urban design (e.g. narrow back

alleys)

Do not have full control of ICI and C&D

Some municipalities are considering adding organics

collection to their contracts.

The City of Edmonton is planning to increase ICI

collection. Looking for more feedstock for C&D plant

Opportunity to standardize collection type to increase

efficiency of collection

Introduce automated collection into newer

subdivisions

Opportunity to provide service outside Edmonton’s

boundaries in concentrated areas (e.g. Sturgeon River

Valley)

Encourage Franchise to deal with control.

Can expand depot system into rural areas.

The expansion of municipal mobile and stationary

waste systems may negatively effect private

companies

RES

Different collection set out methods

Different collection frequencies

Standardize collection setouts (cart, bag, box)

Standardize collection frequency (year round, weekly

diversion / biweekly waste)






ICI

The concept of a level playing field for ICI and C&D

sectors is well understood by a number of

muncipalities

Most municipalities do not provide waste management

services to non-residential sources.

Processing

Several facilities exist – 3 MRFs, 4 organics

management processors

Some municipalities have their own MRF on-site to sort

recyclables.

Some smaller jurisdictions still manage yard and

garden debris locally

Option for CR to use the Edmonton facilities

Contamination problems with plastic in the organics is

a problem in some municipalities

There is a minimal ability to deal with poor feedstocks

at local organics facilities

Some municipalities are in the position to expand their

organics processing facility throughput to include food

scraps with existing infrastructure.

Technological advances to deal with quality

All participating municipalities can buy into Edmonton

system either up front or as a contingency to a failed

contract

Waste migration to a facility outside region and within

No interested with investing in organics facility

City of Edmonton MRF and organics facilities are

close to capacity

Contamination and poor compost quality is a problem

in some municipalities.

Union Agreements in place and should be considered




Facilities - general

Various municipalities own some facilities and/or

contracts for use of facilities

The City of Edmonton has a Waste Management R&D

facility "Edmonton WM Centre of Excellence"

Not distributed well across region: not all access

facilities that could contribute to their goals in efficiency

and waste reduction

Some municipalities would have difficulty hosting

facilities due to lack of space.

By planning new facilities and using/expanding

existing ones, regional access and efficiency could be

improved with potential for cost benefits to all

Create network of multi-use facilities (i.e. Eco-

Centres) for resident drop off for reuse/exchange;

HHW, e-waste and other product stewardship drop

off; other recycling and organics; pickup/buy finished

compost; education displays and material

Explore joint-ownership

Access grant funding

Opportunity to reduce cost as throughput goes up

Facilities - diversion

The City of Edmonton has readily available drop-off

facilities and 3 eco-depots (in the N, S and Central

areas) that used by residents across the CR

Primary recycling markets are fairly stable and more

mature overall

Some municipalities have an interest in developing

composting sites

Ownership of material unclear

Revenue from marketed material unknown

Some municipalities have little interest in diversion and

favour landfilling.

Co-mingled recyclables encourage poorer quality

products; higher cost to create high value products

Have an optimal number of WM facilities in the region

to support waste diversion goals

Pool resources to access/sell to larger markets

Ensure proper ownership / control of materials to

ensure supplied material results in revenue generation

for the municipal supplier

Keep material streams higher quality to ensure access

to markets






Contractor acceptance of new terms and conditions

Appropriate contract management to measure and

monitor

Facilities - disposal One municipalities is interested in hosting a landfill to

have and independent disposal facility

Diversify to distribute to match generation across the

region and reduce hauling distance

Energy recovery

Facilities - C&D

Edmonton facility has capacity for 100k tonnes/year,

can accommodate much of region's materials; tipping

fee lower than MSW to add incentive to diversion

Private C&D disposal options exist. Cholla and

Northlands Sand & Gravel have a C&D component

Travel distance a disincentive for outliers

Increase capacity to address shortage of disposal

solutions and support province initiative to put in place

a regulatory framework to increase C&D diversion

Municipalities may have resistance to relying on

Edmonton infrastructure

Material Exchange and Reuse

Some municipalities have annual materials exchange

(e.g. St. Albert)

Some material exchanges exist (put and take) (Leduc,

Edmonton ReUse Store)

Connect generators of various materials with possible

user (i.e. industrial exchange model with inclusion of

municipal operators)

Organics Diversion

Several jurisdictions accept/collect yard and garden

debris and are in the process of expanding to include

food scraps

Some municipalities are promoting organics diversion

and haveextended organics collection to rural areas

Issues with contamination in organics stream increases

processing costs or results in rejection of material.

Develop organics diversion strategy to address all

aspects of the system - policy,

management/partnership, operations and

infrastructure and P&E.

Develop programs to monitor and control

contamination and provide certainty of feedstock

quality.

Too much contamination could result in loss of access

to processing facility





General

Environment Alberta has best practice guides for

industrialized waste diversion

Product stewardship programs have strong education

programs

City of Edmonton has taken on a leadership role for

waste management through promotion and education

programming (including CBSM) and an advance

infrastructure system. Elected officials have embraced

waste management innovation and diversion.

A number of municipalities have strong education

programs and can act as leaders in the ACR

RCA has a wealth of information and hotline

responsibility to service residents

Various degrees of information and amount of detail

The City of St, Albert has many more program

improvements planned.

Some municipalities may feel detached based on their

distance from other centers and doesn’t feel that much

of the planning here will affect them.

ICI and C&D sectors have less educational efforts,

although materials are available (less diversion

options)

Harmonize education efforts across the CR to add to

effectiveness, delivery efficiency and cost savings

Determine common denominator across region (i.e.

urban/rural)

Consistent branding – colour, pictoral images etc. to

use across sectors. Partner with haulers.

Possible perceived lack of unique brand / identity

Online sites All have some information online about what materials

are accepted and where (but not all municipalities)

Minimal shared branding and messaging

Most information on recyclables provided by contractor

Some cases, difficult to find information

Review BP for P&E and branding

Highlight results, communicate effective messages Cost and resources and time

Innovative programs

"The Way We Green" forward thinking report is the

key document to drive the waste reduction efforts for

the City of Edmonton

The City of Edmonton provides tours through the

"Edmonton WM Centre of Excellence"



Table 5.3.3-1: Economic Waste Diversion Program Option Best Practices

Initiative Description Municipalities

Adopting Initiative

Success Examples

Disposal Surcharges – Dedicated Landfill Levy

Levy or surcharge placed on waste entering City landfills. This surcharge serves the dual purpose of creating a financial disincentive, while also providing a funding mechanism for diversion programming.

Ontario

Quebec

Manitoba

California

Ohio

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

As of July 1, 2009, all solid waste entering Manitoba landfills is subject to a $10 per tonne Waste Reduction and Recycling Support (WRARS) levy. The levy applies to all residential, industrial, commercial and institutional waste, C&D waste and other solid waste materials. All funds collected from the WRARS levy are deposited in the WRARS fund established under The Waste Reduction and Prevention Act and are used to pay program administration costs, incentive payments to municipal recycling programs, the delivery of provincial electronic waste and household hazardous waste (HHW) collection programs and other Green Manitoba Programs.

Differential Tipping Fees

Increased fees for loads containing specified/ designated materials.

Calgary, AB

Kootenay Regional District, BC

Metro Vancouver, BC

Grande Prairie, AB

Orillia, ON

Ottawa, ON

Grand Prairie, AB, implemented a double the tipping rate fee for loads containing cardboard. Resulted in 1500 tonnes of cardboard being diverted

from landfill from 2002-2011. Kootenay Boundary Regional District, BC implemented a “five times” penalty in 2006 for loads containing over 10% of a banned material. This was an increase of the “double penalty” implemented before 2006. The City of Calgary charges increased fees for loads containing materials on the Designated Materials list (concrete, brick and masonry block, asphalt, scrap metals, recyclable wood, and drywall). Mixed loads of corrugated cardboard are charged double the tipping rate in Ottawa, ON along with mixed loads of waste and compostable brush and yard waste being charged double the tipping fee.

Reduced Disposal Fees for Establishing Recycling/ Composting

ICI generators that recycle and/ or compost in accordance to specific requirements receive lower disposal fees.

Owen Sound, ON

Grand Prairie, TX

San Francisco, CA

Calgary, AB

The City of San Francisco directed its contracted waste hauler to institute the Commercial Recycling Discount, giving businesses a break of up to 75% on their trash bill for recycling and composting. Over 220,000 tonnes of organics have

been diverted in The City. The City of Calgary has a reduced disposal fee for clean and source-separated construction and demolition materials. These materials include recyclable wood, drywall, asphalt, scrap metals, brick and masonry block, and concrete. The fee for these loads is half the cost for loads containing Designated Materials.

Funding for Establishment of Recycling Programs

Grants, loans, and other financial assistance to help offset the costs associated with starting a recycling and/or organics program.

Portland, OR The City of Portland, OR provides matching grant funds (50-75%) to businesses in support of innovative strategies.



Table 5.3.3-2: Regulatory Waste Diversion Program Option Best Practices Initiative Description Municipalities Adopting

Initiative Success Examples

ICI Mandatory Recycling/Source Separation Requirements

Businesses must participate in recycling and/or must divert designated materials through a recycling program. Mandatory recycling or source separation places a regulatory requirement on business to participate in diversion programs as part of their daily operations. This requirement may take the form of physical diversion infrastructure, including separate collection containers, or proof of material diversion.

Owen Sound, ON

St. John’s NL

Ontario

Austin, TX

Cambridge, MA

Chicago, IL

Honolulu, HI

Portland, OR

Sacramento, CA

San Diego, CA

San Francisco, CA

Seattle, WA

Connecticut

Pennsylvania

In 2006, the City of Owen Sound implemented a bylaw requiring all ICI businesses in the City to implement recycling programs and divert designated materials identified by the bylaw. The City distributes recycling carts to the companies and provides extensive support materials on its website including an on-line audit form, an audit guide, sample recycling policy, and sample sign designs. In Ontario there is a regulation (O. Reg. 103/94) that requires the source separation of recyclable materials for ICI sectors and multi-unit residential buildings. This regulation is part of Ontario’s efforts to encourage businesses to reduce the amount of waste being disposed. In St. John’s, NL all employees are required to participate in a office paper recycling program. Since 2006, all businesses have been required to set up source separation in the office for all paper types. All ICI generators requiring a business license in Chicago, IL, must have a recycling program that involves the onsite source separation of at least three recyclable materials, or only two if the business also has also implemented two waste reduction programs. The City of San Francisco passed an ordinance requiring every property in the city to recycle and compost. In 2011, the state of Connecticut enacted PA-11-217 which requires commercial food wholesalers or distributors, industrial food manufacturers or processors, supermarkets, resorts, and conference centers that generate an average of at least 100 tons of source separated organic (SSO) materials a year to separate such materials from other solid waste and ensure that such materials are recycled at a permitted SSO material composting facility that is not more than 20 miles from such generators. Pennsylvania Act 101 requires all municipalities with more than 5,000 people to create commercial recycling regulations.



Franchise Waste System

Franchising the waste system would see The City administering ICI waste collection service contracts. This would give The City control over how this waste stream is managed, allowing for establishment of targets and diversion mechanisms.

Red Deer, AB

Elk Grove, CA

Santa Clare, CA

San Jose, CA

Santa Clarita, CA

San Diego, CA

San Diego, CA, uses their franchise agreement to require waste haulers to report waste quantities on an annual basis. Santa Clarita, CA requires franchised waste haulers to divert a minimum of 50% of the waste collected. San Jose CA, divided its city into areas and franchised each area for the collection of waste. Franchised waste haulers are required to meet diversion and performance goals.

Landfill Bans Landfill bans prohibit the disposal of certain material streams at City landfills. The standard enforcement mechanism is rejection of loads containing banned material.

Regional District of Nanaimo, BC

Nova Scotia

Metro Vancouver Regional District, BC

Capital Regional District, BC

Ottawa, ON

Metro Vancouver has an increased tipping fee on loads that arrive at the landfill with more than 5% of a banned material. Banned materials include: cardboard, recyclable paper, organics, glass containers, metal containers, and plastic containers. The Regional District of Nanaimo implemented bylaw 1428 imposes a ban on all food and organic waste from commercial sources including food services, food and beverage stores, hospitals, educational institutions with food services, nursing and residential homes, community food services, etc. The Region has worked with waste haulers to provide alternative collection for organics. Businesses are required to pay for collection and processing of the organic food waste as well as the bins. The food waste ban affects approximately 800 businesses and institutions. Nova Scotia banned compostable and divertible materials from its landfills in 1996 in accordance to its 2005 Solid Waste resource Management Strategy. The City of Ottawa, ON restricts cardboard and white goods from landfill.

Private Sector Requirement to Supply Recycling Services

Waste Haulers must also provide recycling services. The private sector can be required through bylaw to provide recycling services to complement disposal services they offer.

Boston, MA

Chicago, IL

Boston, MA requires all commercial waste haulers to provide recycling services to their customers within the city limits. The haulers are also required to report recycling data from their customers to The City. Failure to comply results in fines. Waste haulers in Chicago, IL must provide proof of their recycling programs in order to obtain a business license.



Mandatory Waste Audits and Waste Diversion Plans

To encourage consideration of waste diversion options, businesses can be required through regulation to complete waste audits or management plans that set out plans and targets for diverting waste materials.

Austin, TX

Portland, OR

Philadelphia, PA

Ontario

Under Ontario’s 3Rs Regulations (Regulation 102) “designated organizations are required to conduct a waste audit which must be updated annually”. Additionally, larger businesses must establish a “Waste Reduction Plan”, a “Source Separation Program” and manufacturers or packagers are required to have “Packaging Audits and Reduction Work Plans”. In Austin, TX, businesses with over 100 employees must complete a recycling plan, provided by The City, identifying what materials are going to be recycled. The City requires quarterly reports and the business must divert at least two materials. Portland, OR businesses must complete a recycling plan showing at least 50% diversion. The plan must be submitted to the servicing waste hauler and The City only upon request. In Philadelphia, PA all commercial businesses are required to:

Prepare and submit a Recycling Plan. Publicly post the Recycling Plan and distribute it to all employees and

tenants. Establish an education program that maintains effective communication

with facility occupants about recycling program expectations, changes, impacts, etc.

Arrange for collection by a hauler or recycling company that is properly licensed by the City of Philadelphia.

Participate in source separation of waste materials.

Packaging Ban at ICI Establishments

Bans imposed on specific materials or packaging .

Toronto, ON

Fort McMurray, AB

San Francisco, CA

Oakland, CA

The City of Oakland implemented a ban on polystyrene food service packaging. In 2010, Fort McMurray banned all single-use shopping bags (certain retailers exempt).



Mandatory Food Waste Diversion

Implementing by-laws that require the ICI sector to source separate food waste from the garbage stream for diversion.

Regional District of Nanaimo, BC

Portland, OR

San Francisco, CA

In order to support a private composting facility and make it mandatory to divert organics in the region, the Regional District of Nanaimo banned ICI organics from the landfill in 2005. On average, about 3500 tonnes of ICI organics is processed per year. San Francisco was the first large US city to implement a commercial organics source separated program. The City offers a variety of programs to divert food waste from the commercial sector including redistribution of food to food banks, recovering food processing waste by farmers as animal feed, collection of grease and meat for rendering, on-site composting pilots and food waste collection services provided by the City’s two franchised haulers.

Ban of Recyclables in the Garbage

Recyclables are banned from being placed in the garbage.

Seattle, WA Seattle, WA has banned recyclable materials from the garbage in the ICI sector. Enforcement occurs through random visual inspections of dumpsters.

Mandatory Recycling Targets

Implementation of by-laws that require source separation in order to divert designated materials from the waste stream to meet specific diversion targets.

Portland, OR

California

Portland, OR has required all ICI customers to divert at least 50% of their waste. Fines are used as enforcement. In 1989, California passes AB939, a law that required municipalities to divert 50 percent of waste from landfills by 2000 or pay $10,000 a day in fines.

Packaging Levy A levy is placed on specific materials and packaging in the ICI sector.

Toronto, ON

San Francisco, CA

Oakland, CA

Grocery retailers in Toronto reported a decline in the use of plastic grocery bags ranging from 55% to 70% in 2009 after The City of Toronto imposed a 5 cent levy on plastic bags. As part of San Francisco’s Food Service Waste Reduction Ordinance, food vendors are permitted to charge a “take out fee” to customers. This fee is used by vendors to cover the cost difference of the biodegradable/ compostable take-out container due to the Ordinance requiring all disposable food ware containers used in The City to be biodegradable/ compostable.



Table 5.3.3-3: Voluntary Waste Diversion Program Option Best Practices Initiative Description Municipalities Adopting

Initiative Success Examples

Waste Diversion Assistance

Technical and information assistance to companies that want to implement waste diversion programs. This can be helpful to businesses that may not have the technical knowledge or capacity to investigate diversion opportunities.

Seattle, WA

Portland, OR

Metro Vancouver, BC

Pittsburgh, PA

Middletown, CT

Launched in 2004, The SmartSteps sustainable business program works to promote eco-efficiency and sustainable work practices that take into consideration social, financial and environmental elements. Key elements of the program include: waste reduction and recycling, water conservation, energy efficiency, air quality control and sewer use discharge reduction. This program targets small and medium sized industrial, commercial and institutional businesses within Metro Vancouver and aims to provide ICI businesses with information, technical assistance and tools to help make the business case for sustainability. The City of Edmonton offers waste minimization and reduction assistance through personal meetings with businesses. The City also has provides school and community groups with tours and information sessions at the Edmonton Waste Management Centre. The City of Seattle has a large program which offers free technical assistance and training on composting for businesses. The City of Portland, OR encourages ICI sector members to divert organics through educational materials, technical assistance and staff training. The City also offers financial assistance to those participating in organics diversion to help offset collection and transportation costs.



Initiative Description Municipalities Adopting Initiative

Success Examples

Waste Diversion Promotion

Promote waste diversion in the commercial sector. Promotion and education can encourage waste diversion awareness and participation in the ICI sector. Options include recognizing businesses that show progressive initiatives in this area, and certification of businesses that achieve certain diversion standards.

Metro Vancouver, BC

Pittsburgh, PA

Ottawa, ON

Durham Region, ON

New York, NY

Alameda County, CA

Massachusetts

Boulder CO

Metro Vancouver has established a “Sustainability Purchasing Network” to help organizations develop sustainability purchasing practices. Alameda County, CA recognizes “Green Businesses” that have met certain recycling standards. Certified businesses receive decals and promotional materials to use for advertisement. The state of Massachusetts has a “Supermarket Recycling Certification Program” that exempts recognized members from extensive disposal inspections. Supermarkets can voluntarily become members by implementing a recycling program that meets program requirements. The City of Boulder, CO will rebate up to $250 per business for the purchase of additional recycling or compost collection items as a part of their Commercial Recycling Discount. Also, The City will provide a coupon for FREE collection during collection during the first three months of recycling service. The Durham School Board, along with the Halton Public and Catholic, Toronto Catholic, and York Region school boards participate in Ontario EcoSchools Waste-Free Lunch Challenge, which encourages students to bring waste-free or “boomerang” lunches which contain no throwaway packaging and produce no waste. The City has established 3 programs promoting waste diversion in New York City schools. TrashMasters! Super Recyclers showcases model school recycling programs. Winning schools receive $6,000 with smaller cash awards to runners up.

Food Redirection Excess food from restaurants and grocery distributors redirected to food bank/ shelters. Redirection of consumable food waste from grocers and restaurants to those in need through providers such as social agencies can provide a higher level use of these materials, while also filling a social need.

Edmonton, AB

Toronto, ON

The Edmonton Food Bank works collaboratively with churches and food depots (more than 200 agencies) throughout The City, serving about 15,000 people per month. In 2011, the Food Bank redistributed 3.1 million kilograms of food in 2011.



Initiative Description Municipalities Adopting Initiative

Success Examples

Recycling/Organics Collection

Municipality provides collection of recyclables or organics to local businesses. Builds on residential recycling program.

Seattle, WA

Jasper, AB

Toronto, ON

The City of Seattle has a private waste hauler contracted to provide organics collection for the ICI sector. The Town of Jasper has community collection sites with large wildlife-resistant bins for residents to take their recyclables, organics, and waste. The Town collects the materials from the community collection sites and hauls it to the transfer station. The City of Toronto offers a commercial Yellow Bag Program that has eligible commercial customers place their garbage in special yellow bags for pick-up. Organics and recycling collection is provided at no charge only to customers in the Yellow Bag program.

Zero Waste Special Events

Special events offer an opportunity for focussed waste diversion, as well as public education. To avoid the waste associated with these events, organizers can be required as part of their permit to include waste diversion opportunities, and meet certain targets. This can be first introduced on a voluntary basis, and can also be led by The City as part of its special events.

New York, NY

San Francisco, CA

Pittsburgh, PA

San Francisco Special Events Ordinance No. 73-89 requires any applicant seeking permission for the temporary use or occupancy of a public street, a street fair, or an athletic event within the city and county that includes the dispensing of beverages or which generates large amounts of other materials to submit a recycling plan. New York, NY requires all special events to have recycling. The City of Pittsburgh, PA has a “Zero Waste division” that provides assistance through a hotline and website to help businesses conduct zero waste events.

Working Group on Waste Diversion

An ICI working group could be formed with members of the ICI community to provide focussed discussions around common issues and challenges related to waste diversion in this sector.

Philadelphia, PA

Jefferson County, IN

The Philadelphia Commercial Recycling Council was founded in 1995 and is a group of 20 business leaders that meet regularly to discuss recycling and related environmental issues in the area. In Jefferson County, IN there is a group of representatives from the ICI sector that meet once a month to discuss waste reduction programs and their development.



Table 7.0-1: Long List of Vision and Strategic Policies

Hierarchy Program Strategy Comments When Assessment Element

Rethink Shift paradigm from garbage to wasted materials, or commodities

Introduce revised language to all communiques to cause residents to look at the materials being wasted within it.

This is a subtle change in how we message and redefine how we look at what was historically garbage. Changes in waste flows as it affects how we work and live (e.g. reduced paper from a push to a paperless society, less glass, higher plastic generation). As targets are instituted by material or product, the concept will be driven home

<5 years

N/A

Distribute community information feedback forms, and/or hold periodic public information meetings within communities.

To keep in touch with communities and be mindful of their direct needs; also, to have a stronger sense of a community’s feelings around waste management issues.

Where initiatives are about to be instituted or waste management issues are of a higher concern, regular public information meetings within communities could be instituted (e.g., two per year). This would provide the service demand feedback the ACR requires. This could be attached to other departmental initiatives.

>5 years

N/A

Continue ACR partnerships and relationships with individual municipalities to foster joint projects and ventures relating to solid wastes.

Maintain efforts to have complimentary services between jurisdictions to the benefit the public.

This effort will continue to build on the activities by the committee.

<5 years

4,7,12,16

Establish Working Group on Waste Diversion

ICI sector stakeholders that meet to discuss common issues and challenges related to waste diversion in this sector and identify potential solutions

Formation of a regional ICI sector working group could include municipal representatives, waste haulers and business associations.

<5 years

5,6,16

Material Disposal Bans

Lobby the Province and/or institute bans that prohibit the disposal of certain materials at regional landfills and transfer stations. Contaminated loads could have additional charges or be rejected.

Landfills and transfer stations in the region could reject loads containing the banned material if bans are put in place or have additional charges.

>5 years

10,15,17

Encourage ESRD to review waste management policies developed in 2004

Collaborate with Calgary Regional Partnership to present a unified position on changes to current policies.

Two regions represent over two-thirds of the population in the province and can make a real difference in how waste is managed in Alberta.

>5 years

N/A



Table 7.0-1: Long List of Vision and Strategic Policies

Hierarchy Program Strategy Comments When Assessment Element

Reduce Food Redirection

Program that redirects excess food from restaurants and/or grocery distributors to food bank/shelters filling a social need while diverting waste. These programs already exist through agencies such as the food bank, but could potentially be further encouraged and expanded.

Each municipality can adopt programs to encourage restaurants and grocery stores to redirect its excess food to food banks/shelters in the area.

>5 years

15


Table 7.0-2: Long List of Management Systems and Tools Policies and Programs

Hierarchy Program Strategy Comments When Assessment

Element

Rethink Periodic review of disposal, recycling and organics system capacity

To avoid capacity issues when instituting new diversion and disposal strategies to increase tonnage ensure system resiliency can handle change.

Regularize these reviews based on the maps and facility listing provided to think strategically about the each system as a whole when making select changes.

>5 years 13,15

Develop a set of internal checklists to ensure that staff have sufficiently identified and considered important aspects of the IWMP in reports and contracts.

To ensure the majority of indirect impacts are considered either anecdotally or quantitatively.

Considering social, economic, and environment aspects to a decision is as important to a decision as considering the short-term and long-term impacts.

<5 years 7,10

The ACR will develop an ICI Waste Reduction Strategy and Toolkit to educate, facilitate, and legislate waste reduction practices in the private sector

To provide a comprehensive, longer-range strategy to reduce waste from the ICI sector, and to provide ready-made materials to assist business in this regard. Consider Abbotsford Business Environmental Pledge programme (through BC Fraser Basin Council) based on Whatcom County model in Washington State which is avail for free.

The Institution, Commercial, and light Industrial sector is very complex, with each specific member having truly unique needs. For this reason alone, a comprehensive, specific strategy is suggested. Alberta website for C&D would be of assistance to business. Only proceed when sufficient ICI support is gained (possibly through Chambers of Commerce).

<5 years

5,6,11,15,16

Depot collection and transport system reviews for compatibility with neighbouring municipalities and adjacent jurisdictions.

To minimize per tonne costs to collect and transport solid waste, and to minimize GHG emissions.

There are various methods to collect and transport waste/recyclables to depots. Looking at regional systems, vessel types, vehicles, and transportation (along with neighbouring municipalities) may result in a more efficient system.

>5 years

11,16

Standardize development requirement with respect to solid waste management.

To harmonize environmental requirements for businesses operating within ACR member municipalities.

Edmonton’s efforts to reduce solid waste may be compromised if policies are not consistent with neighbouring communities, such as the ACR. To ensure that businesses do not select their location based on the possibility of avoiding higher environmental standards; this would help ensure there is no advantage to locate businesses elsewhere.

<5 years

7,11,19

Adopt a procurement policy and develop a Procurement Guide to encourage and require the purchasing of products and services that assist in the reduction of solid waste.

To show leadership to the community, and support the message being provided from the ACR municipalities to the public.

The City of Richmond, BC (along with many other municipalities in Western Canada) has developed a good example for this kind of initiative. By doing what is being recommended to the public, this encourages participation in waste reduction programs. This guide will require the involvement of other departments (especially Procurement) and could be expanded to promote other environmentally beneficial practices other than solid waste reduction.

>5 years

11,16

Develop a policy to result in documented procedures to incorporate specific clauses into competition specifications, agreements, building specifications, and the like so that the construction of all facilities through ACR municipality contracts have a high-level of emphasis on waste material diversion, recycling, and proper disposal.

To ensure waste management policy translates into contract language at the operational level.

For example, when conducting a tender for the construction of public infrastructure, having set contract language for the source separation of construction waste may ensure consistency with the IWMP.

>5 years

11,19

Regional Deposit Refund Program

A deposit program that would accompany some, if not all, C&D project permit applications in the region. A refund would be given upon completion of the project based on waste diversion performance.

Financial incentive that accompanies C&D projects to increase C&D waste diversion. In addition to diverting C&D waste, this program also helps increases ability to track C&D materials and increase C&D waste diversion within the region.

>5 years

5,6,10

C&D Waste System Study

An assessment of the C&D waste management system in the region to determine C&D waste quantities, waste composition, processing facilities, disposal facilities and management practices. Incorporates recording and monitoring C&D data in the region, and tracking progress of C&D waste diversion.

This is a necessary assessment that will help benchmark generation rates, diversion potential, new program requirements to which new data can be compared.

<5 years

5,6,11

All municipalities put into place a monthly data tracking system to continually record tonnes collected by material stream and by month

Identify person within each municipality and assign responsibility, record tonnage (either via weigh scale records or from invoices), trend, track, measure, monitor for seasonality, annual variation and growth

Identifies current generation rates, current recovery potential, seasonal fluctuations and areas for improvement

<5 years

3,7,9,11,13,20


Table 7.0-2: Long List of Management Systems and Tools Policies and Programs


Element

Reduce Develop a “tool kit” of strategies/ guidelines/ codes of practice to reduce and recycle construction and demolition waste going to landfill.

To develop a longer term, comprehensive strategy to manage this waste stream with a consistent set of rules or guidelines for Contractors.

Although willing, some contractors do not have the time, nor do they understand how to manage this waste for this purpose. The ACR can provide a service to this sector through the production of this educational information (which is readily available from other locations).

<5 years

5,6,11,19

Annual reporting on the progress of implementing the IWMP against targets set out to the ACR.

To provide a status report on the progress of solid waste management to the ACR and individual Councils and the public, but also to annually review the IWMP and its progress towards targets as a whole.

This report (to council and to residents) would contain a summary of the year’s achievements in waste management. Developing this publication will require methods to measure performance. A good example is the City of Hamilton’s annual reporting format.

<5 years

3,7,8,9

Mandatory Waste Audits and Waste Diversion Plans

Businesses are required, through regulation and/or bylaws, to develop and conduct waste audits and management plans much like in the Province of Ontario.

Businesses would need to conduct waste audits and prepare waste diversion plans and targets for diverting a certain percentage of waste materials.

>5 years

N/A

Recycle Waste Diversion Assistance Information and technical assistance that is provided to companies who are driven to implement waste diversion programs.

Information and assistance provided by the region and/or municipalities that supports businesses.

>5 years

ICI Mandatory Recycling/Source Separation Requirements

Businesses are required to participate in recycling and/or waste diversion initiatives. This requirement may take the form of physical diversion infrastructure, including separate collection containers, or proof of material diversion.

Regional requirement to implement separate collection containers, physical diversion infrastructure, or proof of material diversion.

>5 years

5,6

Private Waste Haulers that are required to Implement Recycling Programs

Mandatory requirement for the waste haulers to provide recycling services to ICI sector customers. Could be implemented as part of a licensing process.

Mandating the private sector through municipal/regional bylaws to provide recycling services to complement disposal services they offer.

>5 years N/A

Material Recovery Plan (MRP)

A MRP is a plan that outlines how waste from construction and demolition projects would be managed and diverted from disposal. These plans are typically prepared prior to initiating projects (new construction, demolition, and addition or alteration projects) that exceed a certain value. Most communities in California require MRP that would need to meet a minimum diversion targets. .

Helps contractors understand the types of materials that would be generated from C&D projects. Also increases awareness of C&D waste diversion options and processes. Promotes waste diversion on a regional level.

>5 years

5,6

Institute Best Practice and have separate RFPs for collection and processing; follow GAP for RFP preparations; follow GAP for contract development and management

Based on audit results and records management (and analysis), RFPs can be written with best possible household counts, tonnage expectations, reporting requirements, collection frequencies, acceptable materials, etc. Joint tendering results in greater economies of scale (i.e., lower costs), aligns / harmonizes programs across jurisdictions.

Institute in all municipalities (including EDM where in-house staff and private contractors allowed to bid); based on current contract terms, first step work to align end dates so that joint tendering process can be undertaken around the same time

<5 years

20

Residual The ACR will develop an Illegal Dumping and Burning Strategy and Toolkit to educate, facilitate, and legislate the reduction of the various forms of illegal dumping and refuse burning.

To develop a comprehensive strategy complete with ready-made templates to support staff initiatives to address this issue.

Managing change for what has been a regular past practice is difficult and often confrontational. With sensitivity, education, and promotion in mind, a comprehensive strategy could significantly improve the chances of success on this difficult. It is recommended that burning barrels be banned with a graduated increasing level of enforcement.

>5 years

N/A

Disposal Surcharges – Dedicated Landfill Levy

Levy or surcharge placed on waste entering the region’s landfills. This surcharge serves the dual purpose financial disincentive for disposal, while also providing a funding mechanism for waste diversion programming and enforcement measures.

Much like Metro Vancouver, there is a surcharge that is placed on waste entering the region’s disposal facilities and helps financially support waste diversion programs.

<5 years

11

Differential Tipping Fees Loads containing specified or designated materials that are divertible are subject to an increased tipping fee.

Development of a regional or municipal bylaw that identifies when differential tipping fees would be applied. The region would create a list of designated materials and charge increased tipping fees at the regional disposal facilities for loads containing those materials.

>5 years

11


Table 7.0-3: Long List of Operational Infrastructure and Services Policies and Programs


Element

Rethink Share Edmonton and ACR databases for future waste management initiatives as was composition and facility waste audits are completed.

To reduce effort duplication and work collaboratively with the ACR’s largest member community.

This would contribute to a much better understanding of the waste system dynamics as information becomes available.

>5 years N/A

Conduct periodic technology reviews. To encourage ACR municipal staff to be mindful of innovative alternatives to solid waste management to improve efficiency.

Reviewing literature regularly and comparing new equipment and technology to existing systems could become a policy, resulting in periodic reporting to ensure this practice occurs. Member municipal staff could present any new systems to other communities through the ARC

<5 years

14

Prepare solid waste facility licensing bylaw template to require new waste management related businesses best management practices.

To encourage best practices and ensure that compliance has been adopted in other jurisdictions. Information for new businesses, a bylaw and tool kit encouraging best practices, along with a mechanism to ensure compliance has been adopted in other jurisdictions.

The Greater Vancouver Regional District applies such a program. A coordinated response amongst neighbouring municipalities may be in order. The reason for such a bylaw is to avoid the negative impacts of improper storage and fire protection practices of MSW, resulting in impacts to neighbouring residential and commercial areas.

>5 years

19

Transfer haul analysis Undertake direct haul vs. transfer haul analysis to determine if the usage of transfer stations for recyclables, organics and/or waste is more cost effective/efficient

This could lead to partnerships between municipalities to reduce rates to residents by more efficient systems.

>5 years 16

Standardize collection and processing contracts Establish consistency in how waste is collected and processed across the region. Provides opportunities for municipalities to coordinate contracts.

Create consistency in collection and provide opportunities for cost savings through economies of scale.

<5 years 7,11

Reduce Develop a comprehensive strategy to implement expanded diversion opportunities at the Transfer Stations, complementing Provincial Programs and EPR programs by the industry.

To maximize the opportunity for residents to divert solid waste from disposal

Often, when a new opportunity arises from an industry or Provincial initiative, there are initial supporting funds available. To take advantage of these opportunities as efficiently as possible, a more specific, detailed strategy should be formulated. Include batteries and used oil.

>5 years

19,21

Prepare a feasibility study that considers a regional system of Free stores (possibly managed by established local volunteers and charity groups) to accommodate the reuse of “garage sale” type products.

To improve the economy of scale of diverting reusables,

Communities usually embrace these efforts as it helps to divert waste. But, this also provides opportunities for some residents to gain from another’s waste. It may be more worthwhile to partner with an adjacent municipality on this initiative. Some municipalities do charge a small fee for taking away items, usually to cover operating costs.

>5 years

N/A

Reuse Waste Exchange Program Online Waste Information System that encourages reuse by listing materials available that would otherwise be disposed of.

A regional or municipally supported system that can be operated as an online system where businesses can sell and trade commercial waste materials.

<5 years N/A

Recycle Construct an ACR Special Event Recycling Promotional Trailer. To encourage recycling at special events, while promoting waste diversion to the residential sector which could be shared upon demand by each member municipality.

In consultation with ACR member municipalities, design and construct a trailer with appropriate vessels to contain recyclable products generated at special events.

>5 years N/A

Increase recycling service while reducing garbage collection service.

Where applicable, increase recycling and organics collection to weekly and provide bi-weekly garbage collection

Can also collect organics weekly and collected garbage & recyclables bi-weekly and alternating – therefore each week only need two collection trucks or one truck if truck has a split load

<5 years N/A

Develop partnerships for on-going pilot projects for curbside collection of organics including yard waste and food scraps.

Develop community buy-in of organic collection through small pilot projects.

This small step approach will allow the ACR to adjust and deal with challenges on a small scale before expansion of a program to the greater area. This will also be cause for continuous growth in this key area to increase diversion.

<5 years

4,7,11,15,16

Recycling/Organics Collection Municipal program that provides collection of recyclables or organics to local businesses. Extension of residential waste diversion programs.

Includes local businesses in the recycling and organics collection already being done for residents in the many municipalities.

>5 years 15


Table 7.0-4: Long List of Promotion and Education Policies and Programs


Element

Rethink Complete a participation rate survey of programs, such as the use of depots and participation in various programs, including existing e-waste, hazardous waste, and tire collection.

To gauge whether or not the service is operating to the general satisfaction of users and whether there is sufficient awareness of the service.

Periodic surveys could be a measure of performance and inform staff of where education and promotional activities can be better focused.

<5 years 9

Provide Community Information and Feedback forms at existing facilities.

To gain simple, direct feedback from customers of the ACR member municipality waste management system, and to continually improve service at our waste management facilities.

These forms could be sent out periodically to communities providing updates, but also seeking feedback. This would provide the service demand feedback the ACR member municipalities require while continually reminding residents of system to build awareness.

<5 years

N/A

Zero Waste Special Events Special events that offer/highlight an opportunity for focused waste diversion, as well as public education.

Policies that encourage event organizers to meet certain waste diversion targets as a part of the event permit process.

>5 years N/A

Reduce Develop a Master Recycler/Composter program to identify and educate environmental leaders within ACR communities.

To have interested community leaders inform the community on recycling best practices.

Communities such as the cities of Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver have Master Composter programs which serve to educate members of the community on the “how- to's” of composting. Need to look at the differences in lifestyles for a rural versus a more urban community.

>5 years

15

Develop an information resource to educate residents on the “how-to’s” of grass-cycling.

To educate the public on how to use mulching mowers and composters to deal with grass clippings on-site without having too many detrimental effects on the lawn.

People may not be aware of the money they can save by keeping grass clippings on the lawn by mulching and/or composting. There are also climate-specific issues that require certain handling for residents to maintain the quality of their lawns.

<5 years

15

Reuse Waste Diversion Promotion and Recognition Program Waste diversion awareness and participation that highlights using promotion and education.

A “recognition program” that identifies businesses that implemented waste diversion programs, achieved certain diversion standards and tells how and why they did this.

<5 years 5,6

Recycle Include an approved C&D disposal and recycling facilities brochure in all ACR member municipality building and demolition permit packages.

To encourage better management of ACR C&D waste on-site. This will provide the means and reminder for diverting many of these reusable or recyclable materials.

<5 years 5,6

Identify businesses and solid waste management initiatives that could represent a forum or leadership in this sector to better implement ICI initiatives

Create relationships with representing bodies of the business sector.

Examples include the Chamber of Commerce and business district groups to work together on waste management issues.

<5 years 5,6

Work with municipal representatives and their respective Building Departments to identify a method to encourage the proper management of construction and demolition waste (proof of proper disposal prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit).

To provide a level playing field for contracts to encourage the proper management of ACR waste.

Building accountability for proper waste management practices (through the Building permitting stage) will immediately notify contractors of ACR member municipality requirements, allowing them to plan before construction.

>5 years

11,16



FIGURES

Figure A Solid Waste Management Facilities Locations

Figure B Recyclables Processing

Figure C Organics Processing

Figure D Waste Disposal

PROJECT NO.

DATEOFFICE

FILE NO.

PROJECTION

DWN

DATUM

facility_location_overview_130114.mxd

CKD REV

M:\E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L\C

225

\C22

5011

83

\Ma

ps\f

acili

ty_lo

catio

n_

overv

iew

_13

0114

.mxd

mo

difie

d1

/15

/20

13

by

ste

phe

n.w

inn

em

ulle

r

APVD

CLIENT

Figure 4

ISSUED FOR REVIEW

E d m o n t o n

Y e l l o w h e a d C o u n t y

C l e a r w a t e r C o u n t y

M . D . o f B i g L a k e s

W o o d l a n d s C o u n t y

C o u n t y 1 2 A t h a b a s c a

F l a g s t a f f C o u n t y

B e a v e r C o u n t y

P o n o k a C o u n t y

S m o k y L a k e C o u n t y

M . D . 9 2 W e s t l o c k

M . D . 7 7 B r a z e a u

C o u n t y 2 2 C a m r o s e

L a m o n t C o u n t y

P a r k l a n d C o u n t y

C o u n t y 2 5 L e d u c

C o u n t y 2 7 M i n b u r n

C o u n t y 1 0 W e t a s k i w i n

L a c S t e . A n n e C o u n t yC o u n t y 2 1 T w o H i l l s

S t u r g e o n C o u n t y

C o u n t y 1 1 B a r r h e a d

C o u n t y 7 T h o r h i l d

S t r a t h c o n a C o u n t y

I . D . 1 3

Leduc

St. Albert

Fort Saskatchewan

Stony Plain

Spruce Grove

Devon

Morinville

Beaumont

Redwater

Gibbons

Calmar

Legal

Bruderheim

Wabamun

Lamont

Thorsby

Warburg

Bon Accord

StandstoneCleanit-Greenit

Ever Green

EWMC

©

CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED

WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Solid Waste Management

Facility Locations

NAD8310TM

C22501183 SW

January 15, 2013EBA-RIV

LEGEND

Facility Type

Major Class 2 Landfill

Class 2 Landfill

Class 3 Landfill

Compost Facility

Leaf and Yard Waste

Material Recovery Facility

Anaerobic Digestion Facility

River/Lake

Expressway

Primary Highway

City/Town Limits

Municipal Districts

Alberta Capital Region

NOTES

Base data source:

10 0 105

Kilometres

MS 0

Scale: 1:800,000

STATUS

MR

Beaver Regional LandfillLeducRegional Landfill

RoseridgeRegional Landfill

Edmonton WestLandfill

Highway 43 EastRegional Landfill

Lamont CountyRegional Landfill

Growing PowerHairy Hill

Aspen Regional Landfill

laury.north

Text Box

A

PROJECT NO.

DATEOFFICE

FILE NO.

PROJECTION

DWN

DATUM

C22501183_Recyclables_130114.mxd

CKD REV

M:\E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L\C

225

\C22

5011

83

\Ma

ps\C

225

011

83_

Recycla

ble

s_

13

0114

.mxd

mo

difie

d1/1

5/2

013

by

ste

phe

n.w

inn

em

ulle

r

APVD

CLIENT

Figure 7

ISSUED FOR REVIEW

?? ? ?

??

?

?

??

?

?

?

?

E d m o n t o n










M . D . 9 2 W e s t l o c k

M . D . 7 7 B r a z e a u












I . D . 1 3

Leduc

St. Albert

Fort Saskatchewan

Stony Plain

Spruce Grove

Devon

Morinville

Beaumont

Redwater

Gibbons

Calmar

Legal

Bruderheim

Wabamun

Lamont

Thorsby

Warburg

Bon Accord

Standstone

Cleanit-Greenit

Ever Green

EWMC

©



Recyclables Processing

NAD8310TM

C22501183 SW


LEGEND

Facility Type


Class 2 Landfill

Class 3 Landfill

Compost Facility

Leaf and Yard Waste



River/Lake

Expressway

Primary Highway

City/Town Limits

Municipal Districts

Alberta Capital Region?

Recyclables Processing Flow

NOTES

Base data source:

10 0 105

Kilometres

MS 0

Scale: 1:800,000

STATUS

MR








laury.north

Text Box

B

PROJECT NO.

DATEOFFICE

FILE NO.

PROJECTION

DWN

DATUM

C22501183_Organics_Processing_130114.mxd

CKD REV

M:\E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L\C

225

\C22

5011

83

\Ma

ps\C

225

011

83_

Org

anic

s_

Pro

cessin

g_

13

0114

.mxd

mo

difie

d1/1

5/2

013

by

ste

phe

n.w

inn

em

ulle

r

APVD

CLIENT

Figure 6

ISSUED FOR REVIEW

?

?

?

?

?

?

E d m o n t o n










M . D . 9 2 W e s t l o c k

M . D . 7 7 B r a z e a u












I . D . 1 3

Leduc

St. Albert

Fort Saskatchewan

Stony Plain

Spruce Grove

Devon

Morinville

Beaumont

Redwater

Gibbons

Calmar

Legal

Bruderheim

Wabamun

Lamont

Thorsby

Warburg

Bon Accord

Standstone

Cleanit-Greenit

Ever Green

EWMC

©



Organics Processing

NAD8310TM

C22501183 SW


LEGEND

Facility Type


Class 2 Landfill

Class 3 Landfill

Compost Facility

Leaf and Yard Waste



River/Lake

Expressway

Primary Highway

City/Town Limits

Municipal Districts


Organics Processing Flow

NOTES

Base data source:

10 0 105

Kilometres

MS 0

Scale: 1:800,000

STATUS

MR








laury.north

Text Box

C

PROJECT NO.

DATEOFFICE

FILE NO.

PROJECTION

DWN

DATUM

C22501183_Waste_Disposal_130114.mxd

CKD REV

M:\E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L\C

225

\C22

5011

83

\Ma

ps\C

225

011

83_

Wa

ste

_D

isp

osa

l_1

3011

4.m

xd

mo

difie

d1

/15

/201

3b

yste

ph

en.w

inne

mu

ller

APVD

CLIENT

Figure 5

ISSUED FOR REVIEW

?

?

??

?

?

?

?

?

?

??

?

?

?

??

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

E d m o n t o n










M . D . 9 2 W e s t l o c k

M . D . 7 7 B r a z e a u












I . D . 1 3

Leduc

St. Albert

Fort Saskatchewan

Stony Plain

Spruce Grove

Devon

Morinville

Beaumont

Redwater

Gibbons

Calmar

Legal

Bruderheim

Wabamun

Lamont

Thorsby

Warburg

Bon Accord

StandstoneCleanit-Greenit

Ever Green

EWMC

Coronation

©



Waste Disposal

NAD8310TM

C22501183 SW


LEGEND

Facility Type


Class 2 Landfill

Class 3 Landfill

Compost Facility

Leaf and Yard Waste



River/Lake

Expressway

Primary Highway

City/Town Limits

Municipal Districts


Waste Disposal Flow

NOTES

Base data source:

10 0 105

Kilometres

MS 0

Scale: 1:800,000

STATUS

MR








laury.north

Text Box

D



APPENDIX A EBA’S GENERAL CONDITIONS

General Conditions - Geo-environmental Report.doc

GENERAL CONDITIONS

GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

This report incorporates and is subject to these “General Conditions”.

1.0 USE OF REPORT AND OWNERSHIP

This report pertains to a specific site, a specific development, and a

specific scope of work. It is not applicable to any other sites, nor

should it be relied upon for types of development other than those

to which it refers. Any variation from the site or proposed

development would necessitate a supplementary investigation and

assessment.

This report and the assessments and recommendations contained

in it are intended for the sole use of EBA’s client. EBA does not

accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the

analysis or the recommendations contained or referenced in the

report when the report is used or relied upon by any party other

than EBA’s Client unless otherwise authorized in writing by EBA.

Any unauthorized use of the report is at the sole risk of the user.

This report is subject to copyright and shall not be reproduced either

wholly or in part without the prior, written permission of EBA.

Additional copies of the report, if required, may be obtained upon

request.

2.0 ALTERNATE REPORT FORMAT

Where EBA submits both electronic file and hard copy versions of

reports, drawings and other project-related documents and

deliverables (collectively termed EBA’s instruments of professional

service), only the signed and/or sealed versions shall be considered

final and legally binding. The original signed and/or sealed version

archived by EBA shall be deemed to be the original for the Project.

Both electronic file and hard copy versions of EBA’s instruments of

professional service shall not, under any circumstances, no matter

who owns or uses them, be altered by any party except EBA. The

Client warrants that EBA’s instruments of professional service will

be used only and exactly as submitted by EBA.

Electronic files submitted by EBA have been prepared and

submitted using specific software and hardware systems. EBA

makes no representation about the compatibility of these files with

the Client’s current or future software and hardware systems.

3.0 NOTIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES

In certain instances, the discovery of hazardous substances or

conditions and materials may require that regulatory agencies and

other persons be informed and the client agrees that notification to

such bodies or persons as required may be done by EBA in its

reasonably exercised discretion.

4.0 INFORMATION PROVIDED TO EBA BY OTHERS

During the performance of the work and the preparation of the

report, EBA may rely on information provided by persons other than

the Client. While EBA endeavours to verify the accuracy of such

information when instructed to do so by the Client, EBA accepts no

responsibility for the accuracy or the reliability of such information

which may affect the report.



APPENDIX B MUNICIPAL SUMMARIES

APPENDIX B

EBA FILE: C22501183 | MARCH 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE

1

Appendix B - Municipal Summaries

1.0 MUNICIPAL SECTOR

The following sections include a discussion of each member municipality of the ACR that includes a brief

discussion on each community’s vision of the future and their waste management system.

1.1 City of Edmonton

The City of Edmonton manages the waste from single-family homes and from a number of multi-family

residential units and other sources. This accounts for approximately 45 to 50 percent of the total waste

stream generated in Edmonton. Waste is collected by city-owned vehicles and by private haulers under

contract. The City currently collects two waste streams – mixed waste and recyclables. The recyclable

stream consists primarily of clean paper, cardboard, plastics, glass jars and bottles, and metal containers.

All other waste materials are consolidated in a mixed waste stream. The City also operates three

Eco-Stations that accept household hazardous waste, E-wastes and large objects that cannot be collected at

the curb. Recyclables from single-family and duplex units are gathered through a blue-bag program while

recyclables from multi-family units and commercial customers are gathered through a blue-bin system.

The waste managed by the City is processed at the Edmonton Waste Management Centre (EWMC) located

on the east side of the city, on Meridian Street. The primary elements of the EWMC are the material

recovery facility (MRF)for recyclables, the integrated processing and transfer facility (IPTF), a co-compost

facility and a refuse-derived fuel (RDF) plant. Material collected through the blue-bag/bin program are

taken directly to the MRF for sorting and consolidation for further processing and marketing. The IPTF is

the induction point for all material collected in the general waste stream. Wastes are sorted for a variety of

destinations. Food wastes and other biodegradable materials are sent to the composter. Clean recyclables

are diverted to the MRF and processed with material from the blue-bag/cart program. Non-recyclable and

non-compostable wastes are directed to the RDF plant to produce feedstock for the bio-fuel plant currently

under construction. Any waste that cannot be processed through the three main systems is consolidated

and shipped to the Beaver Regional Landfill at Ryley, Alberta.

The City also operates a plant for processing construction and demolition (C&D) waste. This plant

processes clean wood and drywall, metals, trees and shrubs, concrete and asphalt shingles. These

materials are processed into materials for a variety of other uses.

1.2 City of St. Albert

The City of St. Albert is responsible for the collection and disposal of wastes from single-family units and

approximately one-third of the St. Albert’s multi-family units. The City, however, is looking at reducing it’s

collection from multi-family units.

The City has an automated two-cart system with a brown cart for mixed or general household garbage and

a green cart for organics as well as a blue bag system for clean recyclables. Waste collection is funded

through a “Pay-As You-Throw” (PAYT) system. Three sizes of brown carts (60, 120 and 240 L) and two

sizes of green carts (120 and 240 L) are available. Residents can choose the size of carts they wish to use

and their monthly billing for waste services reflects the size of carts used – the smaller the carts, the lower

the fees. The City has also retained its previous “tag-a-bag” system for wastes in excess of what will fit in

APPENDIX B


2


the brown cart. Black or green bags of waste with properly affixed yellow tags can be dropped off at the

City’s recycling depot.

Residents can use the green cart for a broad range of food wastes, soiled paper (i.e., pizza boxes), floor

sweepings, cooking grease, and yard waste. The use of bags in the green carts is optional, but any bags

used must be compostable. Otherwise, residents are encouraged to layer wastes in the carts and line them

with paper of cardboard. In addition to its curb-side programs, the City also has a Recycling Depot and a

Compost Depot both of which are manned during . The former has facilities for the typical recyclable

materials as well as household hazardous wastes and some electronics material. The latter accepts yard

wastes and larger items such as tree branches and stumps. Twice a year the City provides from this site to

residents free of charge.

The City has contracted with Standstone EnviroWaste Services Ltd. (Standstone) in Spruce Grove, Alberta

to collect the brown and green carts and deliver those materials to the Roseridge Regional Landfill located

near Morinville, Alberta. Recyclables collection has been contracted to Ever Green Ecological Services

(Ever Green) in Sherwood Park, Alberta.

1.3 Strathcona County

Strathcona County is unique in that it includes Sherwood Park, the largest hamlet in Alberta with a

population over 64,700. The County has a two-cart waste collection system and a “blue bag” program for

recyclables. Waste management is funded by monthly utility fees that vary from $20.50 to $22.95 per

month depending upon location. Waste collection is available to all County residents, but it is by

subscription only in rural areas. The County has contracted out waste collection and material processing.

Ever Green has a contract until 2014 for waste collection and for processing recyclables. Until recently, the

County’s organics were composted by Cleanit Greenit; however, the County is currently seeking a new

provider for this service. Other waste (black carts) is hauled by Ever Green to Roseridge Regional Landfill

for disposal.

A black cart is provided for mixed or general wastes and a green cart is used for organics. The organics

program targets food waste and yard waste such as grass clipping. Residents are also provided with a

smaller “green catcher” cart for collecting food wastes in the kitchen. The blue bag program is aimed at

clean, dry recyclables such as paper products, plastics, metal (steel, aluminum) and styrofoam. All other

materials not suitable for inclusion in the organics or recyclables programs is collected in the black carts.

Recyclables are collected weekly while the black and green carts are collected on alternate weeks.

1.4 City of Fort Saskatchewan

The City of Fort Saskatchewan provides co-mingled waste collection and a curb-side blue-bag program for

the standard recyclable – paper, glass, plastics, metal and cardboard. Co-mingled wastes and curb-side

recyclables are manually picked up weekly. The co-mingled waste is taken to the City’s waste transfer

station for consolidation and transport by BFI Canada to its landfill near Coronation, Alberta. The City also

operates a Recycling Depot, which accepts the same materials as the blue bag program, and a Composting

Centre for yard waste. Residential waste services are funded through a $14.07 per month utility charge for

single and multi-family units.

APPENDIX B


3


Unique to Fort Saskatchewan’s waste management system is that the City also controls waste collection

from commercial and industrial waste generators. The City’s solid waste bylaw gives it sole authority to

determine who may collect wastes within the City. At present, residential collection is currently contracted

to BFI Canada until the fall of 2013. The City also has a franchise agreement with Tri-Line Waste Disposal

Inc. for commercial waste collection.

Fort Saskatchewan may review it’s waste management activities in 2013/14. One option that may be

considered is a change to bi-weekly automated collection.

1.5 City of Spruce Grove

The City of Spruce Grove operates a two cart system in conjunction with a blue bag program for recycles.

Each household is provided with a black 240 L cart for garbage or mixed waste and a green 240 L cart for

organics. Organics are collected weekly during a seven-month period from April to November. Curb-side

recyclables in the blue bag program are picked up bi-weekly. Mixed wastes are collected weekly on a year-

round basis. The carts are collected using automated equipment, but the recyclables are collected

manually. Residents are only allowed to put out one black cart full of garbage each week. However, unlike

most other municipalities using an automated green cart system for organics, Spruce Grove residents can

also put out additional bags of organics which will also be picked up as part of the organics collection.

The materials collected through Spruce Grove’s organics and blue bag programs are similar to those

collected by other municipalities with similar source separation programs. The City also has an Eco Centre

that accepts the same items as the curb-side programs as well as household hazardous wastes, electronic

waste, tires and scrap metal (including white goods and propane tanks). Fees are charged at the Eco Centre

for some items.

At present all three waste streams are collected by Standstone under separate contracts. Standstone

processes the recyclables while the organics are sent to Cleanit Greenit Composting System Inc.

1.6 Town of Stony Plain

The Town of Stony Plain has a three-container system for residential waste management. It consists of a

240 L black cart for garbage, a 240 L green cart for organics (Organicart) and blue bags for recyclables.

Cart collection is automated and blue bag collection is done manually. All residential waste is collected

under contract by Ever Green. Garbage and recyclables are collected bi-weekly as is organics during the

colder months. Organics collection is weekly from April to October. Ever Green processes the recyclables

at its own facility and delivers the organics to Cleanit Greenit or to an anaerobic digester at Vegreville,

Alberta.

Stony Plain’s list of acceptable recyclable materials is similar to other municipalities except glass is

excluded unless it is a refundable beverage container. Soiled paper such as pizza boxes is included in the

list of acceptable materials for the organics program. The volume of garbage that can be put out weekly is

limited to what can be placed in the black cart and still have the lid closed. There is not restriction on

organics or recyclables. Residents are encouraged to place additional yard waste in compostable bags

adjacent to the green cart. The use of bags is not mandated except that if bags are used for organics, they

must be certified as compostable.

APPENDIX B


4


Waste management services are funded through a monthly utility charge based on the type of unit. There

are different rates for Single Family Dwellings (including townhomes and units up to four-plex size),

Apartment Houses (units over four-plex size), and Senior Citizens Apartment Houses.

The Town also operates the Rotary Recycling Centre. It has facilities for all materials collected through the

curb-side programs as well as electronic waste and paint. (Residents are directed to take household

hazardous wastes to the local Parkland County transfer station.)

1.7 Parkland County

Parkland County operates six waste transfer stations and three recycling centres that provide waste

management services to County residents. The only community with curb-side collection is the Hamlet of

Entwistle which was village until January 1, 2001. A combined waste transfer station and recycling centre

is located immediately west of Stony Plain and the other five waste transfer stations are located in the

western two-thirds of the County. Two recycling centres are also located in the western part of the County.

The waste transfer stations have weigh scales, are manned and offer a broad range of services to residents.

In addition to the typical materials, most transfer stations are equipped to accept, paint, motor oil and

containers, household hazardous waste, electronic wastes, batteries, appliances, propane tanks, tires, small

furniture, construction, demolition and renovation wastes, and commercial waste.

Parkland has a blue bag drop-off program for recyclables. Materials accepted include plastics (including

bags), clean mixed paper and cardboard, metal cans, and glass jars. Blue bags can be dropped off at the

recycling centres. Mixed paper products can also be dropped off at the Seba Beach, KeepHills and Moon

Lake waste transfer stations. According to information from the County, the blue bag program diverted

approximately 1,200 tonnes of material from landfill disposal in 2011.

Waste management services are partially funded by user fees. County residents with access cards can

deposit most wastes at transfer stations free of charge. There are some exceptions such as an surcharge for

fridges and freezers containing food waste. Non-residents can use facilities for a fee. There are also fees

for construction and accepted commercial wastes.

According to the Integrated Waste Management Plan prepared for Parkland County by Stantec1 in 2010,

waste collected at the transfer stations is transported to a number of facilities including the Beaver

Regional Landfill at Ryley, Alberta (45%), Aspen Regional Landfill (23%) at Drayton Valley, Alberta,

Highway 43 East Regional Landfill (23%) near Ross Haven, Alberta and Waste Management of Canada’s

170 Street Landfill (9%) in Edmonton, Alberta. A key recommendation in the Plan endorsed by the County

was to pursue the identification of a suitable landfill site in the County for potential development in the

future.

1.8 Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Authority

The Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Authority (the Authority) operates waste management

facilities at its site east of the City of Leduc for the benefit of its member municipalities. The Authority

1 Stantec Consulting Ltd. Integrated Waste Management Plan – Parkland County, February 2010.

APPENDIX B


5


members are the Town of Beaumont, Town of Calmar, Town of Devon, City of Leduc and Leduc County. It

also receives waste from the Village of Thorsby. In addition to residential waste, it manages some wastes

generated by the ICI sector in Leduc County including the Edmonton International Airport. Facilities

include a landfill complex, a MRF, and yard waste composting. Most recently, the Authority constructed a

tipping floor to support the diversion of organics from the facility.

The landfill complex includes the East Landfill dedicated to mixed municipal/residential waste and the

West Landfill dedicated to non-biodegradable waste from the ICI sector including some impacted soils. The

MRF is a drop-off point for recyclables and household hazardous waste.

The City of Leduc provides management services for the regional waste management facility, and facility

operation is contracted to MCL Waste Services.

1.8.1 City of Leduc

The City of Leduc recently introduced a three-container curb-side waste management program for single-

family residential units. It consists of a 240-L black cart for garbage or mixed waste, a 240-L green cart for

organics, and blue bags for recyclables. The waste and organics carts are emptied using automated

collection equipment while blue bags are collected manually. Residents are limited in the amount of

garbage and organics that can be placed at the curb; however, an extra black cart can be obtained for up to

six months for an additional $10.00 per month. The standard charge for waste management services is

$21.50 per month. Residents also have the option of taking material directly to the regional landfill.

The organics program is aimed at diverting food waste, yard waste (including small, trimmed branches),

soiled paper (pizza boxes, paper towels, etc.) and other natural, biodegradable materials. Bagging organics

is not encouraged, but if residents use bags, the bags must be certified as compostable. The blue bag

program focuses on clean paper, cardboard, plastics with “recycling” logo, metal containers (steel and

aluminum) and non-glass beverage containers. Any material that doesn’t fit in the two previous categories

goes in the black garbage cart.

Blue bag material is picked up weekly as are organics between April and November. Green cart material is

collected bi-weekly between November and April, and black cart material is collected bi-weekly year-

round. Organics and garbage are taken to the landfill by Ever Green for further processing or disposal.

Recyclables are taken to Ever Green’s MRF in Sherwood Park for processing and marketing.

1.8.2 Leduc County

Leduc County operates nine waste transfer stations at various locations across the County. The transfer

stations accept residential waste, blue bag recyclables and compostable yard waste (May to October). The

transfer stations at Sunnybrook and New Sarepta also accept used oil and filters, batteries, paint, white

goods and other metals, clean wood, tires, C&D waste, furniture and electronic waste. Residents also have

to option of taking material directly to the regional landfill at Leduc. The County’s blue bag recycling

program accepts plastics, glass jars and bottles, metal cans, and paper and cardboard.

All transfer stations are manned during hours of operations. Residents require an access card to use these

facilities as well as the landfill. Non-residents can use the landfill, but payment is required based on weight

and type of material. Material is collected from the transfer stations by MCL Waste Services.

APPENDIX B


6


The only area with door-to-door or curbside collection is Pigeon Lake. The County is considering changing

funding for this service from property taxes to a utility fee. If public acceptance is low, the County may end

the service completely.

1.8.3 Town of Beaumont

The Town of Beaumont has a three container system for residential wastes. Two 240 L carts are provided

to each single family dwelling, a grey one for garbage or co-mingled waste and a green one for organics.

The Town uses blue bags for the collection of recyclables. Residences are also provided with a “kitchen

catcher” for storing food wastes prior to transferring to the green cart. Wastes are collected weekly by

Ever Green using automated equipment. Garbage are hauled to the regional landfill for disposal while the

organics are taken to the anaerobic digester at Vegreville.

Beaumont’s organics program includes food wastes, soiled paper (i.e., pizza boxes, paper towel, etc.) and

yard and garden waste that will fit in the green cart with the lid closed. Large items such as tree branches

and stumps should be taken directly to the regional landfill. However, the Town does have two clean-up

events (spring and fall) for the collection of a variety of items that do not fit within the existing curb-side

programs.

Beaumont’s blue bag program includes the usual recyclables (paper, cardboard, plastics and metal

containers) but no glass or styrofoam. The recyclables collected by Ever Green are taken to their facility for

processing and marketing.

1.8.4 Town of Devon

The Town of Devon provides curb-side programs for three residential waste streams – 240-L carts are used

for mixed waste or garbage, blue bags for recyclables and brown bags for compostable yard waste. All

materials are collected by Ever Green under contract until the end of 2014. Each residence is allowed to

put out one cart of garbage and an unlimited number of blue and brown bags. All material streams are

collected weekly. Brown bag collection occurs from May to October. Wastes are hauled to the regional

landfill near Leduc.

Devon is considering implementing a curb-side organics program in 2013. The Town is currently

considering the type and size of container to use and how to implement the program.

Accepted blue bag material includes clean , paper, cardboard, plastics, metal containers and beverage

containers. Larger objects such as flattened cardboard boxes can also be placed under blue bags for

collection. Brown bags, which are constructed from heavy craft paper, are intended for grass clippings and

other yard wastes. Any material that doesn’t fit the previous two categories is placed in the cart. Only one

cart is provided for each residence and the lid must be closed for pick-up.

In addition to the curb-side programs, the Town also operates a recycling depot. Any material that can be

pick up curb-side can also be dropped off at the depot. Blue and brown bag material is accepted free of

charge, but there is a fee for garbage or mixed waste. The fee depends on the volume of waste. The depot

also accepts paint, tires, batteries, automotive products (antifreeze, used oil), propane tanks, fluorescent

tubes, printer cartridges, sports equipment (including bicycles), white goods, and tree branches. Fees are

charged for some items such as vehicle batteries, white goods and bulky objects. Funding for the recycling

APPENDIX B


7


depot is cost-shared with Parkland County since a 2011 survey showed that about 32% of its users came

from Parkland County.

Some small businesses in Devon use the recycle depot to dispose of materials such as tires and used oil.

Some also have opted to use blue bins for recyclable materials. Schools in Devon participate in a blue bag

program with material being collected by Ever Green. Wastes from the ICI sector in Devon are collected

under contracts by private waste haulers such as Ever Green, BFI and Waste Management of Canada. As for

C&D waste, clean drywall is accepted at the recycle depot and the Town has made provisions at its snow

storage yard to accept concrete and asphalt rubble.

1.8.5 Town of Calmar

The Town of Calmar manages two waste streams for residential customers – mixed waste and recyclables.

Until recently Calmar residents used bags or bins for their mixed waste. In November 2012, the Town

changed to an automated collection system using 240 L carts for mixed waste. Waste management services

are funded through utility fees. The total cost is $55.00 bi-monthly.

Recyclables are collected using standard blue bags. The volume of waste residents can place at the curb

was limited to four bags or two bins. The limit now is one full cart (with the lid closed). There is no limit to

the number of blue bags that can be used. Accepted recyclables include clean paper, cardboard, metal cans,

glass, and coloured plastics. The Town also collects grass clippings from May to October. Grass must be in

clear bags to be picked up.

In addition to curb-side programs, the Town also has a drop-off at the Town Office for printer cartridges

and rechargeable batteries. Calmar has a spring and fall clean-up which allows residents to dispose up to

one tonne each of large objects such as furniture and tree branches. The Town does not accept material

such as concrete, appliances, propane bottles, paint, tires, automotive products and chemicals. There is

also an e-waste collection day following the spring clean-up.

Waste collection is done by Ever Green under contract to the Town. Waste is hauled to the regional landfill

near Leduc while Ever Green processes recyclables at its MRF in Sherwood Park.

1.8.6 Village of Thorsby

The Village of Thorsby manages two waste streams – mixed waste and recyclables. The Village is currently

rolling out a new automated waste collection system using carts for mixed waste. The Village also collects

recyclables.

Collection has been contracted to Ever Green. Mixed waste is collected weekly and recyclables are

collected bi-weekly. Mixed waste is disposed of at the regional landfill near Leduc.

1.9 Roseridge Regional Waste Services Commission

The Roseridge Regional Waste Services Commission was established in 2001 to provide waste

management services for its member municipalities – the Town of Bon Accord, Town of Gibbons, town of

Legal, Town of Morinville, Town of Redwater and Sturgeon County. The Commission’s waste management

services include a Class II landfill, a compost pad, household recycling compound, storage areas for scrap

APPENDIX B


8


metal and white goods, tires, and used oil and filters. Roseridge has a card system for residents in member

municipalities.

In 2012, the Commission constructed a new compost pad and extended composting operations to include

food waste. The primary user of this service to date is the City of St. Albert.

Sturgeon County provides administrative and management services to the Commission and facility

operation are contracted out to MCL Waste Services Ltd.

1.9.1 Sturgeon County

Sturgeon County is the largest member of the Roseridge Regional Waste Services Commission. A significant

portion of the County’s residents live in 11 hamlets and 74 rural subdivisions. Other than its role as a

member of the Roseridge Regional Waste Services Commission, the only other waste management service

provided by the County is the operation of the waste transfer station at Redwater. Residents in the hamlets

and rural subdivisions are responsible for hiring their own waste management service provider.

1.9.2 Town of Bon Accord

The Town of Bon Accord uses a three-container system for curb-side collection of waste materials. A black

cart is provided for mixed waste, a green cart, for organics, and recyclables are collected in blue bags. Cart

pick-up is automated while blue bags are collected manually. Standstone has the contract for waste

collection in Bon Accord. Waste and organic carts are picked up weekly and blue bags are collected bi-

weekly.

Residents are limited to placing one cart of mixed waste and one cart of organics at the curb. Any

additional material can be taken directly to the Roseridge regional landfill if the resident has an access card

obtained from the Town. An unlimited number of blue bags can be used provided they don’t interfere with

cart collection.

Bon Accord’s organics program is limited to yard waste and grass clippings. Food waste is not permitted in

the carts. The use of bags, compostable or otherwise, is not permitted. Acceptable recyclables include

clean paper, cardboard, glass jars without lids, metal cans without labels, and recyclable plastics.

1.9.3 Town of Gibbons

The Town of Gibbons manages two curb-side waste streams – mixed waste and recyclables. Each residence

is provided with a 360 L cart for mixed waste. All waste must be placed in the cart. Any waste placed

outside the cart is not collected. Residents needing to dispose of additional waste can obtain an access pass

from the Town Office and take material directly to the Roseridge regional landfill, near Morinville. The

recyclables program uses blue bags. Accepted material includes clean paper, cardboard, glass jars and

bottles, steel and aluminum cans and containers, and plastics (except styrofoam). An unlimited number of

blue bags can be placed at the curb.

Waste carts are emptied using automated equipment while recyclable are picked up manually. Waste

collection is provided by Standstone under contract to the Town.

APPENDIX B


9


1.9.4 Town of Legal

The Town of Legal manages two waste streams – mixed waste (or garbage) and recyclables. Mixed waste is

collected manually every week on Thursday or Friday depending on location. Recyclables are collected

weekly by Ever Green. Accepted recyclables are clean paper, cardboard, “rigid” plastics, and metal cans.

Glass, styrofoam, plastic bags and plastic wrap are not accepted. Residents also can purchase a tag annually

for access to the Roseridge regional landfill.

Waste management costs are covered by utility fees - $31 bi-monthly for waste collection and $7 bi-

monthly for recyclables.

1.9.5 Town of Morinville

The Town of Morinville has a three-container waste management system that employs carts for mixed

waste and yard wastes and blue bags for recyclable materials. Cart collection is automated while blue bag

collection is done manually. All materials are collected by Standstone under contract to the Town. Mixed

waste and yard waste are hauled to the Roseridge regional landfill. Mixed waste and recyclables are

collected weekly, and yard waste is collected bi-weekly from late-April until early-November.

Residents are limited to one cart for mixed waste unless they choose to pay for an additional cart. Yard

waste includes grass clippings, leaves, small branches and garden wastes (plants and weeds). Produce

(fruit and vegetables), root balls, soil, rocks and food wastes are not permitted in the yard waste cart.

Recyclable materials include clean paper, cardboard, metal cans, “recyclable” plastics, and clear glass jars

without lids. Residents may place out an unlimited number of blue bags for recycling.

Residents also may take material, particularly large objects, directly to the Roseridge regional landfill.

Morinville residents are billed through the Town for material taken directly to the landfill.

1.9.6 Town of Redwater

The Town of Redwater has a three-container waste management system that uses carts for mixed waste

and organics and blue bags for recyclables. Mixed waste and organics are collected weekly while

recyclables are collected biweekly. Standstone has the contract for mixed waste and organics, and Ever

Green has the contract for recyclables. The mixed waste stream includes those materials that cannot be

placed in either of the other material streams. Permissible material in the organics cart include yard and

garden waste, short tree branches, food wastes such as fruit, vegetables, egg shells and coffee grounds, and

soiled paper and cardboard. Meat, dairy products, and cooking oils and grease are not permitted. No

plastics bags, compostable or otherwise are allowed in the organics cart. Recyclables include paper,

plastics, clear glass jars, and aluminum and steel cans. Returnable beverage containers are accepted

regardless of their composition.

The Town also operates a waste transfer station in conjunction with Sturgeon County. Materials that

cannot be collected at curb-side can be taken to the transfer station or directly to the Roseridge regional

landfill. Residents require cards to be able to access either facility.

Redwater’s waste management program is funded by utility fees charged for waste/organics and

recyclables collection.

APPENDIX B


10


1.10 Lamont County Regional Solid Waste Commission

Lamont County together with the towns of Lamont, Bruderheim and Mundare, and the villages of Andrew

and Chipman in Lamont County are members of the Lamont County Regional Solid Waste Commission

(LCRSWC) which was created under the Municipal Government Act to manage waste disposal activities for

the member municipalities. The LCRSWC operates a small (less than 10,000 tonnes per year) Class II

landfill near the Hamlet of St. Michael. Only the County and the towns of Lamont and Bruderheim are

considered part of the Capital Region.

1.10.1 Lamont County

As a predominantly rural municipality, Lamont County does not provide waste collection or recycling

programs for its residents. As mentioned in Section 2.0, Lamont County has a population density of only

1.6 persons /km2. Aside from the hamlets administered by the County, there is only one area zoned for

“Country Residential” and that is about 130 ha located east of Elk Island National Park. Providing any sort

of a “curb-side” collection would be cost prohibitive for a municipality whose residents are not interested

in paying for such service. The County, however, has not ruled out participating in regional waste

management activities in the future although it would probably be done under the banner of regional solid

waste commission.

1.10.2 Town of Bruderheim

The Town of Bruderheim provides curb-side waste management services for its residents. It has an

automated collection program for mixed waste and a “blue bag” cart program for recyclables. Collection of

both material streams is contracted out to Standstone. Standstone also collects commercial wastes in

Bruderheim. Residential material is picked up every Tuesday and commercial waste is collected every

Wednesday. Bruderheim also has a compost drop-off site for yard and garden waste.

As with other automated collection systems, only waste in the cart is collected. Residents are encouraged

to take larger objects or additional waste directly to the regional landfill. Residents can place additional

recyclable material next to the recycling cart but it must be bagged or secured in some manner to prevent

littering.

APPENDIX B


11


1.1%

69.9%

1.6%

2.1%

2.3%

5.3%

0.3%

1.2%

2.6%

8.0%

1.7%

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

0.6%

0.3%

0.2%

0.1%

0.7%

0.2% 1.3%

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

Figure B1: Detailed Breakdown of Population Distribution - Alberta Capital Region

(Source: Statistics Canada, 2011 Census

Town of Beaumont

City of Edmonton


City of Leduc


City of St. Albert

Lamont County

Leduc County

Parkland County

Strathcona County

Sturgeon County

Town of Bon Accord

Town of Bruderheim

Town of Calmar

Town of Devon

Town of Gibbons

Town of Lamont

Town of Legal

Town of Morinville

Town of Redwater

Town of Stony Plain

Village of Thorsby

Village of Wabamun

Village of Warburg



APPENDIX C DETAILED SUMMARIES OF MUNICIPAL WASTE QUANTITIES


Appendix C-1: Detailed Summary of Materials

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Materials 2011


Total # of

Households

Serviced

Waste

Collection

Frequency

Curbside

Collection

Technique

Waste

Collection

Contractor

Town of Beaumont 13,287 4,369 Weekly Automated Ever Green

City of Edmonton 812,201 341,000 Weekly Manual City

City of Fort Saskatchewan 19,051 8,398Weekly - 7 day

cycleAutomated BFI

City of Leduc 24,279 9,290 Biweekly Automated Ever Green

City of Spruce Grove 26,171 9,619 Weekly Automated Sandstone

City of St. Albert 61,466 19,052 Biweekly Automated Standstone

Lamont County 3,872 1,581 Weekly N/A Sandstone

Leduc County 13,541 6,333 Weekly Ever Green

Parkland County 30,568 10,931 None Depot None

Strathcona County 92,490 32,579 Biweekly Automated Ever Green

Sturgeon County 19,578 6,546 None N/A

Town of Bon Accord 1,488 541 Weekly Automated Sandstone

Town of Bruderheim 1,155 489 Weekly Automated Sandstone

Town of Calmar 1,970 735 Weekly Automated Ever Green

Town of Devon 6,510 2,112 Weekly Automated Ever Green

Town of Gibbons 3,030 1,075 Weekly Automated Standstone

Town of Lamont 1,753 645 Weekly Manual Town

Town of Legal 1,225 440 Weekly Manual Town

Town of Morinville 8,569 2,829 Weekly Automated Sandstone

Town of Redwater 1,915 776 Weekly Automated Sandstone

Town of Stony Plain 15,051 4,417 Biweekly Automated Ever Green

Village of Thorsby 797 334 Weekly Automated Ever Green

Village of Wabamun 789 265 Weekly Automated Ever Green

Village of Warburg 662 308 Weekly Manual Ever Green

1,161,418 464,664

Recycling Materials 2011


Total # of

Households

Serviced

Program

Style (cart,

bag, box)

Curbside

Collection

Technique

ContractorCorrugated

CardboardBoxboard

Gable / Tetra /

Aseptic

Aluminum

Cans, Foil,

etc

Steel / Tin

Cans

Empty

Aerosol Cans

Empty Paint

Cans

PET

Containers

(#1)

HDPE

Containers

(#2)

Other Bottles

& Containers

(#3, #5, #7)

LDPE/HDPE

film (#2, #4)

Tubs & Lids (#2,

#4, & #5)

Polystyrene

Foam(#6)

Polystyrene

Crystal(#6)Glass

Shredded

Paper

Single Family

Dwellings

Multi-Family

Dwellings

Town of Beaumont 13,287 4,369 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Weekly ?

City of Edmonton 812,201 341,000 Blue Bag Manual City & Contractor? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ??? Yes Yes Yes, but no #3 Yes Yes No No Yes No Weekly ?

City of Fort Saskatchewan 19,051 8,398 Blue Bag Manual BFI Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes, baggedWeekly 7 day

cycle?

City of Leduc 24,279 9,290 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Weekly ?

City of Spruce Grove 26,171 9,619 Blue Bag Manual Sandstone Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged Bi-weekly ?

City of St. Albert 61,466 19,052 Blue Bag Manual City Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Weekly ?

Lamont County 3,872 1,581 None N/A N/A

Leduc County 13,541 6,333 Cart & Depot N/A Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Biweekly ?

Parkland County 30,568 10,931 Depot N/A None Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No None ?

Strathcona County 92,490 32,579 Bag & Box Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Weekly ?

Sturgeon County 19,578 6,546 None N/A None

Town of Bon Accord 1,488 541 Blue Bag Manual Sandstone Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Bi-weekly ?

Town of Bruderheim 1,155 489 Bag & Cart Automated Sandstone Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Weekly ?

Town of Calmar 1,970 735 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Bi-weekly ?

Town of Devon 6,510 2,112 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No #4 No No Yes No Weekly ?

Town of Gibbons 3,030 1,075Blue Bag at

DepotN/A Sandstone Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged Bi-weekly ?

Town of Lamont 1,753 645 Box Manual ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged ? ?

Town of Legal 1,225 440 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged Weekly ?

Town of Morinville 8,569 2,746 Blue Bag Manual Sandstone Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes ? Yes No No Yes No Weekly ?

Town of Redwater 1,915 776 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged Bi-weekly ?

Town of Stony Plain 15,051 4,417 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged Bi-weekly ?

Village of Thorsby 797 334 ? Manual Ever Green Yes Yes ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Bi-weekly ?

Village of Wabamun 789 265 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Bi-weekly ?

Village of Warburg 662 308 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Monthly ?

1,161,418 464,5811) 2011 - May also have access to depot collection2) Based on highest level of service

*Households Based on 2011 Data presented by Statistics Canada https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/mobile/2011/cp-pr/index-eng.cfm

N/A

N/A

Collection Frequency

Appendix C - Materials Accepted and Tonnages


Organic Materials 2011


Total # of

Households

Serviced

Program

Type

Curbside

Collection

Technique

Organics

ContractorLeaves Grass

Branches,

Twigs, etc

Christmas

TreesFood Scraps Pet Waste Diapers

Sanitary

Products

Shredded

Paper

Plastic Bags

Acceptable

Compostable

Bags

Acceptable

Wrapped in

Newspaper

allowed

SSO and YW

collected

separately or

together

Organics

Collection

Frequency

Town of Beaumont 13,287 4,369 Cart Automated Ever Green Yes Yes Yes ? Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Together Weekly

City of Edmonton 812,201 341,000 Bag / CanComingled

WasteCity* No No No SF, Y; MF PDO No No No No No No No No None None

City of Fort Saskatchewan 19,051 8,398 Depot None None Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No None None

City of Leduc 24,279 9,290 Cart Automated Ever Green Yes Yes Yes ? Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No Together

Weekly Apr-

Nov; biweekly

Nov-Apr

City of Spruce Grove 26,171 9,619 Cart Automated Sandstone Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No TogetherWeekly Apr-

Nov only

City of St. Albert 61,466 19,052 Cart, drop-off Automated Standstone Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Both

Weekly May-

Nov; biweekly

Dec-Apr

Lamont County 3,872 1,581 None None None None None

Leduc County 13,541 6,333 Drop-off N/A None Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Depot None

Parkland County 30,568 10,931 Drop-off N/A None Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Depot None

Strathcona County 92,490 32,579 Cart Automated Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No TogetherWeekly urban,

biweekly rural

Sturgeon County 19,578 6,546 None None None None None

Town of Bon Accord 1,488 541 Cart Automated Sandstone Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No SeparateWeekly, May-

Oct only

Town of Bruderheim 1,155 489 Drop-off N/A None Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Depot None

Town of Calmar 1,970 735 Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No No SeparateWeekly, May-

Oct only

Town of Devon 6,510 2,112 Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No SeparateWeekly, May-

Oct only

Town of Gibbons 3,030 1,075 None None Standstone None None

Town of Lamont 1,753 645 None None N/A None None

Town of Legal 1,225 440 None None None None None

Town of Morinville 8,569 2,660 Cart Automated Sandstone Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No NoneBiweekly, Apr-

Nov

Town of Redwater 1,915 776 Cart Automated Sandstone Yes Yes No Yes Yes but … No No No No ? ? ? Separate Weekly ?

Town of Stony Plain 15,051 4,417 Cart Automated Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Together

Weekly, Apr-

Oct Biweekly

Nov-Mar

Village of Thorsby 797 334 None None None None None

Village of Wabamun 789 265 Cart Automated Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes TogetherWeekly, May-

Oct only

Village of Warburg 662 308 None None None None None

1,161,418 464,4951) 2011 - May also have access to depot collection

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


EBA FILE: C22501183 | JANUARY 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW

Appendix C-2: Materials Accepted and Tonnages - Residential Data Only

Municipality Tonnes kg / Capita Tonnes kg / Capita Tonnes kg / Capita

Beaumont 13,287 898 372 4,448 5,718 430.3 1,270 95.6 4,448 334.8 22.2%

Bon Accord 1,488 56 123 601 780 524.2 179 120.3 601 403.9 22.9%

Calmar 1,970 0 106 653 759 385.3 106 53.7 653 331.6 13.9%

Devon 6,510 632 230 2,264 3,126 480.2 862 132.4 2,264 347.8 27.6%

Edmonton 812,201 51063 98,856 131,355 281,274 346.3 149,919 184.6 131,355 161.7 53.3%

Fort Saskatchewan 19,051 1190 1,000 4,225 6,415 336.7 2,190 115.0 4,225 221.8 34.1%

Leduc (City) 24,279 1697 1,052 7,883 10,633 437.9 2,749 113.2 7,883 324.7 25.9%

Leduc (County) 13,541 16.99 13 2,179 2,209 163.1 30 2.2 2,179 160.9 1.4%

Parkland 30,568 1462.33 266 7,283 9,012 294.8 1,729 56.6 7,283 238.3 19.2%

St. Albert 61,466 5113 7,929 6,881 19,923 324.1 13,042 212.2 6,881 111.9 65.5%

Spruce Grove 26,171 1,844 1,844 5,531 9,218 352.2 3,687 140.9 5,531 211.3 40.0%

Stony Plain 15,051 1,222 1,662 3,213 6,097 405.1 2,884 191.6 3,213 213.5 47.3%

Strathcona 92,490 6755 10,635 12,212 29,602 320.1 17,390 188.0 12,212 132.0 58.7%

Thorsby 797 0 1 202 203 254.1 1 1.0 202 253.1 0.4%1

Collected tonnes, as reported by municipality and/or from Roseridge Regional Landfill 2011 annual report and/or as verbally reported by the municipality and/or as reported on the municipal website(s)2

Other refers to items such as White Goods, Bulk Waste, Agricultural Film, Agricultural Twine or any other material not listed previously3

Diversion Rate calculated on Collected tonnes, not post-Processing tonnes

*2011 Census, Statistics Canada

Municipality Tonnes kg / Capita Tonnes kg / Capita Tonnes kg / Capita

Bruderheim 1,155 142 476 618 534.9 142 122.8 476 412.1 22.9%

Gibbons 3,030 148 915 1,063 350.9 148 48.9 915 302.0 13.9%

Lamont (Town) 1,753 194 652 846 482.7 194 110.8 652 371.9 22.9%

Lamont (County) 3,872 204 1,031 1,235 319.0 204 52.7 1,031 266.3 16.5%

Legal 1,225 139 467 606 494.8 139 113.5 467 381.2 22.9%

Morinville 8,569 561 561 2,947 4,068 474.8 1,122 130.9 2,947 343.9 27.6%

Redwater 1,915 57 57 704 818 427.3 114 59.6 704 367.8 13.9%

Sturgeon 19,578 2,250 10,193 12,443 635.6 2,250 114.9 10,193 520.6 18.1%

Wababmun 662 0 0 135 135 204.6 0 0.0 135 204.2 0.0%

Warburg 789 0 0 142 142 180.5 0 0.0 142 180.1 0.0%1

Estimated tonnes collected as data not available2 Other refers to items such as White Goods, Bulk Waste, Agricultural Film, Agricultural Twine or any other material not listed previously3

Diversion Rate calculated on Collected tonnes, not post-Processing tonnes

*2011 Census, Statistics Canada

Totals 1,161,418 75,645 124,707 206,592 406,944 350.4 200,351 172.5 206,592 177.9

CRWMAC Diversion Rate 49.2%

Table 1

2011 Tonnage

2011 Tonnage

Table 2Total

Population

Served*

Estimated Recyclable

Tonnes1

Estimated Organic

Tonnes1

Estimated Disposed

Tonnes1

Diversion

Rate3

Total

Population

Served*

Estimated Generated Estimated Diverted Estimated DisposedEstimated

Diversion

Rate

Collected Recyclable

Tonnes1

Collected Organic

Tonnes1

Reported Disposed

Tonnes1

TOTAL Diverted TOTAL DisposedTOTAL Generated




APPENDIX D CAPITAL REGION PROCESSING FACILITIES


Table D-1: Landfills Receiving Waste from Alberta Capital Region

# Facility Type Status Location (Municipality) Name Address or Legal AuthorityCapacity/

Year

Tonnage/

YearRemaining Airspace Volume Diverted

Expected Closure or

ExpansionNotes

1 Class II OperatingLamont

County

Lamont Area - St.

MichelNW-7-56-18-W4M

Lamont County Regional

Solid Waste Commission10,000 5,000 75 years Unknown

Capital Region Waste

1,031

652

476

2,159

2 Class II OperatingLeduc

County

Leduc and District

Regional LandfillNE 29-49-24-W4M

Leduc and District

Regional Waste

Authority

75,000 -100,000

tonnes45,000-50,000

15 years with existing

permit1,366 tonnes Unknown

Applying for new permit and will add 120 acres to

existing site


4,448

7,883

2,179

653

2,264

202

17,629

3 Class II OperatingSturgeon

County

Roseridge Regional

Landfill

LSDs 3, 4 and 6 of

Section 36-55-25-W4M

Roseridge Waste

Management Services

Commission

Unknown 25,000 50 years Unknown


704

467

601

915

2,947

10,193

6,881

5,531

1,911

12,212

42,362

Town of Lamont

Town of Bruderheim

Municipalities

Lamont County

CRWMAC Member supplied

Appendix D: Capital Region Processing Facilities

Municipalities


Town of Calmar

Town of Devon

Village of Thorsby

Town of Beaumont

City of Leduc

Leduc County

Municipalities

Sturgeon County

Town of Redwater

Town of Legal

Town of Bon Accord

Town of Gibbons

Town of Morinville

City of St. Albert


Town of Stony Plain

Strathcona County



Table D-1: Landfills Receiving Waste from Alberta Capital Region

# Facility Type Status Location (Municipality) Name Address or Legal AuthorityCapacity/

Year

Tonnage/

YearRemaining Airspace Volume Diverted

Expected Closure or

ExpansionNotes

4 Class II OperatingBeaver

County

Ryley Regional

LandfillNE 10-50-17-W4M

Beaver Regional Waste

Services Commission

250,000 tonnes.

Limited by

equipment, not by

airspace

130,000-200,000 9 quarter sections UnknownSpace is potentially infinite if rotating cell

technology is implemented


107,441

2,428

109,869

5 Class II OperatingBrazeau

County

Drayton Valley

Regional LandfillSE 20-49-7-W5M

Drayton Valley Regional

Landfill Authority15 - 20 years left Now called Aspen Waste Management Facility


2,428

142

2,570

6 Class II OperatingLac Ste. Anne

CountyHighway 43 Landfill

c/o Box 219

Sangudo, AB

Highway 43 East

Waste Commission


2,428

135

2,563

7 Class II OperatingPaintearth

CountyCoronation Landfill

5006 Royal Street

Coronation, AB

Waste Services

IncorporatedNo limit 300,000 +50 years Unknown +50 years Lots of capacity


4,225

4,225

8 Class II OperatingCamrose

County

West Dried Meat

Lake LandfillSW 14-44-21W4M

West Dried Meat Lake Landfill

AuthorityNo Limit 368,000 Unknown None Unknown

Accepts waste from across west central Alberta.

Contract with Ever Green.


Ever Green 55,000

55,000CRWMAC Member supplied

Municipalities

Municipalities

City of Edmonton

Parkland County (est. third)



Municipalities




Village of Warburg


Municipalities


Village of Wabamun

Project Number

Date

Acceptable Materials

# StatusLocation

(Municipality)Name

Address or

LegalAuthority

Capacity/Y

ear

Tonnage/Y

ear

Expected

Closure or

Expansion

Notes Leaves GrassBranches,

Twigs, etc

Christmas

Trees

Food

ScrapsPet Waste Diapers

Sanitary

Products

Shredded

Paper

Plastic Bags

Acceptable

Compostable

Bags

Acceptable

Wrapped in

Newspaper

allowed

1 Open Edmonton Co-composting Facility13111 Meridian

(1st) Street NECity of Edmonton 200,000 94,500

YW, SSO and MSW co-

compostedYes Yes Yes Separate Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

Yes Yes Yes Separate Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

City of Edmonton 69,500

CRWMAC member supplied 69,500

2 Open Morinville Roseridge Compost Class IISite 1, Box 19,

RR1

Roseridge Waste

Management Services

Commission

??? ??? Yes ? Yes ? Yes ? Yes ? Yes ? No ? No ? No ? No ? No ? Yes ? Yes ?

Morinville

Alberta

T8R 1P4

City of St. Albert 7,929 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes


3 Open Edmonton Cleanit Greenit15619-112

Avenue NW

Cleanit Greenit Composting

System Inc.??? ??? Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No ? ? ? Yes

www.cleanitgreenit.net Edmonton

T5M 2V8

Town of Stony Plain 849 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes

City of Spruce Grove 1,844 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No

Strathcona County 10,635 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No


4 Open Two Hills ABGrowing Power Hairy Hill

(GPHH)

142040

Township Road

544 Two Hills

AB

Growing Power Hairy Hill ??? ???

Municipalities deliver

material to Leduc Regional

Landfill for pre-screening

then materials transferred to

GPHH

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Town of Beaumont 372 Yes Yes Yes ? Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes

Town of Calmar 106 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No No

Leduc County 13 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

City of Leduc 1,052 Yes Yes Yes ? Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No

Town of Devon 230 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No


Note: The acceptable list per email from Trevor Nickel, GM of Himark BioGas, January 11, 2013

5 Open Various

Municipalities doing their own

composting at their own

municipal facilities

City of Fort Saskatchewan 1,000 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

Parkland County 266 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

Town of Bon Accord 123 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No

Town of Morinville 561 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

Town of Redwater 57 Yes Yes No Yes Limited No No No No ? ? ?


Table D-2: Compost Facilities

Appendix D - Capital Region Processing Facilities TableCompost

Project Number

Date

Acceptable Materials

#Facility

TypeStatus

Location

(Municipality)Name Address or Legal

MRF

Capacity /

Year

Tonnage /

YearOCC OBB

Gable /

Tetra /

Aseptic

Aluminum

Cans, Foil,

etc

Steel / Tin

Cans

Empty

Aerosol

Cans

Empty

Paint Cans

PET

Containers

(#1)

HDPE

Containers

(#2)

Other

Bottles &

Containers

(#3, #5, #7)

LD/HD film

(#2, #4)

Tubs &

Lids (#2,

#4, & #5)

PS

Foam(#6)

PS

Crystal(#6)Glass

Shredded

Paper

45 Diamond Avenue, Spruce Grove, AB ??? ??? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, bagged

City of Spruce Grove 1,844 Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged

Town of Bon Accord 56 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No

Town of Bruderheim 142 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No

Town of Gibbons 148 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged

Town of Lamont 194 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged

Town of Morinville 561 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes ? Yes No No Yes No


2020 Sherwood Drive, Sherwood Park, AB ??? ??? Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes, bagged

Town of Beaumont 898 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No

City of Leduc 1,697 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No

City of St. Albert 5,113 Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No

Leduc County 17 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No

Strathcona County 6,755 Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Town of Calmar 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No

Town of Devon 632 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No #4 No No Yes No

Town of Legal 139 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged

Town of Redwater 57 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged

Town of Stony Plain 607 Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged

Village of Thorsby 0 Yes Yes ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Village of Wabamun 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No

Village of Warburg 0 Yes Yes ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


3 MRF Open EdmontonCity of Edmonton Waste

Management Centre13111 Meridian (1st) Street NE 70,000 51,063 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ??? Yes Yes

Yes, but no

#3Yes Yes No No Yes No

City of Edmonton51,063

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ??? Yes YesYes, but no

#3Yes Yes No No Yes No

Municipalities with unknown MRF

City of Fort Saskatchewan BFI 1,190 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged

Lamont County None 204

Parkland County None 1,462 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No

Sturgeon County None 2,250

N/A

N/A

Table D-3: Recycling Facilities

1 MRF Open Spruce GroveStandstone Enviro-Waste

Services Ltd

2 MRF Open Sherwood ParkEver Green Ecological

Services

Appendix D - Capital Region Processing Facilities TableRecycling



APPENDIX E CONTINUUM OF REGIONAL GOVERNANCE OPTIONS



Description Governance Advantages Disadvantages

1. Extended Municipal Services (i.e., contract service arrangements)

One or more of the existing member municipalities within the region extends their operating jurisdiction to be the regional service provider.

Simplest form is a contract for services – O&M, plan, design, and build. Transfer of assets would require additional complexity.

Requires Council approval.

Subject to Municipal Government Act in

regard to legislation restricting types of services.

Municipalities continue to be accountable to their Council.

Establish an Advisory Committee made up of member municipality representatives to provide input and guide the providing municipality.

Funded by the infrastructure asset owner / service provider or through rates charged to municipalities receiving the services.

No governmental approvals to establish delivery of services or governance structure.

Minimizes administration and governance complexity.

Advisory Committee facilitates input from the participating municipalities and acts as an oversight role; assist in ensure alignment with the Capital Region vision.

Access to funding, low borrowing rates, and tax exempt status through the municipality.

Advisory Committee is only advisory only; no decision making authority.

Providing municipality would hold all formal decision making authority, which would limit influence from remaining regional municipalities.

Potential for competing priorities for the providing municipality – i.e. regional vs. own customers.

2. Inter-Municipal Agreements (e.g. Waste Management Authority)

Member municipalities enter into an agreement for the investment, development, and provision of regional waste management services.

Participating municipalities pass a resolution of council to become a part of the agreement. These agreements can lead to the formation of an authority, board or committee that can oversee the provision of services on a regional basis.

Not a separate legal entity and cannot directly hold assets, own land, or borrow funds.

Subject to Municipal Government Act in regard to legislation restricting types of services.

An Oversight Committee comprised of appointed elected official and/or technical expert members is created.

Committee has an advisory role only; municipal councils are ultimately accountable.

Owned and funded by member municipalities based on an agreed-upon funding and ownership formula (typically determined through extent of usage e.g. number of customers / tonnes processed per municipality)

Relative easy to form, requiring no approval from provincial government.

Allows for both broad representations (i.e. both political and expert members) on the Oversight Committee.

Access to funding, low borrowing rates, and tax exempt status through its municipal funding partners.

Reliant on member municipalities for funding (i.e. debt financing); therefore would impact debt limits of individual municipalities.

Ultimate accountability and liability remains with member municipalities.

Allowing decision making in proportion to “share” of contribution may cause concerns of excess control by a participating municipality.

Decision making process may be cumbersome and complex since decisions must be ratified by all participating Councils.



3. Regional Service Commissions

Municipalities request to Minister of Municipal Affairs to establish a commission (per Municipal Government Act)

Are authorized to provide services to municipalities within and outside (with Municipal Affairs approval) the boundaries of its members.


Initially Board appointed by Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Board made up of an elected official from each member municipality, appointed by each respective Council.

Board is theoretically autonomous from municipalities and is accountable for all financial decisions, execution of contracts.

Owned and funded by member municipalities.

Operates on cost recovery basis only (i.e. does not distribute a profit to member municipalities).

The only governance option in Alberta that can directly expropriate land.

Streamlined process for establishing – 50+ regional service commissions in Alberta.

Access to provincial funding and grants (including grants specific to regional service commissions.)

Access to loans through Alberta Capital Finance Authority.

Income tax exempt.

Board will always have representation from member municipalities (elected officials).

Separate and autonomous body from member municipalities, with ability to hold assets and borrow funds.

Able to generate revenue with member municipalities without restrictions.

Clear accountability for mandate defined in legislation.

Continued oversight by the Province, have the ability to intervene (i.e. appoint directors).

Board regulated to be elected officials from each of the member municipalities, resulting in an absence in technical experts, and regular turnover of board members

Restricted to providing services as described by the commission’s regulation.



4. Municipally Controlled Corporation

Separate legal entity controlled by one or more municipalities in legislation. Share holder agreements permit inclusion of multiple municipalities.

Must be “for-profit” and must demonstrate financial viability through three year business plan.

Established with approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Municipal controlled corporations are regulated by the Municipal Government Act, Business Corporations Act, Control of

Corporations Regulation, and the Debt Limit Regulation.


Board, selected based on desired competency / representation. Typically includes limited number of elected officials.

Board accountable for all organized actions, including financial performance.

Can provide profit distributions to member municipalities.

Relatively easy to establish, requires Ministerial approval.

Permits broad representation on corporation’s board – at the discretion of the municipality.

Income tax exempt as long as scope of services remains within municipal boundaries.

Clear accountability for scope of duties as defined in regulations, policies and business plans.

May create push-back from private sector given the perception that the controlled corporation may have an unfair competitive advantage given its relationships with the municipalities and perceived access to grant funding / financial advantages.

Not able to borrow directly from the Alberta Capital Finance Authority.

Lacks automatic GST exemption on fares and expenditures on goods and services, obtaining exemption is costly and time-consuming.

Shareholder agreement dictates degree of ownership and hence degree of decision-making authority, which typically puts control in favor of the municipality who bears the majority of investment. This could lead to concern re: regional control and changes in board



5. Not-for-Profit (Part 9 Corporation)

Municipalities for a Not-for-profit under either the Alberta Societies Act or Companies Act (Part 9 Corporation).

A not-for-profit corporation is an association of one or more shareholders whose corporate governance requires that surplus funds are used to pursue the organization’s stated goals.

Subject to Companies Act.

Present provincial regulations restrict the scope of services for Not-for-Profits to “promoting art, science, religion, charity, and recreation activities”. A change in provincial regulations would be required to support a Waste Management Not-for-Profit.

Board, selected based on desired competency / representation. Typically not elected officials.

Owned by the NFP and funded by NFP and rates.

Relatively easy to establish, requires Ministerial approval.

Permits broad representation on corporation’s board – at the discretion of the municipality.

Access to preferred municipal borrowing rates.

Income and property tax exempt.

Clear accountability for scope of duties as defined in regulations, policies and business plans.

Does not have the explicit requirement to be “for-profit” as does a controlled corporation.

Less restricted in financial relationship than controlled corporation; can enter into fee-for-service contracts, receive municipal grants, and accept donations.

No precedent for this type of waste management utility in Alberta – would require provincial legislative change.

Does not provide a return on investment for participating parties.

One-step further removed from municipal control than controlled corporation.

Lacks automatic GST exemption on fares and expenditures on goods and services, obtaining exemption is costly and time-consuming.

6. Corporatized Public / Private Utility

Publicly owned for-profit corporation that operates like a private business or private utility corporation.

For corporatized public utility, Council owns shares, and can select directors.

Key priority is for-profit. Encourages pursuit of business development / revenue expansion opportunities.

Independent expert board; no elected official representation.

Overarching goal is to provide an agreed-upon rate of return within regulatory requirements.

May own and operate assets, or may operate infrastructure on behalf of an owner (e.g. municipality).

Funded by asset owner and rates.

Not income tax exempt.

Provides easier access to financing.

Commercial discipline; mitigates political interference.

Separate entity with clear accountability for contracted or defined mandate.

May not be compatible with social, economic and environmental objectives.

Potentially reduced stakeholder input into decision making; may require stakeholder advisory committee.

Higher cost alternative; high financing rates, not exempt from income tax.

Commercial confidentiality limits access to information by consumers and politicians.