To: 10,2007 - London, Ontariocouncil.london.ca/councilarchives/agendas/environment and... ·...

J

SUBJECT

1

WASTE DIVERSION STRATEGY PUBLIC CONSULTATION DOCUMENT AND RECENT WASTE DIVERSION INITIATIVES

Agenda kern # Page #

II To: I CHAIR AND MEMBERS ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE II

MEETING ON DECEMBER 10,2007 I!

1 RECOMMENDATION

That, on the recommendation of the General Manager of Environmental & Engineering Services & City Engineer the following actions be taken with respect to planning for increased levels of waste diversion:

a) The General Manager of Environmental & Engineering Services & City Engineer BE AUTHORIZED to release the Consultation Document entitled A Road Map to Maximize Waste Diversion in London for public consultation.

DIRECTED to report back by Spring 2008 with: b) That General Manager of Environmental & Engineering Services & City Engineer BE

a summary of the public consultation activities and input received, recommended waste diversion programs and initiatives including an implementation strategy, recommended policy changes that can be undertaken directly by Municipal Council, recommended policy changes that can be supported by Municipal Council but must be enacted by other levels of government, and a comprehensive business plan for the recommended waste diversion programs and initiatives which includes consideration of financing strategies based on alternative financing arrangements including utility-like models and any by-law amendments.

i. ii.

iii. iv.

v.

c) That General Manager of Environmental & Engineering Services & City Engineer BE DIRECTED to:

i.

ii.

continue to work with the London Plastic Bag Project to reduce the number of single use plastic bags used by London retailers, continue to work with London Waste Free Festivals and the Home County Festival to develop options for reducing waste from outdoor events on public property noting that the Home County Festival has agreed to serve as a demonstration project, actively pursue other partnership based initiatives to reduce waste generation and increase waste diversion in 2008 within the budget to be approved for this program in February 2008, and examine the viability of implementing a ban of single-use drinking water bottles at municipal buildings and making municipal water more readily available in public spaces and to report back to a future Environment &Transportation Committee meeting with the findings.

II I

iii.

iv.

I PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER

Relevant reports that can be found at httD://~.london.ca/Council/m~tinaDackaaes.htm include:

Update on Waste Diversion Projects and Reports (July 9, 2007 Meeting of ETC) Preliminary Information on the Draft Waste Diversion Strategy and Impact on Weekly Garbage and Recycling Collection (January 25.2007 meeting of BoC) Extension of Recycling Program Contract (May 29,2006 Meeting of ETC) Modifications to Solid Waste Management Program (June 20,2005 Meeting of ETC)

2

Agenda Item # Page #

11 BACKGROUND 11 PURPOSE

This purpose of this consultation document is to:

seek approval to release the document entitled A Roadmap to Maximize Waste Diversion In London (provided as a separate report) for public consultation as well as provide information to ETC on the programs and initiatives included in the document. detail the reports the ETC will receive after completion of the public consultation phase including a Business Plan that will examine options for financing new waste management costs including financing strategies based on a utility model. update ETC on several recent waste diversion initiatives.

CONTEXT

In 2004, the Provincial Government set a goal of diverting 60% of Ontario’s waste by the end of 2008 which would more than the double provincial diversion average of 28%. In 2006, London diverted 40% of its residential waste and will need to improve/expand existing diversion programs and implement new initiatives if it is to reach 60% waste diversion in an appropriate timeframe. In the same way that the Provincial Government is moving to tie Permits to Take Water to water conservation programs, it is reasonable to anticipate that achieving diversion goals will be tied to future landfill requests.

DISCUSSION

a) Consultation Document: A Roadmap to Maximize Waste Diversion in London Staff have looked at a number of waste diversion measures and their environmental benefits, social considerations and financial impact. Information on the waste diversion measures considered is presented in the report A Roadmap to Maximize Waste Diversion in London (Table of Contents is appended). This document has been prepared to provide background and to solicit public input prior to finalizing the recommended waste diversion strategy.

The document outlines and explains a number of options the City has compiled and/or developed to help Londoners achieve higher diversion rates and asks for their thoughts and ideas. It is a “road map” because there are a number of choices along the route that have to be made to determine which direction we are going to head. To assist the reader, over 20 “short stories” that will be of interest have been created. Ultimately, the continued success of our waste management system is based on the resident‘s desires and willingness to participate. That is why feed back is critical to the future direction of waste management services. The road map includes a number of different Chapters (short stones) across 6 Sections:

Section 1: Planning the Trip - background information on the existing waste management system Section 2: How Far Have We Traveled? - updating Londoners on the progress they have made

Section 3: The Road to Higher Diversion - looking at options for managing waste in the future Section 4: Who Pays for the Trip? - financial costs and how to pay for any new costs Section 5: Sharing the Road -there are many other important drivers that must be considered Section 6: So Which Way Should We Go? - encourages Londoners to provide feedback on

directions the City should take

The document discusses programs and initiatives to:

Optimize existing programs (e.g. recycling and household special waste) Expand existing programs (e.g., add new materials to the blue box, new EnviroDepot) Add new programs (e.g., ”green bin”) Increase behaviour change initiatives (e.g., mandatory recycling by-law, material bans)

Waste diversion measures were combined to create waste diversion systems that will “Achieve 60%”. “Exceed 60%” and “Maximize Diversion (65%+)” diversion rates. Both weekly and garbage and recycling pickup and bi-weekly (every two weeks) service are included in the analysis. The comparison of the three different waste diversion systems presented in the document is summarized on Table 1 (next page).

in diverting waste

3


Table 1: Overview of Environmental, Social 81 Financial Considerations of Waste Diversion Systems

3n System Waste Divei

Achieve 60%

Consideration

Existing Maximlze Diversion Exceed 60%

Annual Tonnes Diverted 85,000 to 101,000 to 110,000

45,000 to 54.000

93,000 to 101,000 54,000 to 62.000

62,000

93,000

93,000 62,000 to

75.000 Annual Tonnes Landfilled

55% to 60% 60% to 85% 85% plus 40%

16 yrs

Diversion Rate

Remaining Years of Landfill Capacity (a)

~

18 yrs 19 yrs 18% yrs

11,500 cars 20,000 cars 24,000 cars 28,000 cars Annual GHG Savings Equivalent to (b) Annual Energy Savings Eauivalent to (c) 27,000 homes

separation from multi- residential locatlons is unproven Compost markets issues Garbage picked up every 2 weeks (same day)

$4,700,000

Organics

16,000 homes

works well Understood Diverted materials have established end markets

22,000 homes

More effort to separate green bin materials Established , markets for compost products Garbage picked up weekly (same day)

$4,700,000

$5,500,000

27,000 homes

Commitment to more material separation

D Tools for increased behaviour change

v Garbage picked up every 2 weeks (same day)

$4,700,000

Cey Social Considerations

Current Net Annual Operating Diversion Cost Additional Net Annual Operating Diversion Cost (d) Total New Net Annual Operating Diversion Cost (d) New Annual Garbage and Recycling Collection Costs for Additional Pickups (e) Total Net Annual Resldentlal Waste Management System Operatlng Cost (f) S

$4,700,000

- $8,350,000 $6,850,000

$4,700,000 $10,200,000 $13,050,000 $11,550,000

$400,000 $1,500,000

$22,000,000

$400,000

$23,750,000 $22,250,000 $4 5,000,000

3ased on current tonnage delivered to the W12A Landfill site and increased by current population growth. Naste diversion programs since 1980 have extended the site life of the landfill by nine years. Zstimated Greenhouse Gas (GHG) savings are the emissions avoided equivalent to the specified number of cars being removed from the road per year (i.e., the Waste Diversion System has avoided the GHG emissions equivalent to the identified number of vehicles per year).

(c) Estimated energy savings equivalent to the amount of electricity not being used by the specified number of homes per year (Le., the Waste Diversion System has avoided the equivalent electricity consumption requirements of the identified number of homes per year).

(d) Estimated diversion costs are based on the best available information. The actual cost may vary by +/- 25% depending on implementation issues, market conditions and other factors.

(e) Weekly recycling costs and waste collection servlca to cover statutory holidays offset savings from biweekly garbage collection.

( f ) Costs do not include one time capital costs for: Weekly Garbage Collection (additional vehicles for “achieve 60%” only) $ 500,000

$1,200,000 Green Bin Programs (carts and vehicles) $6,000,000 Subsidized Recycling Containers $ 500,000 Awareness and Behaviour Change Initiatives $ 300,000

Total $ 8,500,000

New Community EnviroDepot with Household Special Waste Depot

4

Agemia Item # Page #

Public Consultation

Public consultation will start with the release of the document after the Municipal Council meeting on December 17,2007 and end in late February/March and include:

. Two open houses in the first quarter of 2008 (tentatively schedule for January 22 at City Hall

. Presentations to community and business groups Public opinion survey Encouraging residents to complete the questionnaire included in the Consultation Document and on the City’s website www.london.ca under the title Waste Diversion Strategy Opportunities for residents to learn more from the City website or directly from staff

b) Outcome Report to ETC In the Spring of 2000 After consultation is completed, staff will prepare a number of reports for presentation to ETC in the Spring 2008 including:

and January 29 at a location in the south London area)

a summary of the public consultation activities and input received, recommended waste diversion programs and initiatives including an implementation strategy, recommended policy changes that can be undertaken directly by Municipal Council (e.g., restrictions on the sale of certain products), recommended policy changes that can be supported by Municipal Council but must be enacted by other levels of government (e.g., National Packaging Protocol) , and a comprehensive business plan for the recommended waste diversion programs and initiatives which includes consideration of financing strategies based on alternative financing arrangements including utility-like models and any by-law amendments.

Financina Strateaies In 2005, Council directed staff to examine service delivery options, financing strategies and implementation details of alternative management models based on the principles of a utility operation for solid waste management.

The first step in moving to a model based on the principles of a utility operation was the realignment of tipping fees which resulted in more waste to and revenue from the W12A Landfill. Sustainable tipping fees and secure local disposal capacity is beneficial for local business. The second step included the re-alignment of all components of the solid waste management program into a single budget area.

The next step towards moving to a model based on the principles of a utility operation may be in how new waste diversion costs and weekly garbage and recycling costs are financed. The current system with such a high percentage based on property taxes is not viewed by many as being a sustainable method to cover the costs of future waste diversion. City staff believe that creating a management and operational model over the long-term based on the principles of a utility operation for solid waste management will have several advantages over the current program model including:

improved ability to Municipal Council to monitor the budget, allocate resources, measure performance and make changes increased accountability to the taxpayers of London. increased transparency and a clearer understanding of services provided and associated costs and revenues in the system. improved ability to address customer needs and environmental protection. improved ability to create a short and long-term self-sustaining financing structure. increased ability to expand financing alternatives and have reduced reliance on the use of general taxes (e.g., costs are expected to increase at a rate greater than inflation because of new MOE regulations and policies, closed landfill costs, new disposal capacity costs, etc.)

Major system changes such as this will involve important and timely discussion with Municipal Council and ultimately Council will have the final say in these matters.

A business plan is one of the documents that will be provided to ETC at the end of the public consultation period. The business plan will look at financing strategies and alternative management models including those based on the principles of a utility operation. Financing

5


strategies discussed in the document A Roadmap to Maximize Waste Diversion in London include:

Taxes Most municipalities in Ontario finance the majority of their waste management costs through property taxes. This is the case here in London where approximately 2.5% of property taxes go towards funding waste management costs. In this system, businesses also pay for a portion of the waste management services provided to residents. The new costs to achieve 60% or higher waste diversion plus additional pickup service could be paid for by increasing property taxes by 1.5% to 2.3% (based on 2008 tax rate) per year.

Flat Rate Some municiDalities (ea.. Ottawa) have implemented an annual or monthly flat rate fee for all or . - . a portion of residential waste management services. These charges are ofien shown as a line item on the tax bill and collected at the same time taxes are paid. The main advantages of a flat rate system are:

it is visible to the user, all homeowners receive the same service and pay the same fee no cross subsidization by commerciallindustrial users

Using this example, the amount charged to a single family home would be between $60 to $75 to cover the new costs while multi-residential dwellings would be charged a flat rate of between $5 to $30 per unit.

User Pay In user pay systems, the user is charged based on the amount of garbage they generate. Residents are typically charged a fee per bag or container of garbage and not charged for diversion programs. This system provides an economic incentive to reduce the amount of garbage that is generated.

Some municipalities have implemented "full" user pay systems where the resident pays a fee for all garbage generated. Other municipalities have implemented "partial" user pay system whereby residents only pay for a fee for garbage above a set volume (e.g., they only have to pay if they generate more than 2 bags of garbage). The City of Toronto has approved a plan to bring in a partial user pay system.

User pay systems, including full user pay systems, typically do not generate enough revenue to cover all waste management costs and a portion of the waste management costs continue to be paid by taxes.

Landfill Tipping Fees Municipalities with landfills, like London, could consider obtaining additional funding by increasing tipping fee revenue from the landfill. This can be done by raising tipping fees or by accepting more garbage at the landfill.

There are limits on the amount that can be raised by increasing tipping fees before waste goes to another landfill. It may be possible to attract additional waste from the businesslinstitution sectors however this reduces landfill lifespan. We must ensure that appropriate amounts of business waste are directed to the W12A Landfill while balancing social, financial and environmental objectives. Overall, it may be possible to pay for a portion but not all of the new waste diversion programs by increasing tipping fee revenue.

Government and Industry Funding Funding from other levels of government and industry is expected to remain stable starting in 2009 but generally limited. Funding for the Blue Box program is expected to drop but new funding is likely to emerge for household special waste and electronics recycling.

c) Update on Recent Waste Diversion Initiatives New waste diversion initiatives continue to be implemented in London while long term planning is taking place. Listed below are some recent waste diversion initiatives. Some are City driven and others are being spearheaded by local groups, often in partnership with the City.

6

Agenda Item # Page # -- London Plastic Bag Project This group has taken the lead in London to encourage the reduction of plastic bag use. By using reusable shopping bags we can save thousands of single-use plastic bags from being used. Irs an easy and effective way to conserve resources and reduce the number of plastic bags that end up in landfill or as litter.

This project is targeting business areas to encourage retailers to take measures to reduce the number of plastic bags provided to customers by issuing reuseable bags, educating their customers and posting signs thanking customers for saying "no" to plastic bags. So far the Hyde Park Association has started its program while other business associations are looking at initiatives for 2008. The City will be participating in a couple of these forthcoming demonstration projects to understand Londoner's reactions and to monitor the reduction in the number of plastic bags used. In 2007, the City has increased the amount of printed awareness materials to support the reduction in plastic bag usage and encourage the use of reusable bags.

In addition to this local initiative, the provincial government has a voluntary agreement from retail organizations for a 50% reduction in the usage of single-use, oil-based plastic bags across Ontario in five years.

It is recommended that City staff continue to work with and support the London Plastic Bag Project to reduce the number of single use plastic bags used by London retailers.

London Waste Free Festivals This concept is a rapidly growing trend among event planners. Celebrations and special events are often synonymous with increased waste and London's special events are no different and are also sources of excess waste.

The City has partnered with London Waste Free Festivals and the Home County Festival to introduce a waste free event at the 2008 Home County Festival. This may include new initiatives such as, asking participants to bring reusable dishware, cloth napkins and refillable water bottles, and food vendors serving on reusable or biodegradable dishware.

Of interest, in May, 2007 the City partnered in hosting the first London Middlesex Children's Water Festival and provided each of the 4,000 elementary students with refillable water bottles. This successful event provided a pilot project for refillable drinking water bottles and outdoor event water stations. It was successfully received and well used by students, teachers and volunteers.

It is recommended that Staff continue to work with London Waste Free Festivals and the Home County Festival to develop options for reducing waste from outdoor events on City land.

Single-use Water Boftles Single-use drinking water bottles (as opposed to "refillable bottles") continue to be the topic of much debate. Commercial bottling companies maintain the sale of these products through marketing campaigns that stress convenience. Efforts are being made by many citizens and environmental organizations to avoid and/or reduce the use of these products since:

many of the bottles are not recycled the water they contain has not been tested to the same standard as municipal drinking water systems the cost to purchase bottled water is substantially greater than the cost of municipal drinking water.

One action the City could consider is a ban of single-use water bottles from municipal offices and buildings to provide a message to residents and staff that these bottles are wasteful and that water in these containers are not tested to the same standards as municipal water. In conjunction with this decision, the promotion of alternatives such as water fountains, providing more access to water pitchers and glasses at meetings and refillable water bottles could be considered. Another action the City could consider would be making municipal water more readily available in public spaces by providing more water fountains/water bottle refilling stations as well as providing portable water bottle filling stations at major outdoor events at Victoria Park and other City venues.

It is recommended that City staff examine the viability of implementing both of these measures and report back the findings at a future ETC meeting.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was prepared by a team comprised of Sal Circelli. Manager, Solid Waste Collection & Disposal Operations; Wesley Abbott, Manager, Solid Waste Engineering; Jamie Skimming, Manager, Air Quality; Anne Boyd, Waste Diversion Coordinator; Jay Stanford, Pat McNally and Pete Steblin.

City staff also wish to thank the many individuals, groups, businesses and business associations that have taken a leadership role in waste diversion so far and look forward to many, many others increasing their efforts and assuming leadership roles as well.

JAY STANFORD, M.A., M.P.A. DIVISION MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS & CUSTOMER RELATIONS

RECOMMENDED B Y RECOMMENDED BY:

~~ ~

PAT McNALLY, P.E& DIRECTOR, WATER, ENVIRONMENT & CUSTOMER RELATIONS

PETER W. STEBLIN, P.Eng. GENERAL MANAGER OF ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES &CITY ENGINEER

November 23,2007MTA y:\shared\solwaste\etc-boc reports\repl11507 nov 2 6 . d ~

Attachment Table of Contents for A Road Map to Maximize Waste Diversion in London

8


ATTACHMENT A

A Road Map to Maximize Waste Diversion in London

Table of Contents Page

Section 1 : Planning the Trip 1 . Introduction . Continuous Improvement ........................................................................... i

2 . Listening to Londoners - Public Consultation ................................................................... 4

3 . Feedback Questions ......................................................................................................... 5

4 . Top 10 Questions Asked About the Ci of London's Waste Management Program ........ 7

5 . Collection Services: Future and Past ................................................................................ 9

Section 2: How Far Have We Traveled? 6 . Congratulations London! - 40% Diversion Reached ...................................................... 10

7 . The Environmental Benefits are Far Reaching ............................................................... 11

8 . How do We Measure Performance? ............................................................................... 14

9 . What's in the Bag and Why? ........................................................................................... 16

Section 3: The Road to Higher Diversion 10 . Optimize Existing Programs ......................................................................................... 18

11 . Expand Existing Programs ........................................................................................... 20

12 . Add Source Separated Organics "Green Bin" ............................................................... 21

13 . Increase Behaviour Change Initiatives ......................................................................... 22

14 . How Are Londoners Making a Difference? ................................................................... 23

15 . Keeping a Watchful Eye on Developments ................................................................... 24

16 . Future Waste Diversion in London ... What is Possible? ................................................ 26

Section 4: Who Pays for the Trip? 17 . Overview of Current and Future Costs ......................................................................... 30

18 . How Do We Pay For New Costs? ................................................................................. 32

Section 5: Sharing the Road I 9 . Who Handles other Waste Streams and What is the Role of the City? ........................ 34

20 . What are the Roles of the Provincial & Federal Governments? .................................... 35

Section 6: So Which Way Should We Go? 21 . How Quickly Can We Get Down the Road? ................................................................. 36

22 . Next Steps .................................................................................................................... 37

23 . We Want Your Feedback .............................................................................................. 38

A Roab Map to Maximize Waste Diversion in London

I Table of Contents 1 Page

Section ~1: Planning the Trip ................................................................................ 1 . Introduct'on . Continuous Improvement 1

2 . Listening to Londoners . Public Consultation ........................................................................ 3 3 . Feedbac Questions .............................................................................................................. 4 4 . Top 10 uestions Asked About the City of London's Waste Management Program 6 5 . Collection Services: Future and Past 8

1 4 8 . 1

13 . c 1

17 . r

............. .....................................................................................

Section 12: How Far Have We Traveled?

7 . The Envi onmental Benefits are Far Reaching .................................................................... 11

Section 1 3: The Road to Higher Diversion

6 . Congrat 'lations London! - 40% Diversion Reached .............................................................. 9

How do w e Measure Performance? .................................................................................... 14 9 . What's i ' the Bag and Why? ................................................................................................ 16

10 . Optimize Existing Programs ............................................................................................... 18 11 . Expand Existing Programs ................................................................................................. 20 12 . Add So rce Separated Organics "Green Bin" Program ..................................................... 21

Increase Behaviour Change Initiatives ............................................................................... 22 14 . How Ar Londoners Making a Difference? ......................................................................... 23 15 . Keepin a Watchful Eye on Developments ........................................................................ 24 16 . Future aste Diversion in London ... What is Possible? ..................................................... 26

Overvi w of Current and Future Costs ............................................................................... 30 18 . How D We Pay For New Costs? ...................................................................................... 32

Section 15: Sharing the Road 19 . Who H ndles Other Waste Streams and What is the Role of the City? ............................. 34 20 . What a e the Roles of the Provincial & Federal Governments? ......................................... 35

21 . How Qjickly Can We Get Down the Road? ....................................................................... 37 22 . ps - Consultation Process .................................................................................... 38 23 . t Your Feedback ................................................................................................... 39 24 . Notes 40

~

Section 4: Who Pays for the Trip?

1 4

Section T , 6. So Which Way Should We Go?

A Rea$ Map to Maximize Waste Diversion in London Table of Contents (continued)

I di 7 - .

List of Tables. Figures & Illustrations Curbside Historical qiversion Rates .......................................................................................................... 9

ollection Systems Through the Years ....................................................................... 8

40% Dive ion Breakdown by Major Category ........................................................................ 9 40% Diveqion with London's Existing Waste Management System ........................................ 10 Greenhous' Gas Emissions from Waste Management System .............................................. 12 Grid Energ ConsumedlAvoided by Waste Management System ........................................... 13 Compariso of 2006 Municipal Diversion Programs (OMBI) .................................................... 14 Compariso of 2006 Municipal Recycling Programs (WDO) ................................................... 15

Existing Sy tem . 40% Diversion ............................................................................................ 26 Achieve 60 1 h Diversion ............................................................................................................ 27 Exceed 60°0 Diversion ............................................................................................................. 28 Maximize iversion 65%+ ....................................................................................................... 28 Potential Diversion Range for London: 55% - 65%+ ................................................................ 29 Current Ne Residential Diversion Costs Paid by Taxes .......................................................... 30 Current Ne Residential Waste Management Costs Paid by Taxes ........................................ 30

Net Reside' tial Waste Management Costs Plus Proposed New Net Resindential Diversion and Collec ion Program Costs ................................................................................................ 31 One Time apital Costs ........................................................................................................... 31

of Funding Options .............................................................................................. 33 rliest Timeframe for Implementation ..................................................................... 37

............................................................................................................... 38

yb

4 What's in t ! e Garbage Bag? .................................................................................................... 17

Proposed 1 ;ew Net Residential Diversion and Collection Program Costs ................................ 31

,t

List of Appendices Appendix +: Feedback QuestionslComments ....................................................................... 41

Appendix : "Green Bin" Programs in Ontario ....................................................................... 55

Appendix @: Lifecycle Analysis .............................................................................................. 45 Appendix $: Waste Audits ..................................................................................................... 48

DRAFT Sectibn 1: Planning the Trip 1

I. lntrobuction - Continuous Improvement Strategy The City of London's Waste Management System is based on a Continuous Improvement Strategy (management philosophy) and Sustainable Waste Management. This strategy, which

d by Municipal Council in 1997, uses an active framework that recognizes management as an important environmental service in the community. By

financial and human resources, this service contributes to the protection of human health and the environment. By supporting an integrated system of waste reduction (i.e. not pro ucing waste in the first place), diverting materials that can be recycled and composted, and ensuring that what remains is handled in an environmentally responsible manner, thia strategy provides the mechanism for continuous improvement of the waste managemept system. Since this strategy was approved ten years ago, the City of London has steadily inc eased its performance to the current level of 40% waste diversion while having one of the lowejt total waste management costs in Ontario for urban centres (based on statistics compiled by the Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative - OMBI).

P I

applies to all elements of the waste management system,

system users.

According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), a sustainable community with respect to waste management is one that:

integrates economic, social and environmental issues to achieve a healthy and livable community long-term. .. The economic and environmental benefits associated with garbage reduction and resource recovery are key elements in establishing a sustainable community. .. These goals are pursued using fiscally and environmentally responsible policies that:

Make the most efficient use of resources, Result in the least amount of garbage, Provide high quality service to community residents, Live within the carrying capacity of a community's natural resources, land, water and air

(Solid Waste as a Resource, Guide for Sustainable Communities, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2004).

"triple botto " line are the foundation of sustainable waste management.

Continuous improvement is constantly adapting, by obtaining and using information, and by evaluating ! ,hanges to make sure that they are effective. It requires:

The ability to pull people and resources together from different levels and areas of the Corporafon of the City of London; other levels of government; citizens and community groups; mployees and employers; waste management service providers; academia; and industry pecialists to freely discuss the information and issues involved, come up with ideas, e aluate them, choose some, and carry them out.

Good inf rmation about our programs, projects and policies, from a variety of sources. This is u 1 ed to evaluate our outcomes (what has been achieved) and our processes (how we go aQout doing it).

DRAFT Section 1: Planning the Trip 2

System kic and transparent ways to measure the outcomes of our changes and progress. ai to improve, even if it means adjusting or changing relationships and doing you do not completely agree with.

In 2004, the1 provincial government set a goal for all Ontario municipalities and businesses to divert 60% ?f the Province’s waste. When this goal was set the diversion rate in Ontario was 28% and h d been achieved largely from the strides made by Blue Box recycling during the previous dqade. In setting this ambitious goal of more than double the 2004 rate, the province reqognized that success would depend upon a combination of improving existing waste dive ion programs and implementing more composting programs.

On many oqcasions in the last three years, the Environment & Transportation Committee (ETC), a stqnding Committee of Municipal Council, has discussed and recommended waste diversion initiatives to Municipal Council. This consultation report is a key outcome from both ETC and Mlnicipal Council deliberations on these matters. City staff were also requested by ETC to congider input received from its Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE), a in

T

submission entitled Getting to 60, A Discussion Paper on Waste Diversion in also included several important discussions with members of ACE. ACE

input on environmental matters affecting the City of London to ETC and is across several different sectors in London.

Map to Maximize Waste Diversion in London - outlines and the City has compiled and/or developed to help Londoners

rates and asks for your thoughts and ideas. We call it a “road map” of choices along the route that have to be made to determine to head. To assist the reader we have created over 15 “short

Ultimately, the continued success of our waste management and willingness to participate. That is why your feedback is

includes a number of different sections:

Planning the Trip - background information on the existing waste management system (pages 5 - ).

How Far H ve We Traveled? - updating Londoners on the progress they have made in diverting w ste (pages 10 -17).

The Road o Higher Diversion - looking at options for managing waste in the future (pages 4 t

the Trip? - financial costs and how to pay for any new costs [pages 30 - 33).

18 - 29).

- there are many other important drivers on the road that must be

Go? - encourage Londoners to provide feedback on directions the

DRAFT Sectiqn 1: Planning the Trip 3

1

2. Listqning to Londoners - Public Consultation do we do it? “What Londoners Want”wil1 help determine the actions

s for moving-foonnrard. This document is part of the public consultation process feedback to London City Council. The City has already been working on ideas

now it‘s time to hear from you.

involved in this process?

Step 1: Reid this Road Map! dy well on your way by reading this document which provides information on being considered by the City to increase waste diversion. Thank you for your

existing programs can be found at www.london.ca and on the Commuqity of London Environmental Awareness Reporting (CLEAR) Network at www.clear.london.ca. Looking at other municipal websites is also a good way to learn about the programb and service options in other municipalities. To compare how London is doing relative to other Ontario municipalities you can go to the Waste Diversion Organization (WDO) website at w . w d o . c a where they compile information on materials being recycled and

municipalities. Stewardship Ontario’s website www.stewardshipontario.ca has to Ontario Blue Box programs as well as reports on new programs,

and waste audits submitted by municipalities including London.

contact staff or come out to a presentation given to a local community or of these activities are provided on page 39 of this report titled We Want activities allow you to learn more about waste diversion and to discuss the

issues raised in this document. They are a great way to send feedback to London staff and City Council and to provide you with an opportunity to learn and to share your views.

h the Options the options for London, the next step is to weigh the choices. This the information you need to make informed decisions about the cost of

more material can be recycled or composted, as well as the

the options will come from your own willingness and neighbours to participate and support these new programs.

to support a further reduction in the garbage container more time separating recyclables if the City was to add

the program? It is important to consider the impact of these new programs on and ask if it is feasible for you to participate.

Londoners, especially if you have reviewed this document and options. Again, the opportunities to provide feedback are listed in the We Want

Chapter on page 39, so let us hear your feedback!

DRAFT Secti n 1: Planning the Trip 4

3. Feed ack Questions One way to elp provide feedback to the City is to answer the Feedback Questions listed below. Thege questions highlight many of the key issues that must be considered when deciding ho and when the City would move towards higher diversion.

Think about 7 how you would answer these questions as you read the document. After reading the docume' t you can answer the questions by going online or by completing the answer form in Appendix A and mailing or faxing it to the City (details are provided on page 39).

1 n

....

recycling and composting?

. . .. . . . . ~ ~~~ ~

Planning the Trip 5

' ' ' I __ I I .__l..,ll ~ ~.~ ........~....I,. . .. ~ .... .. . . , " ,. . .. . ~. . ~ . . ~ . r------i 1 11. Which bf the following initiatives do you: strongly support; support; or do not ~ SUOOOrb?

ay according to how much garbage they produce? ay a flat rate for new services to increase diversion?

DRAFT Section 1: Planning the Trip 6

4. Top 10 Questions Asked About the City of London’s Waqte Management Program

To help be er understand the City’s existing waste management system, answers to the top ten most c B mmonly asked questions about the City’s system are presented below. Many of the issues aised by these questions are discussed further within this report.

1. Why is garbage not picked up every week? London s collection schedule for garbage and recycling provides collection every six busines days or 42 times per year. This system was introduced in 1996 to save money while at 1 the same time provide curbside leaf and yard material collection. It is estimated that in 007 the savings from this system were approximately $1.7 million compared to weekly with the existing system and only 50% of residents would want to spend more money to have w ekly collection.

In 1997 when the Province of Ontario removed its municipal subsidy for Blue Boxes, the City of ondon could no longer afford to subsidize the remaining amount and “free” Blue Boxes ere no longer available. The recycling program was firmly established at that time and horpeowners had been provided with a least one Blue Box. Since then homeowners have b en asked to purchase replacement boxes, just as they purchase their own garbage cans a d bags.

The foc s of London’s program has been to get more of the existing program materials (the ‘low-ha ging fruit‘) out of the garbage bag and into the Blue Box. Those materials that are not coll cted in London are often a small percentage of the waste stream, more costly to collect and process, and may not have well established end markets. It is important that Londoners understand the issues and provide feedback on what materials they would like collecte in our Blue Box Program.

Ilection. Public opinion surveys have indicated that 75% of residents are satisfied t

,” K P

2. Why d esn’t the City provide free Blue Boxes? i

1

3. Why dqesn’t the City recycle certain materials that other municipalities recycle?

4. What p rcentage of the recyclables I put in my Blue Box end up in the landfill? The answer is 2%. Blue Box recyclables collected from your home are transported to a Materia s Recovery Facility (MRF) in London where they are sorted, baled, placed on transpo trucks and shipped to end markets to be turned into new products. 98% of the recycla les that you place in your Blue Box are shipped to end markets.

5. Why is Phere a $1 charge at the Community EnviroDepots for grass clippings and Fall lea es after November I? The Cit banned collection of grass clippings at the curb in 1995 after a public opinion poll indicate that over 70% of Londoners leave grass clippings on the lawn to decompose and provide nitrogen enrichment. We encourage all homeowners to grasscycle. Fall leaves are collecte at the curbside on a frequent (every second or third week) schedule. The most econo ical way for the City to collect and compost fall leaves is when residents use the existing curbside collection system. The user fee at the depots encourages the use of this system pnd provides revenue to cover the higher cost of managing fall leaves at the depots. 1

1

DRAFT Section I: Plannlng the Trip 7

6. How mbch does it cost to provide services to the average homeowner? The cost to provide the full range of waste management sewices to the average homeoyner is approximately $100 per year or $2 per week. This covers the cost of garbage and recycling services, yard material and depot services, operation of London’s

ousehold Special Waste Depot and maintenance of closed landfills.

7. Why d w t the City have drop off locations for batteries and paint located throug out the City?

W12A qandfill, for dropping off paint, batteries and waste requiring special handling. The cost asyciated with meeting Provincial regulatory requirements including health and safety

The City ? currently has one location, the Household Special Waste (HSW) Depot at the

and residents dropping off HSW materials made having multiple depot locations The Provincial Ministry of the Environment has asked industry to develop a

for funding municipal programs and explore options to expand the

ity staff will stay informed of the Provincial process and access to HSW drop-off in availability of programs across Ontario to make it more convenient to dispose of this

waste. London ic will be reviewed as part of the current public consultation process.

limit for garbage? in January 2006 to reduce the amount of garbage and cornposting and to increase the revenue from the

are encouraging. Recycling has increased by 16% and by 5% in 2006 and these levels have been sustained thus far

Curbside checks showed that about 99% of Londoners comply with the 4

City pick up appliances or renovation materials? recyclable and are banned from disposal the City’s Wl2A Landfill.

Some qunicipalities charge a user fee to collect appliances and have them recycled. The Provinc? has directed Waste Diversion Ontario to develop a Program Plan for recycling and safe disposal of appliances, and to include a stewardship model to provide for funding of programs. As part of the current consultation process the City of London will examine the

In the case of renovation materials, and to a lesser degree appliances, banning terials helped to promote the development of private recycling services.

I

I O . Why don’t we have a Green Bin (source separated organics) program in London? In 20041 when Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment announced the goal of reaching 60%

it recognized that a significant contribution to reaching this goal would Bin programs. Some municipalities have already implemented programs

to roll them out. This is still a relatively new industry in Ontario and facility capacity issues have not been completely resolved. Some limited andlor costly waste disposal solutions have been forced to

move qyickly to put Green Bin programs in place. In some cages they do not have local composting the organics and must ship them out of province or to other

DRAFT Sect

5. Collc Future Q Curbside c diversion.

weekly “Green weekly cornpal bi-week encouri weekly morerr

:urbsidc

Prior to 1979

1979 to 1995

1996 to present

n 1: Planning the Trip a

ction Services: Future and Past Collection llection service changes could provide greater convenience and increase hese changes may include:

dlection of organic materials (e.g., food scraps) commonly referred to as the ,in” Program dlection of garbage; this will allow collection of garbage and organics in different nents on the same truck (instead of sending two trucks) and reduce collection costs I (every other week) collection of garbage which would reduce collection costs and le residents to use their Green Bin for household organics ollection of recyclables to match the collection frequency of garbage pickup terials added to the Blue Box program

52 pickups per year D when a Statutory Holiday occurred,

pickup days moved forward one day for that week only (e.g., Friday pickup takes place on Saturday)

bulky items one Spring & one Fall collection of

50 pickups per year calendar introduced when a Statutory Holiday occurred, pickup days move forward one day one Spring & one Fall collection of bulky items until 1994 bulky items collected at each pickup

1 in 1995

42 pickups per year pickup days move fonvard after each

1 bulky items collected at each pickup i collection ~

le Years

1975 - collection changed from “rear yard“ to

1978 - limited collection of separated curbside collection

newspapers begins

1980s - construction & demolition waste banned 1990 - curbside recycling introduced

(materials collected included newspaper, glass, steel, aluminum and 2 litre plastic soft drink bottles)

1994 -white goods (e.g., appliances) banned 1995 - curbside recycling expanded to include

mixed household paper, cardboard, boxboard, telephone books, magazines, rigid plastics (#I, 2, 4, 5)

- one Spring &one Fall collection of brush &scrap metal introduced

-grass clippings banned - one Pickuo of Fall leaves

1996 - leaf program expanded to 6 yard materials collection weeks and 3 Fall leal collection weeks

- scrap metal collection discontinued 2006 - 4 container limit introduced 2007 -container weight limit reduced to 20 kg

DRAFT Section 2 How Far Have We Traveled? 9

improving page divert?

AFDL ~

6. Condratulations London! - 40% Diversion Reached

and adding programs. Today's waste managements which is illustrated on the next 40% of residential waste from the landfill

1987 - Household Special Waste Depot Wtorical Diversion Rates 1990 - Curbside Blue Box pickup

accepted at EnviroDepots m O - N n w w m h m m o - N n t w m m m m m m m m m m m m o o o o o o o m m m m m m m m m ~ m o o o o o o o

2006 - 4 Container Limit for garbage . - . - . - . - . - - - - - . - -NNNNNNN

- Appliances banned from garbage collection

1995 - Added new items to Blue Box 30%

25% garbage collection 70% 1996 - Curbside DiCkUD of vard materials

- Grass clippings banned from

. , 2000 - Multi-Residential building recycling

- Pumpkin Depots 2002 - Electronics Recclino DeDOt

5% 2003 - Public Space Recycling

contribute to the overall diversion rate as shown in the pie chart go forward towards 60% diversion and beyond we need to identify the most cost

to divert additional materials that are currently placed in the garbage (see the Bag and Why?)

40% Diversion - Breakdown by Major Category Other Programs IHSW. material

Garbage to

60% - Landfill

DRAFT Section 2: How Far Have We Traveled? 10

............ r......,...L...,.... I

. .

4 ,& -4. I 4,. + e: A 4. 4;

...... ....: ............ t.... .... A* .... *..a ........ : 8L .................................. : ...... A r.1

t 13

% E '0

u >

H

!!!

n *I

DRAFT Section 2 How Far Have We Traveled? 11

7. The Environmental Benefits of Waste Diversion are Far

good chance that the average Londoner has not pieced together that the more compost and wisely manage what remains, the less impact that we have on

Environment Canada notes on its website that "While most Canadians are of fossil fuels in their cars and homes produces emissions that

Rea h i n g

few realize that the garbage they carry out to the curb every week is alsp a culprit. In fact, the waste sector accounts for 3.5 per cent of the nation's total

-gas emissions."

mental benefits London achieved by reaching 40% waste diversion are greater the life of the City's existing landfill. The reduction in greenhouse gas

one very important environmental parameter. There are "local" as reduced air and water pollution and "global" benefits

and energy conservation. Source reduction (i.e., not and recycling can reduce emissions at the manufacturing

stage, incr4ase forest carbon storage by not cutting down trees, and avoid landfill methane emissions. ' For example, the recycling of energy-intensive materials such as aluminum, glass, and plastic means that the extra energy demand and emissions associated with manufactu ing these materials from virgin feedstock are avoided (referred to as "offsets"). In the case of ! aluminum, making a new aluminum can from recycled aluminum cans uses 96% less energ$. Another example would be diverting organic materials from landfills reducing landfill methane emissions.

Measuring hese environmental benefits is done through "life cycle analysis" using the Integrated yaste Management (IWM) computer model. This model was developed by Corporations Supporting Recycling and the Environment and Plastics Industry Council and their technical consultants, in cooperation with the City of London and Environment Canada. It

t

we're doing so that we can track the positive benefits of our progress. In 1999, the first municipality to use this model and measure the environmental of its waste management system. The reduction in pollutants and benefits to were then accurately estimated. This model is now used by municipalities

across C a n r .

Measuring environmental benefits is an important part of the City's Continuous Improvement System whi,ch considers environmental, social and financial factors when making decisions on

Environmental parameters evaluated through

such as carbon dioxide and methane. This indicator of climate

car is the amount of greenhouse gas produced by a typical 3.5 tonnes COZe/year per car)

of fossil fuel resource depletion; expressed in terms of homes (one equivalent home is the energy used by

of tonnes per year of equivalent carbon dioxide (C02e) and

a typical home for one year; approximately 35 GJ/year per home)

DRAFT Sectibn 2: How Far Have We Traveled? 12

. air toxic.. heavy metals (mercury, lead & cadmium) and trace organics (dioxins); as

acid gags; nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, and hydrogen chloride; as indicators of acid indicato of health risk

rain for ation

compou ds; as indicators of smog formation release to water; water emissions of heavy metals, trace organics, and biological oxygen demand; as indicators of the impact on water quality; and residual solid waste requiring management as an indicator of land use disruption,

Results of ondon’s municipal waste management system have been produced for the eleven year period from 1995 to 2006 and are presented in Appendix 6 and they clearly indicate that London is aking progress.

The efforts f Londoners as they reduce garbage production and divert more waste from disposal fa ilities has decreased the environmental burden of London’s waste management system bot locally and globally. particularly for greenhouse gases and energy use. Local impacts fro London’s waste management operations include the impacts from the vehicles collecting aterials, from processing materials to ship to market and from the disposal (landfill and the for er energy-from-waste facility owned by the London Health Sciences Centre) of garbage in ondon. Global impacts include impacts from London’s waste management operations Ius from the shipping of materials to market, the processing of recyclables and the “offsets” fro reducing the need virgin feedstock.

1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste Management System

smog p T $cursors; nitrogen oxides, inhalable particulates and non-methane volatile organic I i

I 1 - - Global Impact -Local Impact]

13 I DRAFT Sectipn 2: How Far Have We Traveled?

rrent waste management system has a significantly lower climate change impact 1995. The closure of the energy-from-waste (EFW) facility in 1999 resulted in an reenhouse gas emissions in 2000 over the previous year however, this was more

increased diversion of materials from the landfill and the installation of a landfill system at the City's W12A landfill in 2004.

level) there are 28,000 fewer tonnes of greenhouse gases released to 1995 because of improvements to the City's waste management

is equal to taking approximately 8,000 cars off the road per

the energy consumed or avoided by London's waste management at the global level.

At the glo a1 level in 2006, the City's waste management system saved approximately 500,000 gi ajoules of energy which is enough energy to supply electricity to over 74,000 homes. 4 ,

I The increa ling recovery of recyclable materials from the municipal waste stream has produced the same clergy benefits that an EFW facility provides without the associated negative environmenfal aspects of these facilities.

Grid Energy Consumed/Avoided by Waste Management System

5,800

2,900

0

-2,900 2 E

-5,800 I" -8,700 $

* -

-11,500 *s s U

-14,400

-11,300

-20,200

-23,100 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

1 - - Global Impact -Local Impact 1


Muskoka Niagara Region Ottawa Peel Region

8. Howldo We Measure Performance? Diversion rate and ‘life-cycle analysis’ of environmental benefits are key performance measures tpat were discussed in the previous Chapters. Other performance measures for waste man ement services include a range of indicators from the simple ones (cost per tonne landfilled, or cost per tonne diverted) to the more complex ones (customer satisfaction, capture rate and s on). Good evaluations will include measures of both ‘effectiveness’ and

89

‘efficiency.’, 9 For example, effective programs are those that divert more tonnes and efficient those that operate at a lower cost per tonne or cost per household. Keep these

as you review this document as it should be used to evaluate future options programs.

report detailed information about their waste management Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI), the Waste Diversion

of Ontario (Municipal Performance Measurement

measures from the OM61 Data Warehouse for 70% of Ontario’s households.

(includes recycling, composting and on- of the efficiency is ‘Net Operating

(Le., the middle value) for waste, about 40%

(e.g., St. Catharines, Niagara Falls)

(e.g., Mississauga, Brampton)

less than-t e median value. Comparison of 2006 Municipal Divers

7006 Municipal Diversion Program

44% 45% 35% 45% 44% 25% 42% 43% 41 % 42%

Oshawa, Pickering) Bran+.ford

Oakville, Burlington, Milton) Hamilton ,

$204 $166 $1 43 $122 $183 $102 $206 $45 nla

$120

n Programs (OMBI)

per Tonne Diverted 40% 43% 36% 42% $115 41 % $161 40% I $74 I


Information1 provided to the WDO from municipalities is available at their website at www.wdo.ca and allows us to compare and evaluate Blue Box programs. The table below shows two Fey performance measures from the WDO website for Blue Box and multi- residential fiecycling and compares London with a number of other programs. The measure of effectivenegs is 'Kg Recycled per Household' and the measure of the efficiency is 'Cost per

and 'Estimated Cost per Household'. Nine of fourteen municipalities recycle

Also of interest is that the 'Cost per Tonne Recycled' does not include to municipalities through the WDO. In 2006, London received

cost Der tonne recvcled to about $73 per tonne or about $13 per

than London. However, only 2 of 14 have a lower 'Cost per Tonne

$1 92 he WDO.

year per ho sehold. i" Comparison of ,,,6 Municipal R i c j

$49 For example, 1

2006 Munikipal Recycling Program

Hamilton London Niagara Reg Ottawa Peel Region St. Thomas Stratford Toronto

on (e.g., St. Catharines)

(e.g., Mississauga)

Number of Households

36,817 199,493 150,766 43,573

156,662 203,211 155,100 171,919 354,530 376,300 15,455 13,169

1,050,570 183,890 277,403

linn Programs IWDOI Kg .

Recycled Per

Household 152 248 175 167 264 194 177 220 196 266 122 203 168 20 I 256

Cost per Tonne

Recycled (a)

$1 34 $134 $94 $216 $126 $181 $123 $132 $165 $145 $1 76 $213 $127 $109

Estimated Cost per lousehold (4 $20 $33 $16 $36 $33 $35 $22 $29 $32 $39 $21 $43 $21 $23

the amount paid by industry to municipalities throug cost per tonne recycled to about $73 per tonne or about $13 per year per h o w

to Londoners

lis iold.

When housqhold waste is reused, recycled, composted, or landfilled there is an environmental impact. Evyn the act of donating used household items for reuse has an environmental impact when one nsiders the greenhouse gases generated by the vehicle that collects the item at the houseqd or the resident that drops it off at a depot. Making choices about which waste

options are the best or most efficient is to some extent a balancing act. options between providing good value, providing customer-friendly

t effectively divert materials from landfill with minimal environmental impact while and future costs to ensure sustainability.

DRAFT Section 3: The Road to Higher Diversion 16

9. Whai's in the Bag and Why? Current +gram In 2006, London's 155,000 households sent about 93,000 tonnes of garbage to landfill (that's equal to a ipotball field piled 16 meters high -the height of a 5 story building!). During the same year ?bout 62,000 tonnes of materials were diverted from landfill through recycling and

programs as well as various source reduction initiatives (e.g. backyard , leaving grass clippings on the lawn, etc.). This represents a 40% diversion rate.

To move bkyond our current diversion rate and towards the Provincial target of 60%, waste audits werq paid for by Stewardship Ontario in 2005 and 2007. The audits were designed to learn what is being missed by Londoners that should be recycled now and what could be recycled a i d composted in the future. These audits of what residents set to the curb for collection provided real insight into what is being missed by Londoners. Answering the question "what's in the garbage bag?" helps us optimize (improve) our existing programs, identify new programs and direct the focus of education programs.

Details of the waste audits conducted and the findings from these audits are presented in Appendix C and summarized below.

Single Family Households Single families make up about 70% of London's households and generate approximately 68,000 of the 93,000 tonnes of garbage landfilled per year. A large percentage of the waste from these pouseholds could be composted or recycled.

A breakdovfn of what is in the typical garbage bag is presented on the next page. About 15% of single favily household garbage is materials that should have been placed in the Blue Box. A further 5% of the garbage including renovation materials and electronics could have been

I

EnviroDepot and recycled. Together that is 20%, and amounts to a

compostable. Looking ahead to the future, expanding our current

would significantly increase diversion. An expanded Blue such as gable top containers (e.g., milk cartons),

bottles, aerosol cans, paint cans and plastic bags could

and yard waste to collect food and non-recyclable paper

Households households live in multi-residential (apartment) buildings and generate

per year. A breakdown of the garbage collected from on the next page.

The garbag from multi-residential buildings is similar to the garbage from single family

for single family) and that less of the garbage is compostable (35% versus 40% for single family).

households. e The main differences are that more of the garbage is recyclable (25% versus 15%


What's in the Garbage Bag? Most of what we put in our garbage could be diverted from the landfill thr ugh existing and new programs that are discussed in this docum nt. The composition diagrams below show just how much - wh ! ther you put your garbage out to the curb, or down the chute into q garbage bin.

Legend

Blue Box: Items from the existing program th are put in the garbage instead of being recycled.

DRAFT Section 3: The Road to Higher Diversion ia

Material

Mixed household Paper

Boxboard

Aluminum cans

I O . Optimize Existing Programs

Existing programs are the easiest place to find more materials to divert from landfill. Programs such as recycling arp already deep-rooted in our commu ity meaning residents understand the program and the

addition to qecycling, increasing material collected at the Household Special Wa te Depot would be a way of targeting an existing program for optimization.

Initiatives t increase the effectiveness of these programs include:

Enhanced Communication and Education Programs Additional aterial could be diverted with enhanced communication and education focusing on the 15,000 T onnes of recyclable materials still being disposed of in the garbage. The incremental1 cost to caDture more of these recvclables through the existing collection program

program in ! rastructure is in place. In

S 9

Existing Quantity in Capture Garbage

Rate (tonnes)

30% 3,000

45% 2,200

55% 340

is small cor$pared to the cost to provide new . programs. I

I I

increase the Wastes, the

placed in the garbage.

and Household Special Wastes rates would be targeted in

Increase Capacity and Convenience Diversion is maximized by making sure that programs are accessible and convenient. Services that divert material must be at least as convenient and user friendly as garbage disposal services.

The effects of capacity and convenience become particularly evident within multi- residential (apartment building) recycling programs where recycling rates are typically lower than single family homes. Recycling is

DRAFT SectiFn 3 The Road to Higher Diversion 19

often limited by the lack of space to store recyclables in buildings designed long before the introduction of recycling programs thereby making recycling inconvenient. For most residents living in apartment buildings, recycling is not as easy as setting a Blue Box to the curb.

The City will need to work with the owners of apartment buildings to improve access to recycling, iqcrease the number of recycling carts and/or provide containers (e.g., cloth bags) for tenants o carry their recyclables in.

Single family dwellings may also find space to store recyclables between collection days a challenge, nd once the Blue Box is full the remaining recyclables often end up in the garbage. Subsidizina 7 the cost or Drovidina free Blue Boxes to residents may be an effective wav to

t itional storage capacity for

Public spac recycling also provides residents wfh a convenient opportunity Po recycle away from home and reduce litter. It reinforces

haviour as the norm and acceptability or f throwing recyclables in

I

Some materials are better suited for collection a\ Depots and not at the curb becau e of hi h collection costs and difficulty in sorting. The City has tu 7 . part of the ity (Clarke Road) and one in the west part of the City (Oxford Street, west of Sanitorium) 7 Some materials can also be dropped off in the south part of the City at the W12A Landfill for rpcycling. The City's Household Special Waste Depot, which accepts materials like paint, oil, b tteries and pesticides, is also located at the W12A Landfill.

To summari e, considerations to increase capacity and convenience would include:

1. Enhance recycling access at multi-residential buildings by: 1

4 s bsidizing additional recycling carts for multi-residential buildings and/or in reasing frequency of collection at buildings with no space for extra carts and/or r viewing recycling storage locations at multi-residential buildings for more c nvenient alternatives

2. Subsidi e cost of Blue Box for single family homes and appropriate containers for use in multi-re idential buildings

3. Expand ublic space recycling

4. Establish a new Community EnviroDepot and/or Household Special Waste Depot in the central tb northern part of the City

s I

P I

DRAFT Sectipn 3: The Road to Higher Diversion

11. Ex&d Existing Programs

20

Expanding existing programs is often an effective way of increasing diversion ofi materials away from the garbage bag.

Add New/Blue Box Materials Adding materials to the Blue Box program would result in increased waste diversion. Qne approach in adding materials to the Blue Box is to identify

to collect and process and have good end ther words represent the next least cost to recycle.

materials can be divided into two groups. The first group (Blue Box Enhanced) to add because they are easier to collect, process and have better markets.

'aseptic' containers (Le. milk/juice cartons and juice/drink boxes), cans and #3, #6 and #7 plastic bottles. The second group (Blue Box costly to add and have less stable end markets and include plastic

plastic film and bags and expanded polystyrene.

for collection at Depots and not at the curb because of high Materials currently collected at the Community

materials. It may be more feasible to add at the EnviroDepots than to the curbside

for collection at the EnviroDepots include

and implement waste used tires, by the WDO

41,000 dwe ling units. This represents over 90% of the multi-residential units in the City. There is no cost to building owners to participate in this program beyond setting up an area to store recycl bles including providing special recycling carts between the weekly collections. The City co Id take additional steps to bring the remaining multi-residential buildings into the recycling prpgram. This could be done by introducing a "garbage surcharge" on buildings not participating in the recycling program.

k . . I


Organics

of compostable the leaf and yard

paper products make up 40% of

To reduce the volume of waste going to landfill, more and more "Green Bin" programs to collect

dwellings. These programs as Source Separated Organics (SSO) programs. Multi-residential buildings

for Green Bin programs because of the nature of the materials being storage space in apartments. A multi-residential Green Bin program the successful implementation of a single family program.

A successfil Green Bin program will require the active support and participation of Londoners. Similar to tt-ie Blue Box program, the quality of materials left for the collection truck will impact either negatively or positively on the program. To develop this system and tailor a program that suits the needs and desires of Londoners, there are many questions that must first be

I answered. !

how extensive should the program be? Should London include easy to compost food scraps and soiled paper (e.g., tissue, paper towel) or should the program be

Bin collection was provided weekly, would bi-weekly (every other week) collection e acceptable to Londoners? What type of collection container should be used at in the home? How will these containers be funded? Will the program allow

containers with plastic bags or only paper and biodegradable bags?

Bin' programs in Ontario municipalities are provided in Appendix D.

expanded t6 include more difficult materials to compost like diapers and pet waste? !

What Materials Should go in the Green Bin?

or Easy plus Difficult to Compost Material 1 Epsy to Compost Material \ (e.g. food scraps) (e.g. diapers) I

Produce highest quality compost Higher diversion rate Lower mist composting program Produces a lower quality compost

Facilitates every other week garbage collection

$ ' ,

DRAFT SectJon 3: The Road to Higher Diversion

13. Inc ease Behaviour Change Initiatives

22

Although t ere are high levels of resident participation in City diversion programs, participation is volunta , and does not require residents to first minimize the quantity of waste being generated n the home. There are a number of "behaviour change initiatives" that could be undertake to encourage both waste reduction (i.e.not produced in the first place) and waste diversion o recyclables and compostables. Some of these programs are not costly to implement nd may generate revenue (e.9. user pay for garbage) or reduce costs (e.g. every other week garbage collection). Other programs would require the support by businesses and residents, nd could range from tougher enforcement of waste by-laws (e.g. garbage container and weight limits) to city policies and by-laws that would impact how business is conducted and consu er behaviour (e.g. banning plastic bags in London). Some residents may see these prog ams as inconvenient or "going too far". However, by understanding the benefits and potential savings in both monetary and environmental terms, Londoners will be able to make info ed decisions. Some common initiatives are identified below:

Bag Limits The City of/London currently has a 4 Container Limit for garbage collection for single family household . Many municipalities have lower container limits. Reducing the container limit will expand pa icipation in the various waste diversion programs as well as reducing one's garbage g neration. Reducing the container limit could be done with or without allowing residents t e option of purchasing tags for additional containers.

Mandato Recycling By-Law The vast m jority of Londoners participate in various diversion programs although there are those that fuse to participate in these voluntary programs. The City could explore developing a mandato by-law for the diversion of materials for which there are programs. Enforcement of the by-la would require additional staff. Consideration could be given to having residents use clear b gs so that recyclables could be easily spotted in the garbage.

Collectio Frequency Altering ga age collection frequency to every other week can result in even greater desire to participate n waste diversion programs and reduce garbage generation. Some municipalities that have reen Bin programs have gone to every other week garbage collection.

1 1 T

Municipa w Council Policies and By-laws (e.g. bans, restrictions)

The City cu rently has banned a number of materials from garbage collection such as renovation aterials, grass clippings, blue box recyclables, scrap metal and yard materials. There are ther materials that could be banned including tires and Christmas trees. Local policies an by-laws to regulate the use of some materials such as single-use water bottles or single use lastic bags could also be considered.

Some UseriPay smal er municipalities have gone to full user pay systems where residents pay for every

k garbage placed to the curb. Full user pay systems encourage participation in the

diversion programs as well as reducing one's garbage generation.

DRAFT Sectijon 3 The Road to Higher Diversion 23

14. Ho* Are Londoners Making a Difference? can reduce waste by taking advantage of the programs and services

. While it sounds simple, unfortunately some do not. Most Londoners set out a regular basis, but ask yourself: "do I always recycle everything I can?" The

activities fall outside of the scope of City programs or services. and groups in our community that are spearheading change. The City is currently involved in a number of ways

to project coordination and financial support. Many local plus launch their own initiatives. We encourage you of these groups or simply just take up the challenges

are most efficient and effective with maximum participation.

bags - The London Plastic Bag Project has a simple goal - to in plastic bag usage in London. www.wastefreeworld.org

time use disposables - Waste Free Festivals - their vision at London festivals and at public and private group

www.wastefreeworld.org

use compost on your lawn and garden - London Composts - advocates the and composting as a means to reduce waste among other initiatives.

- London Clean and Green events coupled with bring out thousands of residents every year to clean up

www.cleanareen.london.ca and www.londoncib.ca

- Canadian Diabetes, Goodways, Goodwill Army, and St. Vincent de Paul are examples of use again and keep them out of our landfill.

that help close the Habitat for Humanity

- Y.0.U Made It

these things? Great! You are part of a growing community of Londoners who are their behaviour to create less waste.

I ..... _.

DRAFT Sectlbn 3: The Road to Higher Diversion 24

15. Ke ping a Watchful Eye on Developments Demonst ation Projects Before a p gram or service is implemented across the City it is normally tested on a small scale first. emonstration Projects are particularly useful tools to leam about unforeseen impacts of rogram changes. London is continuously engaged in these projects sometimes in partnership with local groups, other municipalities or organizations that help share the costs and learn frpm the outcomes. Here is a sample of some recent and upcoming projects and

London PI stic Bag Project: This group has taken the lead in London to encoura e the reduction of plastic bag use. By using reusable shopping b gs we can save thousands of single-use plastic bags from being used. It's an easy and effective way to conserve resources and reduce the umber of plastic bags that end up in landfill or as litter. Locally this project is targeting business areas to encourage retailers to take measures to reduce the number of plastic bags provided to customers. So far the Hyde Park Association has started its program while other i usiness associations are looking at initiatives for 2008. The City wil be participating in a couple of these forthcoming demonstrat i on projects to understand Londoner's reactions and to monitor theireduction in the number of plastic bags used.

London Wdste Free Festivals: This concept is a rapidly growing trend among event planners. elebrations and special events are often synonymous with excess, and this spills over to exc ss amounts of waste being generated. Even on a small scale consider the amount of garbage hat most households produce after a special event. London's special events are no different and are also sources of excess waste. The City has partnered with the London Waste Free Festivals and Home County Folk Festival to introduce a waste free event at the 2008 Home County Festival. This may include new initiatives such as, asking participants to bring reusa le dishware, cloth napkins and refillable water bottles, and food vendors serving on reusabl or biodegradable dishware.

Single Use Water Bottles: Single-use drinking water bottles (as opposed to refillable bottles) continue to 1 e the topic of much debate. Commercial bottling companies maintain the sale of these prodycts through marketing campaigns that stress convenience. Efforts are Qeing made by many citizens and environmental organizations to avoid anq/or reduce the use of these products since:

many ofithe bottles are not recycled the water they contain has not been tested to the same standa as municipal drinking water systems and the cost o purchase bottled water is substantially greater than the 1 cost of municipal drinking water.

1 studies: I

I . Staff are examining the elimination of bottled water from municipal offices I buildings to provide

25 I DRAFT Sectipn 3 The Road to Higher Diversion

a message to residents and staff that these bottles are wasteful and that water in these containers is not tested to the same standards as municipal water. In conjunction with this

ltematives such as water fountains, providing more access to t meetings and refillable water bottles would be considered.

Waste Audits: Funded by Stewardship Ontario, waste audits have been us years in London. Results can be found on their website at

. Waste audit information is useful as it tells us about the Id waste and how much of it is being recycled or put in the

learn how much of what is put in the garbage could be recycled

Material to Promote Recycling: In 2006 London was a test aign funded by Stewardship Ontario called Recycling Works. ositive results driving recycling rates up are now airing across

Buildings: Multi-residential delivery of services and

recycling rate. London has tested a number of initiatives at individual buildings to to recycling. One study is ongoing this year. www.stewardshipontario.ca

what is going on in the Province through membership and participation

in other municipalities. This allows us to determine whether or not it may make sense for London.

Staff sit on the board of directors for several of these in provincial reviews and task groups and by

New & E erging Technologies Staff contin e to follow developments with respect to new and emerging garbage management technologie such as pyrolysis, gasification, bioreactor landfills and anaerobic digestion to determine i these technologies might play a role in the future in London's waste management system. C st andlor limited operating data and appropriate approval from the regulators restrict the pplication of these technologies at this time.

Pyrolysis a d gasification are advanced thermal destruction technologies that use heat to convert the, I arbage to useful products and by-products but do not directly burn the garbage. A large scale ' ilot project of a gasification process is currently underway in Ottawa. P

rapidly transform and degrade the organic garbage in the landfill. The degradation and stabilization is accomplished through the addition of

microbial processes. The Lafleche Landfill in eastern Ontario is the

as composting without using oxygen. The only two full

in Ontario.

are both located in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

DRAFT Sectibn 3 The Road to Higher Diversion 26

2007 Approvbd

16. Futbre Waste Diversion in London ... What is Possible?

Progmmllnitiative Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Diversion Annual Cost per Electricity and

Operating Household GHG Savings cost (tonnes) (%)

Homes: 16,000 Cars: 11,500

Budget 62,000 40% $4,700,000 $30

Londoners’ efforts up to now have resulted in a 40% diversion rate, but we can do better! The programs a d initiatives discussed in the previous Chapters have been combined to create three wast management systems that will Achieve 60%, Exceed 60% and Maximize Diversion (65%+). T ese three systems are a starting point for discussion and are based on the research undertaken to date and the experience of staff. Information on the cost, amount diverted and environme tal benefits of each program is presented on the following pages. A graphic illustration f the potential diversion ranges of the three systems is presented on page 29.

What wo Id I do? When looki g at this information you should ask yourself.. .“which system do I prefer or is there a di I rent combination of programs and initiatives I would like to see implement d?”. &’Do I have any other questions that haven’t been answered?”

Why not igher diversion rates? The Chapt r What‘s in the Bag and Why? details that approximately 75% of the materials in the garbag bag are recyclable or compostable. Given this, why are we not able to achieve even highe diversion rates?

There are s vera1 factors that keep materials that are potentially recyclable or compostable in the garbag regardless of the programs or initiatives implemented. These factors range from the small n mber of persons who do not participate in diversion programs, privacy concerns (e.g. confid ntial papers in the recycling bin) all the way to food going bad in containers (e.g. container a d food waste goes into garbage instead of being separated). For example the percentage ~ of material recovered for items in the curbside recycling program can vary from less than 1 % recovery for aluminum foil to over 95% recovery of newspapers.

London ma not achieve 100% program participation and those who participate may inadvettentl, miss some recyclable materia!s, however, the City will continue to work toward waste man gement and diversion improvements for Londoners and their environment.

Existing vystem - 40% Diversion

1 ii

system saves enough energy to supply electricity to 16,000 homes. The gas savings is around 40,000 tonnes or the same as removing 11,500 cars from

. This represents a 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from all sources in t the City has direct control over.

landfill will be filled in 16 years with the existing diversion system.

DRAFT Sectipn I 3: The Road to Higher Diversion 27

Pro' ramlinitiative Estimated e Oiversian (a) Net

Estimated Annual

Operating Cost (a)

Estimated Cast per

Household (b)

Estimated Energy (c) &

GHG Savings (d)

Homes: 1,600 Enhanced A+areness & Education 2,500 1.6% $200,000

DRAFT Section 3: The Road to Higher Diversion 28 I

% Diversion - suggested initiatives to reach 60 to 65% Diversion will be reduced by a total of 80,000 tonnes or the same as removing

from the road. Reaching a 60 to 65% diversion rate will also save enough

will be filled in 18 % vears with the "exceed 60% diversion" svstem.

electricity to 27,000 homes.

Estimated Net Estimated Estimated Estimated Annual Cost per Electricity and

Operating Cost Household GHG Savings tonnes

Maximize/ Diversion (65%+) - suggested initiatives to reach 65+% Diversion

supply electricity to 27,000 homes.

I

DRAFT Sect

I 1.. *.-...

I 3: The Road to Higher Diversion 29

. .

DRAFT Secion 4 How Do We Pay for the Trip? 30

Service 1

17.Ov4rview of Current and Future Costs Approximately 75% of residential waste management costs ($2 5 million) are paid by property taxes. Thy remaining 25% ($5 million) comes from recycling revenues, service fees and stewardship funding from industry. The breakdown of the tax revenues required for waste diversion s rvices (recycling, composting, reuse, etc.) and for all other waste management

It is importqnt that current and future waste diversion costs be considered as part of the entire integrated yvaste management system.

services is 7 ' . ,provided in the tables below.

Single Family Homes' I Multi-Residential Dwellingsb

cost 1 $/household 1 cost $/Unit

Recycling I $2,100,000 1 $19 $600,000 $1 3

I OtherProatams ~ I $400.000 I $4 I $100.000 I $2 I ComoostinA (Deoots & Curb) I $1.500.000 1 $14 $0 $0

Total Dive4ion Programs I $4,000,000 I $37 $700,000 $1 5

1 Garbage Disposal 1 $2,000,000 1 $19 1 $700,000 1 $1 5 I

Combined Cost

I Closed Landfills 1 $300,000 I $3 I $100,000 I $2 I

Total Cost = $4,700,000 $ Der house or unit = $30

I Total I I $11,500,000 I $106 I $3,500,000 I $75 I

Service

I Combined bost I Total Cost = $15,000.000 I $ Der house or unit = $97 1

Single Family Homes I Multi-Residential Dwellings

Adding mo e ro rams and initiatives to increase diversion will increase costs. The estimated cost of theye programs was provided in the Chapter 16. These costs are shown in the table on ' T p g

homes and multi-residential dwellings (i.e., the two

the next page is the total cost of the waste management system when the cost and initiatives are included. The total cost is split between single family

cost I $/household I cost $/Unit

Diversion qrograms (see above) I $4,000,000 ~

$36 $700,000 $1 5 Garbage Cbllection Costs $5,200,000 $48 I $2,000,000 I $43

, DRAFT Section 4 How Do We Pay for the Trip? 31

Suggested Programsllnitiatives

Diversion df 55% to 60% (a)

Diversion of 60% to 65% (b)

Single Family Homes Multi-Residential Dwellings

cost $/household cost $/Unit

$6,700,000 $62 $300,000 $6

$6,750,000 $63 $500,000 $1 1

a - Includes b - Includes

Net Resi4ential Waste Management Costs Plus Proposed New Net

cost of weekly garbage and recycling collection of bi-weekly garbage and weekly recycling collection

Residential Diversion and Collection Program Costs

~

-Divers&f 60%to65% (b)

Combined Cost

Diversion 0' 65% plus (a)

Suggested Programs/f nitiatives

$18,250,000 I $1 69 $4,000,000 I $85

Total Cost $22,250,000 $ per house or unit = $144 ---- $19,050,000 I $1 76 $4,700,000 1 $ I 00

I Single Family Homes I Multi-Residential Dwellings I

Item

Weekly Garbage Collection (additional vehicles for "achieve 6 0 % only)

New Comqnunity EnviroDepot with Household Special Waste Depot

Green Bin Program (carts and vehicles)

Subsidize Recycling Containers

Awarenesy and Behaviour Change Initiatives Total I

I Cost I $/household I Cost I $/Unit I

cost

$500,000

$1,200,000

$6,000,000

$500,000

$300,000

$8,500,000

Diversion of 55% to 60% (a) I $18,200,000 I $1 68 I $3,800,000 I $81

Combined I Cost 1 Total Cost = $22,000,000 1 $ per house or unit = $142

DRAFT Section 4 How Do We Pay for the Trip? 32

18. How Do We Pay For New Costs? As illustrated in Chapters 16 and 17, moving towards 60% diversion or beyond will increase annual waste management costs by approximately $7 to $9 million. The main options for paying for these costs are:

Taxes Most municipalities in Ontario finance the majority of their waste management costs through property taxes. This is the case here in London where approximately 2.5% of property taxes go towards funding waste management costs. In this system more expensive homes pay more for waste management services and less expensive homes pay less. Businesses also pay for a portion of the waste management services provided to residents.

The new costs to move towards 60% diversion could be paid for by increasing property taxes by 1.5% to 2.3%. The cost to the individual taxpayer would depend on the value of their home. For a property assessed at $173,000, the increase would be approximately $40 to $60 per year. The cost to a typical multi-residential dwelling would be approximately $1 0 to $20 per year.

Flat Rate Some municipalities have implemented an annual or monthly flat rate fee for waste management services. These charges are often shown as a line item on the tax bill and collected at the same time taxes are paid. The main advantages of a flat rate system are:

it is visible to the user, all homeowners receive the same service and pay the same fee no cross subsidization by commerciallindustrial users

Using this payment method, Single family homes would be charged a flat rate of $60 to $75 to cover the new costs while multi-residential dwellings would be charged a flat rate of $5 to $30 per unit, per year.

User Pay In user pay systems, the user is charged based on the amount of garbage they generate. Residents are typically charged a fee per bag or container of garbage and usually not charged for diversion programs. This system provides an economic incentive to reduce the amount of garbage thqt is generated.

Some municipalities have implemented "full" user pay systems where the resident pays a fee for all garbage generated. Other municipalities have implemented "partial" user pay systems whereby residents only pay for a fee for garbage above a set volume (e.g., they only have to pay if they generate more than 2 bags of garbage).

User pay systems, including full user pay systems, typically do not generate enough revenue to cover all waste management costs and a portion of the waste management costs continue to be paid by taxes.

DRAFT Section 4 How Do We Pay for the Trip? 33

Economic incentive to reducelhousehold

I

Transparent to user

Landfill Tipping Fees Municipalities with landfills, like London, could consider getting additional funding by increasing tipping fee revenue from the landfill. This can be done by raising tipping fees or by accepting more garbqge at the landfill.

There are limits on the amount that can be raised by increasing tipping fees before waste goes to another landfill. It may be possible to attract additional waste from the businesslinstitution sectors in the City however this reduces landfill lifespan. We must ensure that appropriate amounts oq business waste are directed to the W12A Landfill while balancing social, financial and environmental objectives. Overall, it may be possible to pay for a portion but not all of the new waste diversion programs by increasing tipping fee revenue.

Governyent and Industry Funding It is expected funding from other levels of government and industry to remain stable and generally lipited. Funding for the Blue Box program is expected to drop but new funding is likely to emerge for household special waste and electronics recycling.

Summary A compariqon of the funding options that would be able to fund all of the proposed new diversion cpsts are presented below:

ComDarison of Fundina ODtions

x x

x J

Considerations I Taxes 1 FlatRate

Cost of new programs for single family home

Cost of new programs for multi-residential dwelling

Eliminates cross-subsidization

I I/ I J Certainty in funding to pay for services

Increased taxes

Property Value Increased taxes

based on Property Value

based on $60 to $75

$5 to $30

Y J

Abiliiy to maintain sustainable fundina for Droarams Costs to administer funding Low to ootion I I medium

-- by business I

User Pay

x

J?

Medium to high

J

J Increased fees

based on generation

Increased fees based on

aeneration

J

DRAFT Section 5: Sharing the Road 34

19. Who Handles Other Waste Streams and What is the Role of the City?

Institutional, Commercial and Industrial (IC&) facilities generate a greater volume of waste than the Residential Sector. Although industrial facilities produce other manufacturing wastes, most institutional and commercial facilities within this sector produce wastes very similar to those in the residential stream.

Like the residential sector, IC&l facilities are bound by the Provincial 60% waste diversion target in addition to Regulations to divert certain wastes. The City however, has little control over the management of these wastes.

Striving for higher diversion, what role can the City play when the private sector manages much of these wastes?

Institutional Buildings and Complexes

Institutional buildings and complexes include schools, hospitals and nursing homes. The wastes generated at these facilities bear a similarity to some residential wastes and most have developed comprehensive recycling programs which include paper, cardboard and containers. Within our hospitals significant research and development is underway to expand recycling to include further plastic streams, waste wood and electronics.

Commercial and Industrial Buildings and Complexes

The City collects garbage from small businesses that are a part of City collection routes including the downtown core, which is provided as an attempt to minimize downtown congestion that could result from multiple haulers on separate contracts. However, the majority of waste and recycling activities at commercial and industrial buildings are managed by the private sector. The management of these wastes is largely driven by economics and in some cases the recycling of Blue Box type wastes is less than optimal because it costs more than waste disposal.

Opportunities for the City Offer recycling to businesses downtown and on residential routes. Support initiatives that assist the IC&l sector to divert (i.e. Industrial waste exchange, Green Business Directory). Recyclable wastes from this sector could eventually be attracted to a City-owned recycling facility (material recovery facility - MRF). Develop a by-law which compels this sector to comply with relevant Provincial Regulations and City waste diversion goals.

Challenges for the IC&[ (Business) Sector Diversion in this sector is driven by cost. A higher cost to recycle or compost will often result in less recycling There has been poor compliance and enforcement of Provincial regulations. This may be changing.

DRAFT Section 5: Sharing the Road 35

20. What are the Roles of the Provincial & Federal Governments?

Provincial Government The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) is responsible for all legislation pertaining to waste management within the Province. Key legislation includes the 3Rs Regulations (under the Environmental Protection Act) and the Waste Diversion Act.

Ontario’s 3Rs Regulations were passed in 1994 and outline specific minimum waste management requirements for municipalities, industry and institutions. In 2002, under the Waste Diversion Act, Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) was created to support the development, implementation and operation of waste diversion programs for materials including Blue Box Materials, Used Tires, Used Oil Material, Household Special Waste (HSW) and Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE). WDO will also address industry stewardship models for handling the materials andlor funding of the programs. The City of London is actively involved with WDO programs (i.e., policy reviews, program evaluations).

In June 2004 the MOE released the document: Ontario’s 60% Waste Diversion Goal - A Discussion Paper, in which it set a goal diverting 60% of Ontario’s waste from disposal by the end of 2008. The diversion rate of the Province at the time this goal was set was 28%. The document proposes ‘Yo take a new comprehensive approach to waste diversion, one that will reduce the amount of waste generated, increase the rates of reuse and recycling, and reduce the amount of waste going to disposal.” In London, as in other municipalities across Ontario, Municipal Council is reviewing options to move us towards and beyond 60% waste diversion.

In June 2007, MOE released a draft document entitled a Policy Statement on Waste Management Planning: Best Practices for Waste Managers. The document outlines the guidelines for developing a Municipal Waste Management Plan. Two key components of the plan are the Waste Diversion Strategy and Public Consultation. With respect to the Waste Diversion Strategy, the document states:

“Provide a detailed analysis of municipal solid waste management options and a recommended strategy for maximum diversion of municipal solid waste. Include options considered (e.g., functionally different activities or solutions to deal with waste), criteria used to evaluate options and determine strategy, and an explanation of how selected approach will meet established targets. . . . . . Describe diversion programs that will be implemented and show the individual contribution of waste reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery as components of the diversion plan.” (MOE, page 23, 2007).

The MOE document also points out that there are many waste management challenges that are being faced across Ontario by noting that:

“A failure to adequately pian for effective waste management infrastructure has led to many undesirable circumstances. The following are key examples:

Ontario cannot sufficiently manage all waste generated.

DRAFT Section 5 Sharing the Road 36

Progress on waste diversion is slow. Existing public and private waste management infrastructure are under great pressure to handle increasing quantities of waste. Waste is being exported out of Ontario for management.

Exporting waste is not a sustainable long-term solution because it creates broader problems. It generates greenhouse gases from long-distance truck transport, causes social discord (as many communities oppose siting of landfills for other communities in their municipality) and could potentially create economic challenges for Ontario businesses and municipalities required to search for alternative solutions” (MOE, page 8, 2007).

Recognizing challenges and opportunities from other municipalities is key to designing a sustainable waste management system for London. The MOE continues to be an important technical resource and is the regulatory authority on most waste management matters in the Province. City staff will continue to consult with them on appropriate matters.

Federal Government At the Federal level, Environment Canada is moving foward with two key approaches to promote waste reduction and diversion (sometimes referred to as waste minimization):

1. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): means that the responsibility of a consumer product at the end of it‘s lifecycle (Le. when it is being disposed) is shifted to the producer of the product, away from municipalities, and

2. Packaging Stewardship: recognizes the need for product packaging to be designed to have a minimum impact on the environment.

In June 2007 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) endorsed the Canada-wide principles for extended producer responsibility. CCMEs Extended Producer Responsibility Task Group was established to provide guidance on the development and implementation of EPR and product stewardship programs, and to consider packaging as a first priority. The EPR Task Group’s mandate found on the website is to:

“identify opportunities to harmonize, make consistent where appropriate, expand, and improve EPR programs; develop general guidance on EPR issues; identify and explore opportunities to forge strategies for new EPR initiatives; and facilitate EPR communications and information exchange among jurisdictions”

EPR at the Federal level is very logical as it builds on economies of scale plus that fact that products and packages flow regularly from one Province to the next. Harmonization of regulation will benefit consumers, taxpayers and businesses. City staff will continue to follow the progress with the CCME and Environment Canada.

Environment Canada is also working to reduce Greenhouse Gases (GHG) and climate change. Landfills have been identified as a source of methane, a potent Greenhouse Gas with 21 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. As the Federal Government develops its policies and strategies for climate change, one potential role that the waste management sector will play will be its role within an emissions trading system.

DRAFT Section 6 So Which Way Should We Go? 37

I Major Component

21. How Quickly Can We Get Down the Road?

Tentative Earliest Tirneframe for lmdernentation

Change garbage and recycling pickup service to weekly, same day service

Implement a Green Bin (source separated organics) curbside collection program

Add “Blue Box Plus” Materials

~

I Enhanced (selected) education & awareness initiatives I Summer to Fall 2008 I

Fall 2009

Fall, 2009

Fall 2009

I SubsidizedlFree Blue Boxes I Fall 2008 I 1 Add “Blue Box Enhanced“ Materials I Fall 2008 I I Policy and/or by-law changes I Fall 2008 to Fall 2009 I I Potential changes to program financing I January 2009 to January 2010 I I New EnviroDepoVHSW Depot I Summer 2009 I

Implement a Green Bin (source separated organics) I 2010 to 201 1 multi-residential collection program I

DRAFT Section 6: So Which Way Should We Go? 3%

22. Next Steps - Consultation Process

Recommended Strategy for Approval

Recommended Strategies Approved


Activitv

23. We Want Your Feedback

Comments

Public Opinion survey

Making lnforma tion Available

Public opinion survey will be conducted to determine residents views on key issues

7ead a Copy of he Report

Mend Open iouses

Wend 2ommunity 3rganization Vleetings

ralk to staff

Pickup hardcopies at City Hall (3rd or 8th floors) or local Libraries . Call City Hall at 519 661-2500 ext. 7604 to request a copy by mail Download at www.london.ca (click: Waste Diversion Strategy)

Tuesday, January 22,2008 at City Hall . Tuesday, January 29,2008 (location to be determined in the south

Will be advertised using various media (London Free Press, website, etc.) Displays will present overview of initiatives/programs being considered Staff will be available to answer questions . Request written comments and/or complete questionnaire

London area)

. Offer to make presentation to selected community organizations (e.9. Chamber of Commerce, Urban League, etc.) plus other groups requesting a presentation Staff will be available to answer questions Request written comments andlor complete questionnaire

Email questions to [email protected] Mail written questions to Laura Bechard, City of London, 300 Dufferin Ave., P.O. Box 5035, London , ON, N6A 4L9 Fax questions to: 519 661-2354 . Call 519 661-2500 ext. 7604

Opportunities to Provide Feedback Answer the “Feedback Questions” by going online to www.london.ca

Complete the “Feedback Questions” form in Appendix A and mail to: (select Waste Diversion Strategy)

Laura Bechard, City of London, 300 Dufferin Ave., P.O. Box 5035, London , ON, N6A 4L9 Fax completed “Feedback Questions“ to: 519 661-2354


23. Notes

DRAFT Appendix A Feedback Questions and Comments 41

Appendix A

Feedback Questions and Comments

Please take a moment to complete the questions below and return by mail to: Laura Bechard, City of London, 300 Dufferin Ave., P.O. Box 5035, London, ON, N6A 4L9, or by fax to: 519 661-2354. This form can also be completed online at www.london.ca by selecting "Waste Diversion Strategy".

I @=qK] Please circle your answer ~ ~ , 1 . - -~ u ~ ~~~ ~~ ~. ~~~ ~ . ~.~ ____ . . . . .~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ .___ --__ .. .- .. ~ ~~~.~ - .. ..

Personal Commitment Questions

1. Are you willing to separate your food scraps and compostable paper (e.9. :F,F .-,---_____..I ._ ~.~,.~~...~I._______..__. ~ ...,. " " . . ...,..,...~..",..".I" ..... I.- ~ . .,...

__ tissues) in a "Green Bin" program? Would you consider also separating diapers, sanitary products and pet waste?

Comments:

-- . ~~~~

~ ~~ ~~ ryes ,I No ~

~~ ~ .~ .~~~ ~~~~. ~ ~~ __-

~. . .~~

provided weekly "Green Bin" collection, would garbage .~--_____ll.l..-"~-..",",.."̂..,._".I____,,,I once every .~ two weeks be satisfactov ,,,.. . "^ "" . ... ,

i Comments:

! .__ __ ;I ~ .~. . ~ . . . ~~~

there be a reduced garbage container limit (possibly 2 or 3

i Comments: ~

.c " " ... " ... .. .I ~ ......, . . . , . . . ~ .... .. .,, .. , . ,,.

~ 4. II Should recycling be . " mandatory .~~ and ,.. .. coupled . . .,. ... . with .,, . .. increased . .. , .. enforcement? ,. ,.,

~ Comments: ~

... .. .. .. .. [SF , "I. ~. -

Note: You may add additional pages for comments if needed.

.

DRAFT Appendix A Feedback Questions and Comments 42

1 I !

Comments:

I 1

. ~ . ~ . . ~ ~. .~ ~ ~~

includes Household etc.) drop-off, somewhere

!

. , .., . . . . . . . , , . . .. .

i Comments: i

I I

I _ f

1 8. Should the City look for opportunities to become involved with garbage -r

j I ~

I

i

from businesses and institutions especially those who have limited . . ___--___. ~~ .~ . ~~ ~

il Comments:

Comments:

; ! i ~


Comments:

DRAFT Appendix A Feedback Questions and Comments 43 ...... ..__.".-..._I .... ....... . II ...... _.I__.. .-

-.___ ~. ~.

to achieve 3 different levels of diversion from Maximize Diversion 65%+. Which level of waste

diversion do YOU S U D D O ~ ~ after considering the associated costs. environmental benefits

I 1

- 1 ~ and personaiactionsrequired?

Comments:

!

-- - -._____ .-___

Adding more materials to the Blue Box program [ support Do Not ;[support : :E;;:; . . . . .~~ . ~~

Reduced garbage container limits

Full user pay for garbage

. Tougher by-law enforcement

. . . . . . . .~ . ~~~ ~ ~~~~ .~

. . . . . . . . . .. ~ . . . . . . . . . ~. I

support _.____

... .......... . . . . . ........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , " . . . . . .,,., . . . . . . . . .


DRAFT Appendix A: Feedback Questions and Comments 44

i ,-..--.--,.I c. Continue ","1 to ,__-._.._._I__ have taxes .... .....l._ cover -. I_ all waste ... management services "-_I" ..__ :r: Yes ...........

Comments:

I !

~

I

-..........._......I - .......... . . -- ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


14. To reach or exceed 60% diversion will cost more tax dollars for the enhanced recycling and cornposting programs. This will increase the overall cost of waste management services. Are you willing to pay more on top of this to increase garbage collection frequency to once per week?

,__I ................... - ............ ............................... / r comments:

DRAFT Appendix B Lie Cycle Analysis 45

Appendix B

Life Cycle Analysis

There are both local and global impacts associated with the management and disposal of waste.

Local environmental impacts are associated with:

burning diesel fuel in garbage trucks, burning garbage in waste incinerators (if applicable), methane emissions (a greenhouse gas) from with rotting garbage in landfills, electricity used (or created) by waste management facilities, and water run-off from landfills.

Global environmental impacts are associated with:

forests cut down to make virgin paper products, electricity used to make paper, plastics, and metals from raw materials air emissions associated with making paper, plastics, and metals from raw materials electricity used to recycle paper, plastics, and metals, and air emissions associated with recycling paper, plastics, and metals

Recycling materials means that the energy demand and emissions associated with manufacturing these materials from raw materials are avoided (or “offset”). For example, making a new pop can from recycled aluminum cans uses 96 per cent less energy than making a new pop can from aluminum smelted from raw aluminum oxide.

Measuring these environmental impacts is done through “life cycle analysis“ using the Integrated Waste Management (IWM) computer model. Environmental parameters evaluated through the IWM model include:

greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide and methane, energy consumption, airtoxics, acid gases, smog precursors, releases to water, residual solid waste.

The following two tables summarize the IWM model results for local and global environmental impacts on an annual basis (1995 to 2006)

DRAFT Appendix B: Life Cycle Analysis 46

DRAFT Appendix B: Life Cycle Analysis 47

DRAFT Appendix C Waste Audits 48

Appendix C

Waste Audits Audits of residential waste were conducted in London in 2005 and in 2007. These audits are

conducted each year in Ontario municipalities by Stewardship Ontario for the purpose of learning how well Ontario‘s Blue Box program is working. In additional to providing information about the Blue Box program the waste audits provide detailed information about the other materials (organics, textiles, etc.) in the waste stream. Stewardship Ontario’s website

www.stewardshipontario.ca has information about the audits including results. The map above, found on Stewardship Ontario’s website shows where waste audits have been completed.

In the host municipalities, waste is typically collected from a sample of 100 curbside households or 10 buildings (for multi-residential audits), and will be sampled four times within a calendar year to represent seasonal variations of waste generation. The waste from all of the households is combined (curbside is kept separate from multi-residential), sorted into waste categories (e.g., newspaper, glass bottles, kitchen scraps, etc), and then weighted. The sampled homes are not notiiied and waste from individual homes is not ever identified.

The combined information will provide important details that will be used to help reach Ontario’s waste diversion goals. The information will also be used by us to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of City of London waste diversion programs.

The information on the following pages is summary data from the 2005 and 2007 audits conducted in London.

The Photo at right shows the waste audit crew sorting waste from the London 2007 audits.

DRAFT Appendix C: Waste Audits 49

SEASONAL DATA AVERAGED - RECYCLING

Material

1. PAPER Newspaper - Dailys and Weeklys Newspaper - Other Telephone Books l Directories Magazines & Catalogues Mixed Fine Paper Books Other P a m Total Paper 2. PAPER PACKAGING Corrugated Kraft Paper Boxboard I Cores Molded Pulp Paper Cups and Paper Ice-Cream Containers Laminated Paper Packaging Composite Cans Gable Top Cartons Aseptic Containers Tissueflowelina - Total Tissue/Toweling 3. PLASTICS PET Beverage Bottles PET Other Bottles &Jars PET Other Packaging HDPE Beverage Bottles HDPE Other Bottles &Jugs PVC Bottles & Jars Other Bottles, Jars & Jugs Polystyrene Packaging Wide Mouth Tubs & Lids Large HDPE & PP Pails 8 Lids PE Plastic Bags & Film - Packaging PE Plastic Bags 8 Film - Non-Packaging Laminatedother Plastic Bags & Film Other Rigid Plastic Packaging Durable Plastic Products Total Plastics 4. METALS Aluminum Food & Beverage Cans Aluminum Foil & Foil Trays Other Aluminum Containers Steel Food 8 Beverage Cans Steel Aerosol Cans Steel Paint Cans Other Metal Total Metal

GARBAGE COMEIN Kg per Household

per Week

0.86 0.87 0.04 0.38 0.46 0.14 0.04 2.78

0.61 0.10 0.49 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.48 1.98

0.16 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.12 0.07 0.02 0.27 0.24 0.12 0.07 0.25 1.55

0.08 0.03 0.01 0.19 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.50

1 Tonneslyear (all hhlds)

6,876 6,905 323

2,991 3,645 1,121 319

22,179

4,895 81 4

3,874 398 424 536 239 595 230

3,820 15,823

1,238 235 228 21 8 791 26 255 936 595 177

2,146 1,912 970 593

2,018 12,336

666 252 60

1,490 189 73

1,259 3,988

%

6% 6% 0% 2% 3% 1% 0% 18%

4% 1 YO 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 13%

1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 2% 1% 0% 2% 10%

1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3%


iEASONAL DATA AVERAGED - RECYCLING AI

Material

i. GLASS .CBO Clear .CBO Coloured :lear 2oloured 3ther Glass Total Glass I. HOUSEHOLD SPECIAL WASTE 3atteries 'aint & Stain Motor Oil 3ther HSW liquids 3ther HSW Total Household Special Waste 7. ORGANICS Food Waste Vard Waste Pet waste Total Organics 8. OTHER MATERIALS Diapers and Sanitary Products Textiles Carpeting Construction & Renovation Computer I IT Equipment Telecom Equipment TV &Audio Equipment Small Kitchen Appliances Other Electronics Tires and Other Rubber Ceramics Furniture Mattresses Other Large Bulky Items Other Waste

GARBAGE COMBIF Kg per Household

per Week

0.26 0.31 0.28 0.04 0.07 0.95

0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.14 0.00 3.86 0.00 0.71 4.57

0.66 0.51 0.18 0.43 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.45 2.65

I Tonneslyear (all hhlds)

2,080 2,433 2,221 294 545 7,574

80 159 5 150 734 1,127 0

30,761 0

5,632 36,394

5,240 4,041 1,407 3,403 244 39 947 165 594 409 688 184 0 154 3,597 21,112

%

2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 6%

0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 26% 0% 5% 30%

4% 3% 1% 3% 0% 0% 1 % 0% 0% 0% 1 % 0% 0% 0% 3% 18% Total Other Materials


SEASONAL DATA AVERAGED - RECYCLING (S

Material

I 1. PAPER I Newspaper - Dailys and Weeklys

Newspaper - Other Telephone Books I Directories Magazines & Catalogues Mixed Fine Paper Books Other P a m Total Paper 2. PAPER PACKAGlWG Corrugated Kraft Paper Boxboard I Cores Molded Pulp Paper Cups and Paper Ice-Cream Containers Laminated Paper Packaging Composite Cans Gable Top Cartons Aseptic Containers Tissuenowelins Total Paper Packaging 3. PLASTICS PET Beverage Bottles PET Other Bottles & Jars PET Other Packaging HDPE Beverage Bottles HDPE Other Bottles & Jugs PVC Bottles &Jars Other Bottles, Jars &Jugs Polystyrene Packaging Wide Mouth Tubs & Lids Large HDPE & PP Pails & Lids PE Plastic Bags & Film - Packaging PE Plastic Bags & Film - Non-Packaging LaminatedlOther Plastic Bags & Film Other Rigid Plastic Packaging Durable Piastic Products Total Plastics 4. METALS Aluminum Food & Beverage Cans Aluminum Foil & Foil Trays Other Aluminum Containers Steel Food & Beverage Cans Steel Aerosol Cans Steel Paint Cans Other Metal Total Metals

;LE FAMILY DWELl Kg per Household

per Week

0.87 0.81 0.04 0.33 0.14 0.05 0.00 2.23

0.54 0.01 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.84

0.12 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.29

0.06 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20

IGS)

ronneslyear

4,913 4,537 197

1,851 805 266 13

12,583

3,053 67

1,410 92 10 39 11 29 4 15

4,730

649 56 51 103 316 6 51 53 124 41 30 54 14 54 40

1,642

347 15 10

699 19 1

23 1,115

%

20% 19% 1% 8% 3% 1% 0% 51%

12% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 19%

3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7%

1 % 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 5%


SEASONAL DATA AVERAGED - RECYCLING (S

Material

5. GLASS LCBO Clear LCBO Coioured Clear Coloured Other Glass Total Glass 6. HOUSEHOLD SPECIAL WASTE Batteries Paint & Stain Motor Oil Other HSW liquids Other HSW Total Household Special Waste 7. ORGANICS Food Waste Yard Waste Pet waste Total Organics 8. OTHER MATERiALS Diapers and Sanitary Products Textiles Carpeting Construction & Renovation Computer I IT Equipment Telecom Equipment TV 8 Audio Equipment Small Kitchen Appliances Other Electronics Tires and Other Rubber Ceramics Furniture Mattresses Other Large Bulky Items Other Waste Total Other Materials AUDlT TOTAL

;LE FAMILY DWELL Kg per Household

perweek

0.22 0.31 0.19 0.04 0.00 0.76

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .oo 0.00 0.01 0.01 4.34

GS)

-0nneslyear

1,258 1,742 1,067 198 17

4,282

6 7 0 0 0 13

18

0 18

4 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 36 72

24,455

%

5% 7% 4% 1% 0 % 18%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

100%


SEASONAL DATA AVERAGED - RECYCLING

Material

I. PAPER Newspaper - Dailys and Weeklys Newspaper - Other Telephone Books I Directories Magazines & Catalogues Mixed Fine Paper Books Other Paper Total Paper 2. PAPER PACKAGING Corrugated Kraft Paper Boxboard I Cores Molded Pulp Paper Cups and Paper Ice-Cream Containers Laminated Paper Packaging Composite Cans Gable Top Cartons Aseptic Containers Tissue/Toweling Total Paper Packaging 3. PLASTICS PET Other Beverage Bottles PET Other Bottles &Jars PET Other Packaging HDPE Beverage Bottles HDPE Other Bottles &Jugs PVC Bottles &Jars Other Bottles, Jars & Jugs Polystyrene Packaging Wide Mouth Tubs & Lids Large HDPE & PP Pails &Lids PE Plastic Bags & Film - Packaging PE Plastic Bags & Film - Non-Packaging Laminated/Other Plastic Bags & Film Other Rigid Plastic Packaging Durable Plastic Products Total Plastics 4. METALS Aluminum Food & Beverage Cans Total Aluminum Foil & Foil Trays Other Aluminum Containers Steel Food &Other Beverage Cans Steel Aerosol Cans Steel Paint Cans Other Metal Total Metals

ULTI-RESIDENTIAL KQ per Household - .

per Week

0.38 0.27 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.02 0.01 0.89

0.17 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.30

0.04 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0 .oo 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.13

0.02 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07

UELLINGS)

Tonnes

793 560 31 208 236 46 12

1,886

363 6

21 1 14 5 3 6 18 2 3

631

83 18 15 10 45 2 0 27 16 2 13 0 4 24 23 275

36 2 0

101 4 0 6

148

YO

22% 15% 1% 6% 6% 1% 0% 52%

10% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 % 0% 0% 17%

2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 8%

1% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 4%


Material Category - 5. GLASS LCBO Clear LCBO Coloured Clear Coloured Other Glass

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 I. 73

Total Glass 6. HOUSEHOLD SPECIAL WASTE

7 0 0 0

0 4 0 0 0 1 0 10 1 0 14 0 0 0 5 35

3,647

Batteries Paint & Stain Motor Oil Other HSW liquids Other HSW Total HSW 7. ORGANICS Food Waste Yard Waste Pet waste Total Organics 8. OTHER MATERIALS Diapers and Sanitary Products Textiles Carpeting Construction 8 Renovation Computer I IT Equipment Telecom Equipment TV 8 Audio Equipment Small Kitchen Appliances Other Electronics Tires and Other Rubber Ceramics Furniture Mattresses Other Large Bulky Items Other Waste Total Other Materials AUDlT TOTAL

L!ULTI;RESSENTIAL [N5GSl Kg per Household tonnes

er Week

0.09 0.01 0.01 0.15 317

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71 0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

100%

DRAFT Appendix D: “Green Bin” Programs in Ontario 55

Appendix D

“Green Bin” Programs in Ontario

Based on London waste audit data, organic wastes including food waste, pet waste and non-recyclable paper (tissue), make up about 40% of the current garbage stream. To achieve a 60% waste diversion rate it will be important to divert at least part of these wastes from becoming landfill garbage.

There have recently been many pilot programs as well as the imdementation of full “Green Bin” prograi The municipalities ms in Ontario. Re3on of Waterloo are currently undertaking sourceseparated organics pilot studies. The City of Ottawa City will launch their “Green Bin” program in March 2009, in addition to having issued a Request For Proposal to build their own compost processing facility.

Due to the success of their new “Green Bin” program Toronto City Council has approved a plan to build two new organic processing facilities. Their program currently collects from 510,000 participating single family homes and pilot studies are underway in 30 multi-residential buildings to test the feasibility of collecting organics from multi-unit complexes.

Prior to rolling out a “Green Bin” program in London, the program would need to be designed to suit the needs and desires of Londoners. Consideration would have to be given to the materials collected, collection containers and liners, collection frequency and vehicle, and composting technology, and how all of this will fit with the other components of our evolving waste management system.

The following table outlines details of “Green Bin” programs currently operating in Ontario municipalities and how their curbside organics collection program ties in with their recycling and garbage collection programs.

DRAFT Appendix D: “Green Bin” Programs in Ontario 56

w c e Separated Organic Municipality

Durham Region

douseholds in program: 180,000

SSO collected: 25,000 tonneslyear

Per household: 140 kg/year

Citv of Hamilton

Households in program: 150,000



Ottawa Valley (Pembrok


SSO collected: 3,700 tonnedyear

Per household: 210 kglyear

Peel Region New Program Households in program: 153,000 so far

SSO collected: 54,000 tonnes/year


“Green Bin” Program Materials Collected

. Kitchen waste

- No diapers or pet waste

. Yard waste Seasonally - Biweekly

= Kitchen waste

. No diapers or pet waste

Yard waste Seasonally - Biweekly

Petawawa. Laurentia

. Kitchen and yard waste


. Yard waste Seasonally - Biweekly (No Bags)

. Kitchen waste and minimal yard waste allowed


. Yard waste April - Nov (No Bags)

in Ontario - November, 2007 Waste Collection System

Drganics -Green Cart :40 litre cart with compostable liner) Weekly - co-collection with recycling

Recyclables - Blue Box Weekly (2 stream)

Garbage - Partial User PaylBag Tags 4 Containers (441bd20kg) without bag tag Urban - Bi-weekly Rural -Weekly

Organics -Green Cart Weekly (various sizes with compostable liner)

Recyclables - Blue Box Weekly (2 stream)

Garbage 3 Containers (501bs/23kg) Weekly 2 Container Limit April 2008 (1 Clear bag) 1 Container Limit to follow in 2010 Valley) Organics -Green Cart Biweekly collection Weekly June to August Newspaper or paper bag liner only

Recyclables - Blue Box (Paper) and Yellow Can (Containers) - No Bags Alternating Weeks

Garbage 4 Containers (501bs/23kg) Biweekly

Organics -Green Cart Paper or certified compostable liner Weekly collection

Recyclables - Blue BoxlClear Bags Weekly collection (441bs/20kg madcontainer:

Garbage - Partial User Pay 2 Containers (441bs/20kg) without bag tag Weekly collection

DRAFT Appendix D “Green Bin” Programs in Ontario 57

Municipality 3ty of St. Thomas

iouseholds in program: 14,800


?er household: 200 kglyear City of Guelph




Niagara Region


SSO collected: 19,000 tonnes/year


City of Toronto




York Region (partial)




Materials Collected

Kitchen and yard wastes

No diapers or pet waste

Kitchen waste, diapers and pet waste

. Yard waste Seasonally - Biweekly (No Bags)

. Kitchen and yard waste


. Branch collection Seasonally (No Bags)

Kitchen waste, diapers and pet waste

. Yard waste Weekly - SpringlFall Biweekly - Summer (No Bags)

Kitchen waste, diapers and pet waste - Yard waste collected separately (No Bags)

Waste Collection System

Drganics -Green Cart 3iweekly - Alternating with Blue Box

Recyclable - Blue Box Biweekly - Alternating with Green Cart

Garbage 2 Bag Limit Weekly Organics - (Wet System) Clear Green BaglContainer Weekly

Recyclables - (Dry System) Clear Blue BaglContainer Weekly

Garbage Clear Plastic BaglContainer (Max IOOL) Biweekly Organics -Green Cart Paper or certified compostable liner only Weekly

Recyclables - Blue Box (Containers) and Grey Box (Paper) - No Bags Alternating Weeks

Garbage - Partial User Pay 2 Containers (441bsl20kg) without bag tag Weekly collection Oraanic - Green Cart PGtic or paper liner Weekly co-collection with Garbage

Recyclables - Blue/Grey Box Single Stream (PaperlContainers mixed) Biweekly collection (441bsl20kg max)

Garbage - Partial User Pay Biweekly collection 6 Item limit without tag Organics -Green Cart Plastic or paper liner Weekly - co-collection with recycling

Recyclables - Blue Box Weekly co-collection

Garbage - Partial User Pay 3 Item limit without tag Biweekly collection

58

Notes

To: 10,2007 - London, Ontariocouncil.london.ca/councilarchives/agendas/environment and... ·...

Documents

Transcript of To: 10,2007 - London, Ontariocouncil.london.ca/councilarchives/agendas/environment and... ·...