COUNTY OF SIMCOE
To:
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Section:
Council – Strategic Planning
Item Number:
CCW 14-265
Meeting Date:
June 3, 2014
Subject:
Waste Diversion Update
Recommendation:
THAT Item CCW 14-265 regarding information on waste diversion initiatives and municipal
comparators, be received for information.
Executive Summary:
This Item is in response to Recommendation No. CCW-116-14 (March) seeking information on waste
diversion initiatives of other Ontario municipalities and success stories from outside the province. The
Background/Analysis of this Item includes information on the County’s most recent (2012) system
performance, tables summarizing performance comparators of other top ranking municipalities, and an
analysis of this information. Additionally, this Item provides some analysis of indirect costs associated
with organic materials remaining in the garbage as discussed at the April 22, 2014 Council meeting.
Background/Analysis/Options:
System Performance
On January 22, 2013, Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) released the results of the 2012 municipal
datacall. The County of Simcoe, with a 2012 overall residential diversion rate of 57.65% (an increase
from 56.9% in 2011), ranked seventh in the province and was first amongst comparators in the “Urban
Regional” WDO municipal grouping. The results were summarized and analysis presented to Council
in Item CCW 14-089 (February 11, 2014).
The County continues to be a leader in diversion with the highest kg/capita diverted of all top
municipalities. Waste disposed is unfortunately higher than the majority of the top 10 diverting
municipalities (84 kg/capita higher than the top-ranked City of Guelph) and 54th overall out of the 230
responding municipalities.
June 3, 2014
Committee of the Whole CCW 14-265
2
Performance Comparators of 2012 Top-Ranking Ontario Municipalities
For reference, the following tables summarize various program and performance aspects of the 2012
top-ranked Ontario municipalities.
Table 1: Tonnes of Residential Waste Generated, Diverted, and Disposed
Rank
2012 Datacall Results
Total Residential Waste
Municipality
Generated
(kg/capita)
Diverted
(kg/capita)
Disposed
(kg/capita)
1
City of Guelph
356
241
115
2
City of Owen Sound
323
204
119
3
Town of Mono
336
204
132
4
Municipality of Meaford
307
183
124
5
Township of East Luther Grand Valley
317
186
131
6
Restructured County of Oxford
444
258
186
7
County of Simcoe
469
270
199
8
Regional Municipality of York
342
196
146
9
Town of Orangeville
420
235
185
10
Municipality of Grey Highlands
539
302
238
Table 2: Further Breakdown of Residential Waste Diverted
Curbside
Facilities
Recycling
(kg/cap)
SourceSeparated
Organics
(kg/cap)
Wood
(kg/cap)
Drywall
(kg/cap)
Brick &
Concrete
(kg/cap)
Other C&D
Recyclables
(kg/cap)
Total Other
Recyclables
Collected
(kg/cap)
Scrap
Metal
(kg/cap)
City of Guelph
68.4
72.7
2.4
2.8
2.8
9.1
21.9
4.1
City of Owen Sound
95.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Town of Mono
82.8
67.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
72.8
31.1
15.9
-
-
11.0
43.6
12.9
77.2
77.0
-
-
-
-
18.4
-
67.6
-
3.4
-
-
2.0
6.0
0.6
County of Simcoe
90.5
39.6
17.8
5.2
6.7
12.7
48.8
4.6
Regional Municipality
of York
69.2
59.6
0.9
0.5
3.0
0.8
7.3
1.6
Town of Orangeville
129.6
34.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
Municipality of Grey
Highlands
67.3
-
176.7
-
-
2.2
221.1
20.7
Municipality
Municipality of
Meaford
Township of East
Luther Grand Valley
Restructured County
of Oxford
June 3, 2014
Committee of the Whole CCW 14-265
3
Table 3: Description of Curbside Programs
Rank/Municipality
1-City of Guelph1
2-City of Owen
Sound
3-Town of Mono
4-Municipality of
Meaford
5-Township of East
Luther Grand Valley
6-Restructured
County of Oxford
7-County of Simcoe
8-York Region
9-Town of
Orangeville
10-Municipality of
Grey Highlands
Garbage Collection System
 weekly, clear bags, no limit
 biweekly, cart system, resident
selects size
 biweekly, full user pay
 $2.50/garbage tag
(maximum 4 bags)
 biweekly
 2 bags garbage/pick-up
 clear bags only
 biweekly, full user pay
 $2.00/garbage tag
(maximum 3 bags)
 weekly
 2 bags garbage/week
 clear bags only
 weekly, full user
pay$1.50/garbage tag
 (no limit)
 weekly
 1 bag garbage/week
 $3.00/additional garbage tag
 frequency, bag limits, and
restrictions vary by
municipality
 weekly, clear bags
 1 bag garbage/week
 $2.00/additional garbage tag
 weekly
 1 bag garbage/week
 $2.00/additional garbage tag
Organics Program
Details
# of
Municipal
Disposal
Locations
Facility
Diversion
Programs
Residential
Diversion
Rate
 weekly
 includes leaf and
yard and pet waste
1
11
67.72%
 no organics
program
0
n/a
63.09%
 weekly
0
n/a
60.62%
 weekly
1
5
59.73%
 weekly
0
n/a
58.73%
 no organics
program
1
11
58.10%
 weekly
8
15
57.65%
 weekly includes
pet waste and
diapers
3
varies by
municipality
57.25%
 weekly
0
n/a
55.99%
 no organics
program
3
8
55.90%
1 - Guelph is in transition, cart system commenced in the fall of 2012, 3-year phase-in anticipated to entire City.
Analysis
As outlined in Tables 1 and 2 above, the County’s strength lies in diversion, both through the curbside
recycling program as well as the many successful facilities based diversion programs. Although Staff
continue to further develop enhancements to waste diversion programs both curbside and at facilities,
the greatest room for improvement remains the curbside organics program. Without implementation of
further restrictions on curbside garbage, we rely on changing behaviour through promotion and
education which is not as successful as garbage restriction.
This is evident by the success of the top-ranked municipalities. As indicated in Table 3 above, each of
the six municipalities ranking higher than the County of Simcoe have implemented additional
restrictions on curbside garbage such as biweekly collection, full user-pay garbage (all material must
be tagged), clear bags, or a combination thereof. This has resulted in a lower kg/capita disposed as
outlined in Table 1. It is further noted that only one of the top 10 ranking municipalities diverts diapers
and only two accept pet waste. This would indicate that it is not necessary to remove these items from
the garbage stream in order to successfully implement further restrictions on curbside garbage.
June 3, 2014
Committee of the Whole CCW 14-265
4
It is important to note the absence of other disposal options in the County may account for some of the
disparity between the County’s disposal rates/capita versus some other jurisdictions. Other municipal
jurisdictions may not operate their own disposal facilities or may have competing commercial disposal
facilities within or in proximity to their boundaries. In these cases, the municipality would have no way
of knowing or reporting these tonnages to Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO). For example, the City of
Owen Sound directs residents to a commercial transfer facility and does not appear to report tonnages
collected at this facility in their datacall submission.
Staff has noted previously that the WDO datacall, being a common system of measurement, is an
excellent tool for measuring and monitoring but, because of variances between systems in different
jurisdictions, problems occur when attempting to compare dissimilar municipalities to each other. The
datacall does however, remain a useful tool to measure a municipality’s relative change in diversion
success with the advent of new programs when comparing year over year results.
In the case of the County of Simcoe, our ranking remains very strong in the province with our diversion
rate increasing from 56.9% in 2011 to 57.65% in 2012. The unaudited 2013 datacall results indicate
that we remain at 57% diversion.
Outside of the Province
Discussion at the March 11, 2014 Committee of the Whole meeting indicated an interest in
learning about Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in British Columbia as well as waste
management in Nova Scotia which are outlined below.
British Columbia (B.C.)
Similar to Ontario, EPR has been in place in B.C. for some time. At the time of preparation of this
Item, there are currently 21 material types with EPR systems in place with a further program to be
implemented for packaging and printed paper effective May 19, 2014. Many of the same EPR
programs are in place in Ontario as in B.C., however; B.C. has for small and large appliances,
outdoor power equipment, thermostats, smoke alarms, and light fixtures. Each of the 21
programs is administered by different steward organizations and collection methods vary with the
majority of programs requiring drop off by residents at collection depots or through return to
retailer programs. The programs appear to be mainly available in urbanized areas including
curbside collection of beverage containers, electronics, small appliances, thermostats and tires.
All beverage containers, excluding milk, sold in B.C. are subject to a deposit which is refunded
upon return. For milk containers there is a voluntary return program and many of the curbside
collection programs accept milk containers however there is no deposit or refund on these items.
Antifreeze and oils are subject to eco fees at point of purchase to fund the program.
Overall, the B.C. program strength is in the number of programs available and the network of drop
off locations in urbanized areas. However, the number of operators and variations in all of the
collection programs results in some significant complexity which likely affects participation and
capture rates.
The major change coming to many residents in B.C. is the Multi-Material British Columbia
(MMBC) packaging and printed paper recycling program, to be implemented on May 19, 2014.
MMBC has 850 stewards which are obligated to pay for the management program. In many
areas of B.C., municipalities will continue to provide recycling collection services and be paid an
incentive fee for collection. The list of materials collected may be expanded or reduced,
June 3, 2014
Committee of the Whole CCW 14-265
5
depending upon the municipality. In other areas, MMBC will assume responsibility for collecting
residential packaging and printed paper for recycling.
Similar to Ontario EPR programs, the MMBC program shifts responsibility for funding recyclables
service from municipal taxpayers to the manufacturers and suppliers of materials. It has therefore
been controversial as manufacturers and suppliers typically are not willing to bear the burden of
the cost or the responsibility for developing, implementing and maintaining a management system
for their materials.
Nova Scotia
The province of Nova Scotia has taken an active role in waste management. In 2000, Nova
Scotia was the first province to achieve a diversion rate of 50%. The Nova Scotia Government is
committed to maintaining this and to reaching a target for waste disposal of less than 300
kg/capita/yr by the year 2015 (based on the total waste disposed per person in municipal solid
waste and Construction/Demolition sites, not including primary industrial waste i.e. mine tailings,
pulp and paper waste or material disposed at other facilities). The 300 kg/capita figure is therefore
not comparable with the Ontario datacall figures as they are only residential reported weights. The
most recent data available for Nova Scotia indicates that in 2012, 394 kg/capita was achieved.
Although this is a long way from their disposal goal, the rate has been reduced significantly from
well over 500 kg/capita in 1996, when the province implemented its strategy, despite increasing
waste generation rates.
Nova Scotia plans to achieve their goals through new programs, provincial disposal bans,
encouragement of diversion on a regional level, promotion and education, and product
stewardship regulations. Provincial disposal bans are in place for a number of divertible materials
including electronics, typical blue box recyclables, organics, and automotive batteries.
Beverage container deposits are collected, of which 50% are refunded upon return of the
container and 50% goes to fund municipalities or management regions to partially offset municipal
waste management costs. The funding level to municipalities is based on the tonnage of
materials diverted by the municipality; the more a municipality diverts, the more funding it
receives. As a result, 41 of 54 municipalities in Nova Scotia use a clear bag program.
Additionally, municipal organics collection programs are robust in Nova Scotia with 17 organics
processing facilities in the province, 9 of which manage residential material.
Nova Scotia also has a network of over 80 enviro-depots which collect beverage containers, paint,
electronics, car batteries, printed paper and packaging. Product stewardship programs are in
place for milk packaging, printed paper and packaging, syringes, beverage containers, paint, tires
and electronics.
Nova Scotia is currently in the process of reviewing their provincial solid waste management
strategy and has begun public consultation which is scheduled to be completed this summer.
Potential enhancements may include additional landfill bans for materials such as wood, drywall,
shingles and expanded polystyrene, as well as new products proposed for stewardship programs.
Indirect Costs Associated with Divertibles still in the Garbage Stream
Three specific questions of staff, related to this report, were raised at Committee of the Whole.
They are presented below in italics with staff’s response below:
June 3, 2014
Committee of the Whole CCW 14-265
6
1. What is the economic cost of 50% of divertibles still being in the garbage stream?
Based on the most recent waste audits slightly more than 50% (over 19,500 tonnes) of the
material in curbside garbage was divertible through already available County waste
management programs. Since the cost of collection of the waste in a diversion program as
opposed to the garbage program is no different, there is no real collection cost change.
The direct cost of managing organics (transfer, haulage, and processing) is slightly higher
than similar costs for garbage. The direct costs for recyclables (transfer, haulage,
processing, sales revenue) is significantly lower than the cost for managing garbage.
When the two factors are considered together the increased costs of the organics are
offset by the decreased costs / increased revenues of the recycling making very little real
economic impact managing the divertibles in the garbage stream.
2. What are the leachate cost impacts of 40% of our garbage going to our sites with these
divertibles in it?
Leachate volume is most attributable to the open area of the landfill site (without final clay
cover) combined with precipitation and is only slightly impacted by the delivered moisture
content of the waste. The strength of the leachate, generally measured as biological
oxygen demand (BOD), is impacted significantly by the amount of organics in the waste
which is in fact the determining factor in the strength of the leachate. Since we have not
yet experienced increased costs due to BOD strength surcharges in our leachate at the
treatment facilities, it is difficult to assess a cost for organics and other divertibles in the
waste in this manner.
3. What are the greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental costs for organics going
to our landfills?
Since Canada has not signed on to a carbon cap and trade system there is no direct easy
answer to this question. Speculation in the waste industry a number of years ago was that
should Canada pursue a national or international agreement on carbon cap and trade that
the impact for organics would be that two tonnes of carbon credit would be created for
every one tonne of organics diverted from landfill. The value of those carbon credits was
reputed to start in the $10 - $20 range per tonne and estimates were that the future
markets could increase to ten times that amount dependent on the restrictions placed on
industry in a cap and trade system. It is estimated based on the most recent waste audit,
that nearly 25,000 tonnes of organics were in the curbside waste garbage stream (inclusive
of pet waste and diapers) in 2013.
Financial and Resource Implications:
There is no direct financial impact as a result of this information Item.
Relationship to Corporate Strategies:
The Waste Management Strategy recommended further restrictions on curbside garbage be
implemented concurrent with the start of the new curbside collection contract. Options for
consideration included a transition to a full user-pay system, bi-weekly garbage collection, a clear bag
policy, or an increase in the cost of additional bag tags.
June 3, 2014
Committee of the Whole CCW 14-265
7
The Strategy also recommended a system for measuring and monitoring of key performance
indicators. The annual WDO datacall results are a component of this monitoring system. The
Strategy also specified that monitoring initiatives be reported on a regular basis. This Item therefore
fulfills also fulfills a component of the monitoring program.
Reference Documents:
WDO 2012 Top 20 Municipalities for Diverting Residential Waste
http://www.wdo.ca/files/5513/9040/7416/Datacall.MunicipalRelease.Jan2014.pdf
Waste management information for the following municipalities:
Guelph
http://guelph.ca/living/garbage-and-recycling/
Owen Sound
https://www.owensound.ca/environment
Mono
http://www.townofmono.com/content/waste-management
Meaford
http://www.meaford.ca/operations/waste-management.html
East Luther Grand Valley
http://www.townofgrandvalley.ca/local-services/large-garbage/
County of Oxford
http://www.oxfordcounty.ca/ServicesforYou/GarbageandRecycling.aspx
Dufferin County
http://www.dufferincounty.ca/residents/waste
Waste management information for the following provinces:
British Columbia
http://www.rcbc.ca/recycling-programs/epr
http://multimaterialbc.ca/sites/default/files/New%20Materials%20in%20Blue%20Box%20Announce
ment%20FINAL%20April%2021.pdf
http://www.return-it.ca/ips/index.html
Nova Scotia
http://www.novascotia.ca/nse/waste/docs/SolidWasteStrategyFinalReport1995.pdf
https://www.novascotia.ca/nse/dept/docs/NSE.Statement.of.Mandate.2013-2014.pdf
https://www.novascotia.ca/nse/waste/docs/solid-waste-public-discussion.pdf
http://crcresearch.org/case-studies/case-studies-sustainable-infrastructure/waste/green-wasteprograms
Attachments:
None
Prepared By:
Willma Bureau – Contracts & Collections Supervisor
Rob McCullough – Director, Solid Waste Management
Stephanie Mack, P.Eng. – Special Projects Supervisor
Approvals:
Date
Debbie Korolnek, General Manager, Engineering, Planning and Environment
Trevor Wilcox, General Manager, Corporate Performance
Mark Aitken, Chief Administrative Officer
May 26, 2014
May 27, 2014
May 27, 2014