Municipal Waste Management in the GTA

Brian Nogaro

Senior Honours WorkSubmitted in Fulfillment of the

Requirement of Environmental Studies ES/ENVS 4000 6.0 Senior Honours Work

BACHELOR IN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES (BES) PROGRAM

FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

YORK UNIVERSITY

TORONTO, ONTARIO

CANADA

2014

_________________________________ _______________________________Student's Signature Supervisor's Signature

© 2014 Brian Nogaro

Abstract

Waste Management in Ontario has steadily gained more exposure

and importance within the Provincial government over the last 25

years. There now exists a common understanding that if properly

managed, our Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) could be a supply of jobs,

energy and also the foundation of a possible province wide reusable

product market. Residents must be wary of our current framework and

its capacity to tackle the complications of waste in the 21st century.

Indubitably the quantity and quality of waste diverted is sure to

continue to gain importance in the future. This paper examines the

subject of MSW by looking at current and past industry performance,

diversion techniques, private sector stewards and NGO’s within the

sector. This paper will serve as a resource for residents to see the

progression the industry has made from the 1970’s to today, learn the

preferred hierarchical waste management techniques what underlying

problems still persist and what needs to be changed in order to support

sustainable waste management under a sustainable resource

management lens.

2

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my senior supervisor, Velma Grover, for her support and guidance throughout the research and writing process.

3

Glossary

Source Separation: Separation of specific recyclable and compost materials at the point of generation Ex. Blue-box and green bin.

Industrial Institutional and Commercial waste (IC&I): Any waste by-products that are a result of an industrial, commercial or institutional activity

Waste-To-Energy (WTE): A facility that uses combustion of waste, which produces steam and generates electricity.

Waste Transfer Station/Facility: A facility where waste is transferred from small collection trucks into larger waste hauling vehicles for transportation to a processing, recycling or landfill site.

Municipal Solid Waste: consist of everyday items that are discarded by households for door to door collection

Political Ecology of Waste: The interpretation and interaction of waste after being influenced by social, economic and environmental hegemony

Landscape: All visual features of an area

Aerobic Decomposition :   The decomposition that takes place in the presence of oxygen.

Anaerobic Decomposition :   Refers to decomposition of material in the absence of oxygen with results in the formation of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) gases.

Bulky Waste :   Large items of MSW including appliances, furniture, auto parts, etc.

Composting : Biological decomposition of organic waste in the presence of oxygen either by controlled or natural methods

MOE: Ministry of the Environment

LCA: Life Cycle Analysis

4

ContentsAbstract.......................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgments ......................................................................... 3

Definitions ..................................................................................... 4

Research Question ..........................................................................6

Appendix A…………………........................................................32

Appendix B…………………........................................................37

Appendix C…………………........................................................39

References......................................................................................42

5

Research Question

In 1987, the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) received an international

award from the United Nations for “distinguished environmental leadership and

support of the innovative Blue Box Program for recovery and recycling of household

wastes” (Pollution Probe, 1997). The purpose of this thesis is to take on the

investigation of the history, techniques and forecasts for Ontario’s municipal waste

management industry. This will be done by analyzing a variety of different

components within the sector, which include: an analysis of legislation, current

waste management strategies, framework goals, performance, governing bodies,

private sector stewards and not-for-profit agencies within the sector. This paper

will conclude with a synthesis of the problems the province faces and which

problems Ontario will become vulnerable to, given the present framework and the

present market for Energy from Waste facilities. Also, it will conclude with short and

long term future recommendations the province needs to make progress towards a

more sustainable framework.

Waste Management Hierarchy

Ontario’s entire economy is based on the use of natural resources for

production and consumption; an entire development system based on the depletion

of finite resources surely cannot be sustainable unless properly managed. Thus the

finiteness of natural resources is the central challenge of sustainable waste

management. This production and consumption as well as the use of natural

resources are all necessary functions for the economy. However, as the Ontario

6

public has progressively become more mindful of the risks associated with our

environmental impact, it is sensible to look at ways to reduce the resource

consumption rate until it is at a self replenishing and manageable point. This is

sustainable resource management and ultimately resource efficiency is engrained in

the principals of sustainable resource management. Thus utilizing the most possible

utility of waste has become more important and can only expect the Ontario’s

Ministry of the Environment’s (MOE) focus around this issue to be proliferated for

years to come.

Within the realm of Waste Management, there is a hierarchy in the way the

Ontario government prefers to deal with this problem:

Figure 1

Waste Management Hierarchy – Most Preferred to Least Preferred. (Ontario Waste Management Association, 2013).

1. Waste reduction – the reduction of future waste during the product and

packaging phase

7

2. Waste reuse – the direct reuse of a waste stream from a minor modification.

Ex wood->woodchips

3. Waste recycle – the reclamation of waste through reprocessing technologies.

Ex plastic recycling

4. Waste Composting- The biological decomposition of organic waste in the

presence of oxygen either by controlled or natural methods

5. Waste recovery – Energy converted from waste through combustion

6. Waste Disposal –controlled landfilling

(Ontario Waste Management Association, 2013)

Although every nation in the world deals with waste differently, the

principles of the waste management hierarchy are referenced within the UK, EU and

North America, which will be seen later in this paper. Waste management is an

ecological subject that has been highly politicized. It can be disputed from many

different viewpoints because of its repercussions and intermingling with social,

economic and political ideologies. Things like the precautionary principle and

health and energy complications all must be given consideration because of the

nature of this topic. This paper is particularly concerned with municipal solid waste

(MSW), however it should be noted that MSW or residential waste that we as

consumers dispose of only represents a small fraction of waste created throughout

the lifetime of that product. According to Statistics Canada (Appendix A, Table 1) in

2008 Ontario’s non-residential sources generated 6 400 160 tons of waste opposed

to 3 231 399 tons of residential waste and a whopping 217 000 000 tons of mine

tailing waste was created across the country that year (Appendix A, Table 3). A

8

measure of the waste by-products produced throughout each stage of that product’s

lifecycle (Life Cycle Analysis) is a true measurement of all the waste linked directly

to our MSW. Offsetting all MSW and achieving 100% diversion rate is the ultimate

goal of the Ontario government but even if that were the case this would only

mitigate a small portion of the waste generated throughout the entire lifecycle of

that product.

A life cycle analysis (LCA) is a technique for assessing the environmental

inputs and outputs associated with the product at each stage of the life cycle

(Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Waste Management Strategies With Zero

Waste Objective, 2009). A typical products lifecycle involves:

1. Extracting raw materials

2. Refining these virgin materials into industrial feedstocks

3. Manufacturing

4. Packaging

5. Transport

6. Use of the product

7. Disposition of the product

(Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Waste Management Strategies With Zero

Waste Objective, 2009).

Municipal solid waste is only concerned with the last two stages but it is

important to note the magnitude of waste generated before the product gets

transported to retail. The waste by-products created during the transport,

manufacturing and production phase are categorized as Industrial Institutional and

9

Commercial (IC&I) waste. From the diagram below (Figure 2) we can see that the

disposal of waste in a landfill is an open loop process in which nothing is salvaged. A

waste diversion rate is calculated by the following formula:

(Greener, 2013).

As we move up the hierarchy pyramid the reclamation of these products

requires fewer phases and therefore less residual waste is generated and less

carbon is emitted. After our blue bin items are recycled they get transported and

return back to the manufacturing phase and progresses from there into a recycled

product. According to the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy

(2010) Figure 3 the recycling of PET, cardboard, paper and aluminum all salvage

upwards of 3 tons CO2 equivalent for every ton recycled. This is because all the

mine tailings and GHGs from the extracting and mining phase are side stepped all

while conserving natural resources. As we can see there is a definite link between

sustainable waste management and the sustainable management of natural

resources, after all the LCA does show that our MSW initially derives from the

extraction of natural resources.

10

Figure 2

Life Cycle Analysis. (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Pg 7, 2009).

Figure 3

11

Defining Waste

According to the Webster dictionary, waste is defined as something that is

considered worthless or meaningless (Webster, 2012). In our consumerism culture

every time we throw something in the garbage we are declaring that we no longer

have use for it, rendering it meaningless or useless. As we can see from the product

lifecycle, waste is derived from nature and will eventually end up entwined in

nature in either a gaseous or solid form. For this reason it can be understood that

the waste explored in this paper can be accurately described as a reproduced form

of nature. For many generations we have looked at this reproduced form of nature

with much disdain. It is no secret that the build up of waste, especially hazardous

waste can produce environmental conditions and diseases that threaten the well

being of surrounding communities and wildlife. As time has progressed and global

populations have increased, the build up of these useless forms of reproduced

nature has become more conventional along with the environmental threats that

accompany it. The Kyoto Protocol, the Rio Earth Summit are just two international

accords tailored to reducing the environmental impact associated with

development. For decades waste has been at the front of political debates around

the world as politicians have pondered conceivable ways to minimize its presence

and its negative impacts. These conditions have set the stage for technological

advancement and market capitalism to change the political ecology of this

reproduced nature.

12

To achieve the label of sustainable waste management, the strategy must also

be congruent under a sustainable resource management point of view, which

encompasses an ecologically and economically efficient use of resources usually

through using ‘waste’ as a secondary resource to feed through the product lifecycle.

As can be seen in Figure 4, Ontario’s waste diversion rate has remained relatively

stagnant around 25%, the residential diversion rate reached 40% in 2008 while the

IC&I sector diversion rate has been on the decline since year 2000 and came in at

15% in that same year. It is important to note that under the Waste Diversion Act,

2002 the blue box program is funded 50% by industry stewards, however no

funding program exists for the IC&I sector. This means that there exists private

funding for recycling a plastic bottled disposed of in a GTA household but not in a

shopping mall or school. The steady declining performance of this sector’s waste

diversion and the lax nature of Reg. 104/94’s voluntary compliance shows a need

for a radical change to Ontario’s Waste Reduction framework.

Figure 4

Waste Diversion by Sector. (Ontario Waste Management Association, Rethink Waste, pg.7)

13

The History of Ontario’s Municipal Waste Management Policies

Toronto’s history of waste management goes back to the earliest settlers but

for the purpose of this paper, the focus will begin from1950’s and 1960’s when the

nature of waste began to change all over the world. As society was introduced to

plastics, disposable packaging and laminated packaging, the diversity of waste

generated in Ontario was increasing and a one size fits all disposal method

(landfilling) was the logical option. In 1970, Toronto rapidly expanded in both size

and population and it became evident that a waste management strategy would be

needed to manage the large amounts of waste for years to come. In 1972, the

Ontario Ministry of the Environment & Energy was created to mandate all waste

management legislation in Ontario. During this time, the waste management

industry also began discussing source separation. It is important to note that source

separation and curbside recycling was founded by multiple actors, which includes

the groundbreaking work done by not for profit organizations like Pollution Probe

Inc. that formed The Garbage Coalition, raised awareness through their many

campaigns and advocacy/awareness programs in the 70’s. In addition, charitable

organizations such as Is-Five Foundation organized the first multi-material

curbside-recycling program in the beaches area of East Toronto. Members of this

charity went door-to-door involving community members to participate in the

program that served 8 000 residents in 1974, with one single truck. The Waste

Management Advisory Board was created in 1975 as a team to investigate and

advise the Minister of the Environment on all aspects of waste management. Later,

14

the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) was created in 1978 and it would lead the

charge that Pollution Probe Inc. led in the 70s.

On November 28th 1983 waste began being transported to Toronto’s 929

acre Keele Valley landfill site in Maple, ON and since then more than 26 million

tones of waste had been transported to the no longer operational landfill during its

lifetime (City of Toronto, 2001). During this time Kitchener had established the first

city-wide recycling pickup at 35 000 households and the MOE passed regulation 340

and 357 under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) to regulate the bottling

industry and an attempt to encourage refillable containers to be sold. These

regulations would fail and the refillable bottle market would dwindle to only 3% of

market share in 1993 (CIELP, pg 2, 2008). Ontario went into a pedantic focus on the

bottling industry disposal in response to the shift to disposable drink containers.

Ontario Soft Drink Association established the Ontario Multi-Materials Recycling

Incorporated (OMMRI) in 1986, an industry-funded organization who donated $20

million over 4 years which was matched by the province to develop a

comprehensive provincial blue box system that received international recognition

from the United Nations (Pollution Probe, 1997).

Bob Rae and the NDP led Ontario’s legislative charge toward recycling and

waste diversion in 1991. The Minster of the Environment and Energy at the time

Ruth Grier launched the Waste Reduction Action Plan (WRAP). WRAP included a

number of initiatives to promote waste diversion and the 3Rs: they included:

regulatory measures; financial and technical support; public education; and the

15

development of markets for recyclable materials. The four regulations that that

stemmed from WRAP were:

• (O. Reg. 101/94) Recycling and Composting of Municipal Waste

• (O. Reg. 102/94) Waste Audits and Waste Reduction Work Plans

• (O. Reg. 103/94) Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Source Separation

Programs

• (O. Reg 104/94) Packaging Audit and Packaging Reduction Work Plans (CIELP, pg

2, 2008)

These regulations apart of the Environmental Protection Act are each broken down

in Appendix B.

As the costs of the Blue Box program rose, the once internationally acclaimed

recycling program was close to financial collapse at the turn on the millennium.

When the Waste Diversion Act, 2002 became law it gave birth to Waste Diversion

Ontario (WDO) whose sole purpose was to achieve the goals outlined in the Waste

Diversion Act. The new blue box program under this act was funded 50% by

industry-funded Stewardship Ontario (CIELP, pg 4, 2008). Today 97% of Ontario

households have access to Blue Box recycling (Waste Diversion Ontario, 2013).

History of Waste Disposal

As trucks entered Keele Valley Landfill in the 1980’s, the weight of the

incoming vehicle and waste was recorded and the vehicle is re-weighed when it left

the site. Waste tonnage is calculated on the difference of the two weights. Staff

recorded the source and type of waste dropped off; only non-hazardous solid waste

16

was accepted at Keele Valley Landfill at the price of $57.00/ton (City of Toronto,

2001). Before the end of each day, the refuse was covered with a layer of earth

creating a cell. The daily earth cover in landfills prevents access to the waste by

animals or insects and reduces litter and odour (City of Toronto, 2001). By the late

1980’s there was already concern with dwindling landfill size. At this time there was

a decreasing amount of refillable glass bottles in the market and plastic was

becoming increasingly more common (CIELP, 2008).

In every landfill there is a liquid that forms when rainwater or melting snow

seeps through the garbage pile and mixes with the waste, this is a toxic liquid called

leachate. To prevent leachate from seeping down into the underlying soil, a liner

was constructed at the base and sides of the landfill, which was regularly monitored

to ensure it is functioning properly (Toronto, 2001). In addition perforated pipes

were constructed on top of the liner to drain off the collected leachate. This leachate

collection system drained into a pumping station that discharged the leachate into

the York-Durham sanitary sewer system for treatment at a sewage treatment plant

(Toronto, 2001). To collect the landfill gas within the site, gas collection pipes are

placed in trenches and wells dug directly into the waste. These pipes are attached to

fans that draw gas to the incineration complex in which large quantities of methane

carbon dioxide could be separated to be flared (burned) to produce energy.

Releasing carbon dioxide and water residue into the atmosphere. Since May 1995

the landfill produced around 30 megawatts of power per year, which was sold to the

Ontario electrical grid (Toronto, 2001). Toronto was obliged to monitor and care for

the Keele Valley Landfill Site when it is closed.

17

However in the late 1990s the landfill was reaching capacity. At that time no

other municipality in Southern Ontario was willing to accept the garbage and there

was also no political support for a change to incineration. The city made a new deal

with Carlton Farms Landfill in Michigan and Keele Valley closed in December 2002.

Michigan’s landfill had disposal capacity for Toronto’s private and public sector

waste from industrial, commercial and municipal waste. Throughout this time

period essentially all of Toronto’s garbage was handled and regulated under the

state of Michigan’s regulatory framework but the landfill was still required to

comply with some of Toronto’s conditions. Subsequently in September 2006,

Toronto City council agreed to purchase the privately owned Green Lane landfill site

in Southwold Township, Elgin County. On January 1, 2011 the first load of garbage

went to Green Lane landfill (City of Toronto, 2007).

Green Lane Landfill encompasses 320 acres, 176 of which are approved for

landfilling and a 2 000 acre buffer zone around the landfill (Hiscock, slide 7, 2012).

This landfill has met all environmental and regulatory requirements for a landfill in

Ontario and its monitoring data shows no adverse impacts to surface or

groundwater since its incipient. Green Lane’s liner is comprised of 30cm continuous

drainage blanket on entire base underlain by continuous woven geotextile filter

fabric, overlain by continuous non-woven geotextile filter fabric, perforated 200 mm

diameter HDPE header and collection pipes that collect leachate for treatment

(Hiscock, slide 10, 2012). This Leachate Treatment Plant commenced in 2002 with

capacity of 131m3/day and has since been monitored monthly. With continually

development and expansion of the facility the landfill was given the green light to

18

treat 300m3/day in 2011. Likewise occurred with the gas collection and flaring

plants, capacity was uplifting from 1 600cfm in 2004 to 3 200cfm in 2011 (Hiscock,

slide 19, 2012). If Ontario can boost its municipal waste diversion rate to 70% the

landfill’s estimated life expectancy to about 2034 (Hiscock, slide 25, 2012).

Nearby residents have shown their concern for the air quality of the

surrounding communities. In the year 2012 alone the MOE received 418 odour

complaints about the landfill (Daubs, 2013). The landfill is met by heavy opposition

from neighbouring regions whose residents have organized multiple protests for

the closure of the landfill (Daubs, 2013).

Municipal responsibilities/funding

Recycling services are mandated by the provincial government, but are

carried out by local municipalities. Municipal and/or local governments can also

regulate waste management and recycling activities through their by-laws. These

by-laws generally impact residential waste and can for example:

Set limits for the amount of garbage that can be generated by residents

Require the recycling of materials

Determine fees for waste collection service (e.g. bag tags)

Set landfill bans (restrict what materials can be landfilled)

(Recycling Council of Ontario, 2010).

Both the municipalities of York and Durham run on a two-tiered government

structure. With the regions of York and Durham, the lower tier is responsible for the

19

collection on municipal waste and the upper tier government is responsible for the

disposal of municipal solid waste, processing of blue box recyclables; the operation

of a recycling center and a rural landfilling site, a hazardous waste facility and a

composting one (Clapp, R.J & Curtis, C.R 2013).

Environmental Assessment Act York-Durham EFW center

The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) applies to all proposals from enterprises

that would like to plan a development or activity on crown or public land. This act

requires an environmental assessment to be conducted for any major developments

that has the potential for environmental effects. This study determines the

ecological, cultural, economic and social impact of the project. It is a key part of the

planning process and must be completed before decisions are made to proceed with

a project (Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2010). This study involves the

consideration of alternatives, the needs of the environment and the priorities of the

respected community. The considerations of such alternatives would fall under

assigned priorities:

1. Natural environment considerations – most important

2. Social/cultural considerations – important

3. Economic considerations – important

4. Technical considerations – important

5. Legal considerations – least important

(Macviro Consultants & Jacques Whitford, 2006, pg. v)

20

Substances of Concern

When examining EFW facilities, the obvious concern for residents is the significant

release of pollutants and GHG’s into the environment; these are dependent on what kind

of waste goes through the chamber. There are specific pollutants emitted in EFW that the

government takes very seriously. These include polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and

polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/F), commonly known as dioxins/furans, which

are persistent organic pollutants (POPs) that can result from incomplete combustion or

an improperly operated facility (Environment Canada, 2013). Mercury is the other

pollutant that bio accumulates in the atmosphere. It is only released if mercury-

containing items are fed through the chamber like alkaline batteries or fluorescent light

bulbs. This means resident have to be progressively more careful on what they are

throwing into the trash (Environment Canada, 2013).

Canada has committed to numerous initiatives to reduce dioxins, furans as well as

mercury release such as:

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants;

CCMEPolicy for Management of Toxic Substances;

Federal Toxics Substances Management Policy (TSMP),

Canada Wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans;

Canada Wide Standards for Mercury; and,

Chemicals Management Plan.

(Environment Canada, 2013).

The Environmental Assessment for York/Durham’s EFW facility was

submitted to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) on July 31, 2009, and the

final amended EA was submitted on November 27, 2009. The following

21

November the MOE announced the approval of the project and construction

began in 2011 with the anticipated completion date in late 2014

(DurhamYorkWaste, 2012).

The Durham/York EFW facility, which is expected to operate for thirty

years or more, will be fully owned by their respected Municipalities through a

partnership agreement. Both owners will have complete oversight of the

operation throughout the twenty-year contract, which was granted to

Covanta Energy Corp as the “design-build-operate contractor”

(DurhamYorkWaste, 2012). Covanta, a worldwide operator in EFW owns over forty

waste combustion facilities in North America. This contract was supposed to reach a

total payable to Covanta of 272 million, but according to a Durham/York Energy

Center Construction Update on Sept 19 2013, the projected actual contractor costs

will be around 255 million (Clapp, R.J & Curtis, C.R, 2013). Essentially York and

Durham’s municipal waste will be fed into a furnace where it is heated to

above 1 000 degrees Celsius leaving residual ash and ferrous and non-ferrous

metals which are separated for recycling. This mass burn technology

produces large quantities of steam which can be sold or used to run a turbine to

produce electricity to then be sold to Ontario’s grid (Appendix 1, Graph 2). This will

depend on buyer location and preferences. The facility is located in Clarington

and will have the capacity to process 140,000 tons of post-diversion waste

22

annually while recovering all metals and 20MW of energy, enough energy to power

14 000 homes (Ontario Power Authority, 2013).

The following is a list published by Environment Canada of the predicted

pollutants that will be omitted from this facility annually at 140,000 tons of MSW

per year:

(Environment Canada, 2012)

Also worth mentioning is Algonquin Power Energy From Waste Inc. located

in Brampton, Ontario. This EFW facility has been combusting non-recyclable waste

since it was commissioned in 1992 and meets all A7 Guidelines (Dodds, 2011). This

facility thermally treats 174,000 tons of waste annually and generates 9MW

generated by a steam turbine. MSW from the Region of Peel equals 93% of

Algonquin Power annual waste intake (Dodds, 2011).

After over 20 years of shipping their garbage to Algonquin Power, the Region

of Peel has followed York and Durham’s route in building their own EFW facility that

23

was approved on June 27, 2013, set to open in 2020. Peel Region disposed of over

250 000 tons of waste post diversion in 2012, which is a figure expected to jump to

270 000 tons by 2020 when the Centre becomes operational (Peel Energy Recovery,

2013). The plant will use similar technology as the Durham/York EFW facility,

residential garbage will be placed in a chamber to produce steam, which drives a

turbine that converts that energy to electricity. This EFW facility will be capable of

processing 300 000 tons of input annually and reducing their reliance on landfill

and recovering all metals (Peel Energy Recovery, 2013).

It is worthy to point out that EFW facilities have Provincial guidelines and

limits for quantities they can release of several different toxins. Every thermal

combustion facility must oblige by the A-7 Guidelines for Air Pollution Control, Design

and Operation Guidelines for Municipal Waste Thermal Treatment Facilities. Included

in the A7 report is also the guidelines for groundwater monitoring, noise

monitoring, soil testing, live air quality monitoring and recommendations for

acceptable design and operating parameters (Ministry of the Environment, 2010).

These facilities are expected to meet the emission limits in the stack as set out in

Appendix A, Table 3 of this paper.

When looking at the waste hierarchy, one can feel content that the GTA

municipalities are finally implementing the second least desirable option (Waste

Recovery) before sending waste to landfill. This is undoubtedly a step forward

because it will increase diversion, but there is still much room for improvement.

EFW still remains an ‘end of the pipe’ solution to a long term problem. Critics

against waste combustion will be quick to point out that the move towards EFW

24

embraces the input of waste rather than discouraging it. There is fear that the

energy generated from these facilities will distract the province from larger issues

embedded within our socio-economic system that waste management plays into,

like Ontario’s 80% GHG reduction below 1990 levels by 2050 (Environmental

Registry, 2013). Toronto’s mayor Rob Ford told the Toronto Star in June 2013, “I’ve

always said that garbage is money: when you see truckloads of garbage going down

the 401, it’s like truckloads of $100 bills. We have to turn that garbage into money.”

(Moloney, 2013). However when we reference EU countries that have already

implemented EFW programs like Denmark and Germany (Appendix A, Graph 3) it

can be seen that EFW reduces landfill waste but not recyclables. Although the future

of the proposed Waste Reduction Act, 2013 is uncertain for now, the act can

definitely serve as a cornerstone for the direction the industry is moving in; and that

is toward Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and EFW.

If EPR was presented as an instrument to achieve Ontario’s GHG reduction

goal and waste diversion it would gain political backing from other legislation and

only increase its chances of becoming a prosperous and beneficial law. The MOE

also needs to break the link between economic growth and waste generation if they

want to look forward to a future of less waste and GHG emission then Ontario

currently has. One must question the lack of ingenuity coming from the government

in the most preferred methods of waste management; reduction and reuse.

Proposed Bill 91

25

On June 6, 2013 the government introduced the new draft Waste Reduction

Strategy. There are heated debates at legislative assembly in passing this bill. Under

this bill, industry and government will need to collaborate to dispose of MSW. The

main talking point of this bill is that it makes the producers of waste products

financially and environmentally responsible for the proper disposition of the

material they sell in Ontario. On one side, it pushes the recycling industry forward

because it in the producer’s best interest to reduce packaging and use easily

recyclable/reusable products. However this bill has come under heavy criticism

from the Conservative party because the bill downloads a financial burden onto

businesses.

Bill 91 is not the MOE’s first attempt at making producers financially and

environmentally responsible for their end products. In fact the confusion around the

“Eco Tax” in 2010 was because of this push. To commence the Municipal Hazardous

and Special Waste (MHSW) program, a fee was charged to industry stewards per

product introduced to the Ontario marketplace that required special disposal. Under

the MHSW program, stewards could either absorb the fee or pass it along in the

wholesale price. Retailers also had a similar choice and some even added a separate

line to signify the price increase as an “eco tax”. The government was quick to

respond to the outrage of residents and the fee was soon abolished (Miller, 2010).

Bill 91 is again another push for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in Ontario,

and although the idea of EPR may not be novel by any means, there has been a

surprisingly strong resistance from conservatives and industry. In a legislative

26

debate on December 4 2013, John Yakabuski made it very clear what stance

industry was taking against this bill:

“So businesses now have a choice. They’re going to be able to make

the choice to absorb this half-a-billion-dollar cost, and perhaps lose

thousands—they would have to fire thousands of people across the

province of Ontario to be able to cut their expenditures—or they’re

going to do what they’ve always done, and that is just pass the cost

on to the consumer. So the consumer is going to pay.” (Yakabuski,

2013).

Companies with low cash flow may not have the up-front capital to put into a

recycling plant and will suffer an extra expense at the end of the day. The

denunciation of this bill is ironically the conflicting threat it may pose to job

stability. The manufacturing sector has taken a big hit since the Liberal party took

office. NDP leader Andrea Horwath revealed to the Toronto Star in April 2013 that

Ontario’s manufacturing industry has lost 300, 000 jobs since 2005 (Brennan,

2013). It goes without saying that there has been some indifference between the

Liberal party and the manufacturing sector over the last nine years. Opposition has

categorized high-energy costs and Bill 91 as factors that are forcing manufacturing

out of Ontario (Yakabuski, 2013). The current provincial government has dealt with

some bad publicity over the gas plant scandal, as talks about an impending

provincial election come to light. The MOE will be eager to see if the bill goes

through a third reading before election time. If this does not happen and a new

27

government is elected, the winning party will appoint a new minister of the

environment who will ultimately have the choice whether to adopt the bill or not.

Although the future of this bill is uncertain, it serves as the foundation of the

direction that the waste diversion is moving toward. The producers are now the

focus as the actors that need to help calibrate waste diversion in not only Ontario

but around the world. This is an area where globalization and international

standards like the ISO could have a positive impact for waste reduction. Consumers

have seen the packaging of some popular products become revamped to include

more recyclable content over the past few years for this reason. Stricter packaging

rules elsewhere in the world and EPR in Europe have served as methods to pressure

the production industry to continue to scrutinize their own packaging until they

reach the most innocuous material possible.

Essentially, one of the biggest impediments Ontario has in reaching its

diversion goals is the lack of liaise that exists between the producers and those that

are managing waste. The waste management industry has no influence over the

design and recyclability of consumer products or packaging (Environmental

Commissioner of Ontario 2011). Thus municipalities are not able to tackle the root

of the problem, which is waste reduction and modification at the source. Although

we are seeing improvements in residential diversion, the abysmal results of non-

residential sources show evidence of a broken framework.

Encouraging producers to incorporate environmental considerations in the

design phase is ultimately the goal of EPR. Packaging, which is a significant portion

of the waste stream, was flagged as priority by the Canadian Council of Ministers of

28

the Environment (CCME) in their report titled, A Canada-Wide Strategy for

Sustainable Packaging written in 2009. The CCME established the EPR task group

who published two documents: Canada-wide strategy for sustainable packaging and

Canada-wide action plan for EPR. These documents gave recommendations on ways

to transition into EPR, how to strengthen and solidify the program as well as ways

to ensure its maximum effectiveness. This task force also established Canada-wide

sustainability indicators that can be used to measure sustainability of packaging

(CCME, 2009).

The authors mention one noteworthy complication with packaging. Presently

some packaging that enters into the waste stream may technically be recyclable, but

often end up in landfill because of its impracticability or difficulty to manage (CCME,

2009). If producers are financially and environmentally responsible for their

product’s end of life management, it will definitely be in their best interest to

alleviate their own difficulties, limit their eventual waste products and use easily

manageable material (CCME, 2009). The target that each producer is encouraged to

develop must reveal recyclable content, compostable content, product-to-package

ratio, GHG output, package reduction percentage, collection percentage and

diversion percentage (CCME, 2009).

Conclusion

As a resident of the GTA, one must wonder if the area is in fact taking the

correct path to waste management and if this strategy is most logical under a

sustainable resource management point of view. If the MOE wants to stay

29

committed to harnessing the potential Ontario’s waste has in generating jobs,

investment and increasing Ontario-made products, they must look at extending the

product life-cycles and stress the reuse of the product before recycling or recovery.

With EPR, all the products sold in Ontario’s market will go down as waste generated

by these producers. In order to make this an effective waste management tactic and

not just the government passing along the bill for someone else to pay, there needs

to be more emphasis placed on stimulating markets for reused and recycled

products. By reinforcing policies that encourage the purchase of recycled material

and a network for producers to sell their reusable ‘waste’ products, especially for

the wastes that can be used as an aggregate in the manufacturing of another

product. These are things that Ontario residents are open to, but the government

needs to make a regulatory push to provide the right conditions for investment in

the “reused and recycled” market. One of the self-defeating aspects of the market is

the current tipping costs vs. the cost of recycling. In their publication titled “Rethink

Waste”, the OWMA stated that they believed, “the only way to drive greater

diversion in Ontario especially in the IC&I sector, is to find a way to change the

economics of recycling of disposal. This often involves government intervention.”

(Ontario Waste Management Association, pg 10, 2013). The OWMA is referring to

tools like disposal bans and higher tipping fees to discourage landfilling and

encourage recycling.

This thesis set out to analyze the progression Ontario’s municipal waste

management industry has made from the 1970’s to present day and the underlying

problems that still persist today. This thesis examined current and past industry

30

performance, diversion techniques, private sector stewards and NGO’s within the

sector. It has suggested ways in which Municipal Waste Management in Ontario

could be improved and requires the cooperation of the Federal Government of

Canada, the private sector and the MOE. The Federal government’s involvement is

needed to take a more holistic approach to EPR and the entire waste management

industry. Now that the recommendations are in place from the CCME for a nation

wide EPR framework, Canada needs to take the next step forward and propose an

enforceable draft EPR bill to the cabinet. A bill based on mandatory compliance and

not voluntary participation. The justifications for EPR in Ontario are the same

nation-wide; each province has manufacturers with similar goals and packaging.

EPR would gain caliber, political backing, funding and additional expertise from

national regulations. The government must not see EPR solely as a tool to meet

municipal diversion targets because it has the capacity to aid in reaching other goals

such as GHG reduction targets, national waste diversion targets and an incentive for

industry to progress towards a more sustainable resource management model. Thus

thesis will serve as a document that provoked the need for an Interdisciplinary

approach to waste management from the Federal Government of Canada, the MOE

and the private sector and it is highly recommended that research within this

subject emerges in that direction.

31

Appendix A

Table 1

Disposal of Waste by Source, Province and Territory. (Statistics Canada, Table 3.1, 2013).

Table 2

32

Materials Diverted by Source, Province and Territory. (Statistics Canada, Table 3, 2013).

Table 3

33

Graph 1

34

Total Categories of Solid Waste, Various Years. (Statistics Canada. Chart 2-1, 2013).

35

Graph 2

COVANTA Energy-from-Waste Process. (Covanta, 2011).

36

Graph 3

APPENDIX B

37

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

ONTARIO REGULATION 102/94 - Waste Audits and Waste Reduction Work

Plans

Ontario Regulation 102/94 requires owners of the following establishments to

conduct waste audits, develop and implement waste reduction plans, and update the

audits and plans annually: Schools, retail complexes, construction projects,

hospitals, hotels and motels, demolition, office buildings, restaurants, manufacturers

(all have exceptions for smaller enterprises). These audits must contain: The

amount, nature and composition of the waste, the manner by which the waste gets

produced, the way in which waste gets managed and the extents to which materials

or products consist of recyclable or reusable material (Greener, 2013). To increase

effectiveness a customized Waste Reduction Work Plan must be formulated from

the information gathered in the audit.

This Waste Reduction Work Plan will include:

- Plans to reduce, reuse, and recycle waste (respectively)

- Who is responsible for implementing each part of the plan and when that will

happen

- What the expected results are

- The measures for communicating the plan to employees who work at the building

and to any persons who occupy premises in the building as tenants of the owner.

(Greener, 2013).

ONTARIO REGULATION 103/94 & ONTARIO REGULATION 104/94

38

Ontario Regulation 103/94 requires owners of the establishments listed in

Ontario Regulation 102/94 to have source separation programs for specified

wastes. While Ontario Regulation 104/94 requires manufacturers, packagers and

importers of packaged food, beverage, paper or chemical products to conduct a

packaging audit and implement a packaging reduction work plan (EPA, Ontario

Regulation 103/94 and 104/94, 2011).

Ontario Regulation 101/94

This regulation outlines the requirements for waste management by the

program that is used. For ex. Part II says that each municipality with a population

of at least 5,000 shall establish, operate and maintain a blue box waste

management system, it goes on to outline what the blue box program must

include as well as the yard and leaf composting program, green bin programs

and the legislation for municipal recycling sites and depots (EPA, Ontario

Regulation 101/94, 2011).

Appendix C

39

WM actors in Ontario – NGO’s and Professional Organizations

Waste Diversion Ontario

In December 2006 under the WDA 2002, the MOE appointed a multi-

stakeholder non-governmental corporation called Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO)

to develop a program for household hazardous wastes, which included paints,

cleaners, fluorescent tubes batteries and pharmaceuticals (Waste Diversion Ontario,

2013). WDO is responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of waste diversion

programs. This organization, however, has very few staff and resources, and has not

been able to perform much in the way of evaluation to date (Canadian Institute For

Environmental Law and Policy, 2008).

Municipal Waste Association (MWA)

The Municipal Waste Association, formerly known as the Association of

Municipal Recycling Coordinators, is an incorporated not-for-profit organization

formed in 1987 by Ontario municipal waste management professionals to facilitate

the sharing of municipal waste reduction and recycling information and experience.

The MWA undertakes research; works with industry to keep them informed,

organizes workshops and provides support services.

http://www.municipalwaste.ca/about_background.cfm

40

Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO)

Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) is a not-for-profit organization that is

actively involved in by-law implementation, educational awareness, and project

work around the issues in waste management such as: waste generation, reduction

and diversion, and recycling (Recycling Council of Ontario, 2014).

Stewardship Ontario (SO)

A not-for-profit organization funded and governed by industry stewards, brand

owners, first importers or franchisors of the products and packaging materials managed

under the Blue Box and Orange drop program. Both of these programs collect municipal

hazardous or non hazardous waste for recycling (Stewardship Ontario, 2014).

Ontario Electronic Stewardship

A not-for-profit industry organization that oversees the responsible reuse

and recycling of waste electronics through a program that includes 600 collection

sites and numerous other affiliate sites across the province. Each Ontario resident

and business can have their electronics responsibly recycled through the Ontario

Electronic Stewardship at no cost. The program was developed with Waste

Diversion Ontario on behalf of the Ontario government under the Waste Diversion

Act, 2002. The OES electronic waste recycling program accepts 44 items of

electronic waste including computers, televisions, DVD players, hand-held devices

and more (Ontario Electronic Stewardship, 2014).

41

Ontario Tire Stewardship

The OTS organization is growing rapidly soon Ontario will be able to recycle

100% of its tires. Tires are a very viable waste to reproduce because of the extensive

uses for rubber in our everyday lives. The program’s success is shown below:

(Ontario Tire Stewardship, 2014).

Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA)

OWMA is the voice of the waste management sector in Ontario. It contains

private sector companies, public sector, non-profits and any individuals involved

with waste management. Members have diverse interests including Landfill,

Recycling, EFW, Transfer Stations, Organics and is a strong supporter of Resource

Recovery. This organization directly contributes 3 billion dollars in revenue, and

over 130 000 jobs in Ontario. The average salary paid in this sector is also 22%

above the province average salary (OWMA, 2014).

42

References

Brennan, Richard. (2013, April, 3). Kathleen Wynne says Death of Ontario’s

Manufacturing Sector a Myth. Toronto Star. Retrieved from:

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/04/03/kathleen_wynne

_says_death_of_ontarios_manufacturing_sector_a_myth.html

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. (2009). A Canada-Wide Strategy

for Sustainable Packaging. Winnipeg, MB. Retrieved from:

https://www.library.yorku.ca/find/Record/2391372

Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, (2008). A Brief History of

Waste Diversion in Ontario. Toronto ON. Retrieved from:

http://www.cielap.org/pdf/WDA_BriefHistory.pdf

Clapp, R.J & Curtis, C.R. (2013). Durham/York Energy From Waste Facility

Construction Update Report. Report 2013-J-28. Retrieved from:

http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/project/project_doc.htm

City of Toronto, (2001). The Keele Valley Landfill Site. Toronto, ON Retrieved from:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/94660921/THE-KEELE-VALLEY-

LANDFILL-SITE

City of Toronto, (2007) City of Toronto acquires Green Lane Landfill. Toronto ON.

Retrieved from:

http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/it/newsrel.nsf/af1ffa833dc5afb485256dde005

a4471/ae07918b3bbf2c6b852572b2006e44c7?OpenDocument

43

Covanta. (2011). COVANTA Energy-from-Waste Process. PDF. Retrieved from:

http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/project/project_doc.htm

Covanta. (2012). Sustainable Waste Management in Ontario: Benefits & Policy,

Niagara Falls, ON [Powerpoint]. Retrieved from:

http://www.swanaon.org/symposium6/SWANA%20PDF

%20Presentations/Michael%20Van%20Brunt.pdf

Daubs, Katie. (2013, Jun 07). Toronto garbage stinks in Southwold Township, locals

complain. The Toronto Star. Retrieved from:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/06/07/toronto_garbage_stinks_i

n_southwold_township_locals_complain.html

DurhamYorkWaste. (2012). Durham York Energy Centre, Project Overview.

Retrieved from:

http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/project/project_overview.htm

Dodds, Bob. (2011). Algonquin Power Energy From Waste Facility. [Powerpoint].

Retrieved from: http://www.simcoe.ca/ws_cos/groups/public/@pub-cos-

sta-com/documents/agenda_documents/wscos_033911.pdf

Environment Canada. (2012). Pollution Issues: Energy from Waste Facility,

Clarington, ON. Retrieved on December 6, 2013 from:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/air/default.asp?lang=En&n=5427E598-1

Environment Canada. (2013). Municipal Solid Waste and the Environment,Technical

Document for Batch Incineration. Retrieved on March 6, 2014 from:

https://www.ec.gc.ca/gdd-mw/default.asp?lang=En&n=B8DA5596-1

44

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. (2011). What a Waste: Failing to Engage

Waste Reduction Solutions. Retrieved from:

http://www.ecoissues.ca/index.php/What_a_Waste:_Failing_to_Engage_

Waste_Reduction_Solutions#Diversion_Programs_Fail_to_Cover_all_Costs

Environmental Registry. (2013). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions in Ontario: A

Discussion Paper Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-

External/displaynoticecontent.do?

noticeId=MTE4MzMy&statusId=MTc3MDg5.

EPA. (2011). Ontario Regulation 101/94. Retrieved from: http://www.e-

laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_940101_e.htm

EPA. (2011). Ontario Regulation 103/94. Retrieved from: https://www.e-

laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_940103_e.htm

EPA. (2011). Ontario Regulation 104/94. Retrieved from: http://www.e-

laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_940104_e.htm

EPA. (1994). Ontario Regulation 102/94. Retrieved from: http://www.e-

laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_940102_e.htm

Gregory, Jacob. (2010). Climate Change and Waste – The Missing Link. Canadian

Institute For Environmental Law and Policy. Retrieved from:

http://www.cielap.org/pdf/EPRclimatechangeBrief.pdf.

Greener, Leslie. (2013). Stantec, Solid Waste Management. November 26, 2013. [In

Class Lecture]

Hiscock, Anne. (2012). Perpetual Care & Landfill Closure Projection Costs A Case

Study – Green Lane Landfill. [PowerPoint slides] Retrieved from:

45

http://www.swanaon.org/symposium6/SWANA%20PDF

%20Presentations/Anne%20Hiscock.pdf

ICF Consulting. (2005). Determination of the Impact of Waste Management

Activities on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Environment Canada and

Natural Resources Canada. Print.

Miller, Gord. (2010, July 27). Clearing up the Confusion around Eco-Fees [Blog].

Retrieved from: http://www.eco.on.ca/blog/2010/07/27/clearing-up-

the-confusion-around-eco-fees/

Macviro Consultants Inc., Jacques Whitford Ltd. (2006). Durham/York Residual

Waste Study. Results of Public Agency Consultation and Identification of

Preferred Residuals Processing System. Markham ON. Print.

Ministry of the Environment. (2010). Guideline A-7 Air Pollution Control, Design and

Operation Guidelines for Municipal Waste Thermal Treatment Facilities.

Toronto ON. Retrieved from:

http://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=3223

Moloney, Paul. (2013, June 19). Mayor backs burning trash for energy. Toronto Star.

Retrieved from:

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/06/19/rob_ford_backs_b

urning_trash_for_energy.html

Ontario Electronic Stewardship. (2014). OES. About OES. Retrieved from:

http://www.ontarioelectronicstewardship.ca/

46

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, (2010). Environmental Assessment Act - R.S.O.

1990, CHAPTER E.18 – Part 1 Interpretation and Application. Toronto

ON. Retrieved on November 5, 2013 from: https://www.e-

laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90e18_e.htm#Top

Ontario Power Authority. (2013). Durham York Energy Centre (Clarington 01) (20.

MW) – Municipality of Clarington. Retrieved from:

http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/current-electricity-contracts/efw.

Ontario Tire Stewardship. (2014). Rethink Tires. Retrieved from:

http://www.rethinktires.ca/#sthash.WZovfSBL.dpbs

Ontario Waste Management Association, (2013). Waste Hierarchy. Brampton ON.

Retrieved from: http://www.owma.org/Issues/WasteHierarchy.aspx

Ontario Waste Management Association. (2013). Rethink Waste. A Blue Print for

Harnessing the Economic Benefits of Resource Management in Ontario.

Retrieved from:

http://www.owma.org/Publications/OWMAReportsandPolicies/tabid/1

80/ctl/DisplayAttachment/mid/624/AnnotationId/9b3991b7-0bd2-

e211-9cac-00155d607900/Default.aspx

OWMA. (2014). Who We Are. Retrieved from:

http://www.owma.org/About/WhoWeAre.aspx

Peel Energy Recovery. (2013). Council Approves Plan to Build an Energy Recovery

Centre. [News Release]. Retrieved from:

47

http://www.peelenergyrecovery.ca/council-approves-plan-to-build-an-

energy-recovery-centre/

Pollution Probe, (1997). We Recycle – The creators of the Blue Box Program. Toronto,

ON Retrieved from:

http://www.pollutionprobe.org/old_files/Reports/we%20recycle.pdf

Sound Resource Management Group Inc. (2009). Environmental Life Cycle

Assessment of Waste Management Strategies With Zero Waste Objective.

Olympia, WA Retrieved from:

http://www.belkorp.ca/Dr_Morris_Report.pdf

Recycling Council of Ontario. (2010). How is Waste Regulated. Retrieved from:

https://www.rco.on.ca/how_waste_is_regulated

Recycling Council of Ontario. (2014). About RCO. Retrieved from:

https://www.rco.on.ca/about_rco

Statistics Canada. (2013). Chart 3.1. Disposal of Waste by Source, Province and

Territory. Retrieved on March 6 2014 from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-201-

x/2012000/t001-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. (2013). Chart 2-1. Major Categories of Solid Waste, Various Years.

Retrieved on March 6 2014 from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-

201-x/2012000/ct001-eng.htm

48

Statistics Canada. (2013). Table 3. Materials diverted by source, province and

territory Retrieved on December 6 2013 from:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16f0023x/2013001/t002-eng.htm

Stewardship Ontario. (2014). About Us. Retrieved from:

http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/about-us/

Waste. (2014). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/waste?

show=0&t=1397080555

Waste Diversion Ontario, (2013). 2012 Datacall: Residential Highlights. Toronto ON.

Retrieved from:

http://www.wdo.ca/files/6813/8030/8303/Datacall_Highlights_2012.p

df

Waste Diversion Ontario, (2014). 2012 Organic Trends (Residential). Toronto ON.

Retrieved from:

http://www.wdo.ca/files/6213/8997/4569/2012_Organics_Residential.

pdf

Yakabuski, John. (2013).Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Official Records for 4

December 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-

proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=2013-12-

04&Parl=40&Sess=2&locale=en#para28

49

50