2. 2
Abstract
Waste Managementin Ontario has steadily gained more exposure
and importance within the Provincialgovernmentover the last 25
years. There now exists a common understandingthat if properly
managed, our MunicipalSolid Waste (MSW)could be a supply of jobs,
energy and also the foundation of a possible provincewidereusable
productmarket. Residentsmust be wary of our currentframework and
its capacity to tackle the complicationsof waste in the 21st century.
Indubitably the quantity and quality of waste diverted is sureto
continueto gain importance in the future. This paper examines the
subject of MSW by lookingat currentand past industry performance,
diversion techniques, privatesector stewards and NGO’swithin the
sector. This paper will serveas a resource for residents to see the
progression the industry hasmadefrom the 1970’s to today, learn the
preferred hierarchical waste managementtechniques what underlying
problemsstill persist and what needs to be changed in order to support
sustainable waste managementunder a sustainable resource
managementlens.
3. 3
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my senior supervisor, Velma Grover, for her
support and guidance throughout the research and writing process.
4. 4
Glossary
Source Separation: Separation of specific recyclable and compost materials at the
point of generation Ex. Blue-box and green bin.
Industrial Institutional and Commercial waste (IC&I): Any waste by-products that
are a result of an industrial, commercial or institutional activity
Waste-To-Energy (WTE): A facility that uses combustion of waste, which produces
steam and generates electricity.
Waste Transfer Station/Facility: A facility where waste is transferred from small
collection trucks into larger waste hauling vehicles for transportation to a
processing, recycling or landfill site.
Municipal Solid Waste: consist of everyday items that are discarded by households
for door to door collection
Political Ecology of Waste: The interpretation and interaction of waste after being
influenced by social, economic and environmental hegemony
Landscape: All visual features of an area
Aerobic Decomposition: The decomposition that takes place in the presence of
oxygen.
Anaerobic Decomposition: Refers to decomposition of material in the absence of
oxygen with results in the formation of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2)
gases.
Bulky Waste: Large items of MSW including appliances, furniture, auto parts, etc.
Composting: Biological decomposition of organic waste in the presence of oxygen
either by controlled or natural methods
MOE: Ministry of the Environment
LCA: Life Cycle Analysis
6. 6
ResearchQuestion
In 1987, the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) received an international
award from the United Nations for “distinguished environmental leadership and
support of the innovative Blue Box Program for recovery and recycling of household
wastes” (Pollution Probe, 1997). The purpose of this thesis is to take on the
investigation of the history, techniques and forecasts for Ontario’s municipal waste
management industry. This will be done by analyzing a variety of different
components within the sector, which include: an analysis of legislation, current
waste management strategies, framework goals, performance, governing bodies,
private sector stewards and not-for-profit agencies within the sector. This paper
will conclude with a synthesis of the problems the province faces and which
problems Ontario will become vulnerable to, given the present framework and the
present market for Energy from Waste facilities. Also, it will conclude with short and
long term future recommendations the province needs to make progress towards a
more sustainable framework.
Waste Management Hierarchy
Ontario’s entire economy is based on the use of natural resources for
production and consumption; an entire development system based on the depletion
of finite resources surely cannot be sustainable unless properly managed. Thus the
finiteness of natural resources is the central challenge of sustainable waste
management. This production and consumption as well as the use of natural
resources are all necessary functions for the economy. However, as the Ontario
7. 7
public has progressively become more mindful of the risks associated with our
environmental impact, it is sensible to look at ways to reduce the resource
consumption rate until it is at a self replenishing and manageable point. This is
sustainable resource management and ultimately resource efficiency is engrained in
the principals of sustainable resource management. Thus utilizing the most possible
utility of waste has become more important and can only expect the Ontario’s
Ministry of the Environment’s (MOE) focus around this issue to be proliferated for
years to come.
Within the realm of Waste Management, there is a hierarchy in the way the
Ontario government prefers to deal with this problem:
Figure 1
Waste Management Hierarchy – Most Preferred
to Least Preferred. (Ontario Waste Management
Association, 2013).
1. Waste reduction – the reduction of future waste during the product and
packaging phase
8. 8
2. Waste reuse – the direct reuse of a waste stream from a minor modification.
Ex wood->woodchips
3. Waste recycle – the reclamation of waste through reprocessing technologies.
Ex plastic recycling
4. Waste Composting- The biological decomposition of organic waste in the
presence of oxygen either by controlled or natural methods
5. Waste recovery – Energy converted from waste through combustion
6. Waste Disposal –controlled landfilling
(Ontario Waste Management Association, 2013)
Although every nation in the world deals with waste differently, the
principles of the waste management hierarchy are referenced within the UK, EU and
North America, which will be seen later in this paper. Waste management is an
ecological subject that has been highly politicized. It can be disputed from many
different viewpoints because of its repercussions and intermingling with social,
economic and political ideologies. Things like the precautionary principle and
health and energy complications all must be given consideration because of the
nature of this topic. This paper is particularly concerned with municipal solid waste
(MSW), however it should be noted that MSW or residential waste that we as
consumers dispose of only represents a small fraction of waste created throughout
the lifetime of that product. According to Statistics Canada (Appendix A, Table 1) in
2008 Ontario’s non-residential sources generated 6 400 160 tons of waste opposed
to 3 231 399 tons of residential waste and a whopping 217 000 000 tons of mine
tailing waste was created across the country that year (Appendix A, Table 3). A
9. 9
measure of the waste by-products produced throughout each stage of that product’s
lifecycle (Life Cycle Analysis) is a true measurement of all the waste linked directly
to our MSW. Offsetting all MSW and achieving 100% diversion rate is the ultimate
goal of the Ontario government but even if that were the case this would only
mitigate a small portion of the waste generated throughout the entire lifecycle of
that product.
A life cycle analysis (LCA) is a technique for assessing the environmental
inputs and outputs associated with the product at each stage of the life cycle
(Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Waste Management Strategies With Zero
Waste Objective, 2009). A typical products lifecycle involves:
1. Extracting raw materials
2. Refining these virgin materials into industrial feedstocks
3. Manufacturing
4. Packaging
5. Transport
6. Use of the product
7. Disposition of the product
(Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Waste Management Strategies With Zero
Waste Objective, 2009).
Municipal solid waste is only concerned with the last two stages but it is
important to note the magnitude of waste generated before the product gets
transported to retail. The waste by-products created during the transport,
manufacturing and production phase are categorized as Industrial Institutional and
10. 10
Commercial (IC&I) waste. From the diagram below (Figure 2) we can see that the
disposal of waste in a landfill is an open loop process in which nothing is salvaged. A
waste diversion rate is calculated by the following formula:
(Greener, 2013).
As we move up the hierarchy pyramid the reclamation of these products
requires fewer phases and therefore less residual waste is generated and less
carbon is emitted. After our blue bin items are recycled they get transported and
return back to the manufacturing phase and progresses from there into a recycled
product. According to the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy
(2010) Figure 3 the recycling of PET, cardboard, paper and aluminum all salvage
upwards of 3 tons CO2 equivalent for every ton recycled. This is because all the
mine tailings and GHGs from the extracting and mining phase are side stepped all
while conserving natural resources. As we can see there is a definite link between
sustainable waste management and the sustainable management of natural
resources, after all the LCA does show that our MSW initially derives from the
extraction of natural resources.
11. 11
Figure 2
Life Cycle Analysis. (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Pg 7, 2009).
Figure 3
12. 12
Defining Waste
According to the Webster dictionary, waste is defined as something that is
considered worthless or meaningless (Webster, 2012). In our consumerism culture
every time we throw something in the garbage we are declaring that we no longer
have use for it, rendering it meaningless or useless. As we can see from the product
lifecycle, waste is derived from nature and will eventually end up entwined in
nature in either a gaseous or solid form. For this reason it can be understood that
the waste explored in this paper can be accurately described as a reproduced form
of nature. For many generations we have looked at this reproduced form of nature
with much disdain. It is no secret that the build up of waste, especially hazardous
waste can produce environmental conditions and diseases that threaten the well
being of surrounding communities and wildlife. As time has progressed and global
populations have increased, the build up of these useless forms of reproduced
nature has become more conventional along with the environmental threats that
accompany it. The Kyoto Protocol, the Rio Earth Summit are just two international
accords tailored to reducing the environmental impact associated with
development. For decades waste has been at the front of political debates around
the world as politicians have pondered conceivable ways to minimize its presence
and its negative impacts. These conditions have set the stage for technological
advancement and market capitalism to change the political ecology of this
reproduced nature.
13. 13
To achieve the label of sustainable waste management, the strategy must also
be congruent under a sustainable resource management point of view, which
encompasses an ecologically and economically efficient use of resources usually
through using ‘waste’ as a secondary resource to feed through the product lifecycle.
As can be seen in Figure 4, Ontario’s waste diversion rate has remained relatively
stagnant around 25%, the residential diversion rate reached 40% in 2008 while the
IC&I sector diversion rate has been on the decline since year 2000 and came in at
15% in that same year. It is important to note that under the Waste Diversion Act,
2002 the blue box program is funded 50% by industry stewards, however no
funding program exists for the IC&I sector. This means that there exists private
funding for recycling a plastic bottled disposed of in a GTA household but not in a
shopping mall or school. The steady declining performance of this sector’s waste
diversion and the lax nature of Reg. 104/94’s voluntary compliance shows a need
for a radical change to Ontario’s Waste Reduction framework.
Figure 4
Waste Diversion by Sector. (Ontario Waste Management Association, Rethink Waste,
pg.7)
14. 14
The History ofOntario’s Municipal Waste Management Policies
Toronto’s history of waste management goes back to the earliest settlers but
for the purpose of this paper, the focus will begin from1950’s and 1960’s when the
nature of waste began to change all over the world. As society was introduced to
plastics, disposable packaging and laminated packaging, the diversity of waste
generated in Ontario was increasing and a one size fits all disposal method
(landfilling) was the logical option. In 1970, Toronto rapidly expanded in both size
and population and it became evident that a waste management strategy would be
needed to manage the large amounts of waste for years to come. In 1972, the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment & Energy was created to mandate all waste
management legislation in Ontario. During this time, the waste management
industry also began discussing source separation. It is important to note that source
separation and curbside recycling was founded by multiple actors, which includes
the groundbreaking work done by not for profit organizations like Pollution Probe
Inc. that formed The Garbage Coalition, raised awareness through their many
campaigns and advocacy/awareness programs in the 70’s. In addition, charitable
organizations such as Is-Five Foundation organized the first multi-material
curbside-recycling program in the beaches area of East Toronto. Members of this
charity went door-to-door involving community members to participate in the
program that served 8 000 residents in 1974, with one single truck. The Waste
Management Advisory Board was created in 1975 as a team to investigate and
advise the Minister of the Environment on all aspects of waste management. Later,
15. 15
the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) was created in 1978 and it would lead the
charge that Pollution Probe Inc. led in the 70s.
On November 28th 1983 waste began being transported to Toronto’s 929
acre Keele Valley landfill site in Maple, ON and since then more than 26 million
tones of waste had been transported to the no longer operational landfill during its
lifetime (City of Toronto, 2001). During this time Kitchener had established the first
city-wide recycling pickup at 35 000 households and the MOE passed regulation 340
and 357 under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) to regulate the bottling
industry and an attempt to encourage refillable containers to be sold. These
regulations would fail and the refillable bottle market would dwindle to only 3% of
market share in 1993 (CIELP, pg 2, 2008). Ontario went into a pedantic focus on the
bottling industry disposal in response to the shift to disposable drink containers.
Ontario Soft Drink Association established the Ontario Multi-Materials Recycling
Incorporated (OMMRI) in 1986, an industry-funded organization who donated $20
million over 4 years which was matched by the province to develop a
comprehensive provincial blue box system that received international recognition
from the United Nations (Pollution Probe, 1997).
Bob Rae and the NDP led Ontario’s legislative charge toward recycling and
waste diversion in 1991. The Minster of the Environment and Energy at the time
Ruth Grier launched the Waste Reduction Action Plan (WRAP). WRAP included a
number of initiatives to promote waste diversion and the 3Rs: they included:
regulatory measures; financial and technical support; public education; and the
16. 16
development of markets for recyclable materials. The four regulations that that
stemmed from WRAP were:
• (O. Reg. 101/94) Recycling and Composting of Municipal Waste
• (O. Reg. 102/94) Waste Audits and Waste Reduction Work Plans
• (O. Reg. 103/94) Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Source Separation
Programs
• (O. Reg 104/94) Packaging Audit and Packaging Reduction Work Plans (CIELP, pg
2, 2008)
These regulations apart of the Environmental Protection Act are each broken down
in Appendix B.
As the costs of the Blue Box program rose, the once internationally acclaimed
recycling program was close to financial collapse at the turn on the millennium.
When the Waste Diversion Act, 2002 became law it gave birth to Waste Diversion
Ontario (WDO) whose sole purpose was to achieve the goals outlined in the Waste
Diversion Act. The new blue box program under this act was funded 50% by
industry-funded Stewardship Ontario (CIELP, pg 4, 2008). Today 97% of Ontario
households have access to Blue Box recycling (Waste Diversion Ontario, 2013).
History ofWaste Disposal
As trucks entered Keele Valley Landfill in the 1980’s, the weight of the
incoming vehicle and waste was recorded and the vehicle is re-weighed when it left
the site. Waste tonnage is calculated on the difference of the two weights. Staff
recorded the source and type of waste dropped off; only non-hazardous solid waste
17. 17
was accepted at Keele Valley Landfill at the price of $57.00/ton (City of Toronto,
2001). Before the end of each day, the refuse was covered with a layer of earth
creating a cell. The daily earth cover in landfills prevents access to the waste by
animals or insects and reduces litter and odour (City of Toronto, 2001). By the late
1980’s there was already concern with dwindling landfill size. At this time there was
a decreasing amount of refillable glass bottles in the market and plastic was
becoming increasingly more common (CIELP, 2008).
In every landfill there is a liquid that forms when rainwater or melting snow
seeps through the garbage pile and mixes with the waste, this is a toxic liquid called
leachate. To prevent leachate from seeping down into the underlying soil, a liner
was constructed at the base and sides of the landfill, which was regularly monitored
to ensure it is functioning properly (Toronto, 2001). In addition perforated pipes
were constructed on top of the liner to drain off the collected leachate. This leachate
collection system drained into a pumping station that discharged the leachate into
the York-Durham sanitary sewer system for treatment at a sewage treatment plant
(Toronto, 2001). To collect the landfill gas within the site, gas collection pipes are
placed in trenches and wells dug directly into the waste. These pipes are attached to
fans that draw gas to the incineration complex in which large quantities of methane
carbon dioxide could be separated to be flared (burned) to produce energy.
Releasing carbon dioxide and water residue into the atmosphere. Since May 1995
the landfill produced around 30 megawatts of power per year, which was sold to the
Ontario electrical grid (Toronto, 2001). Toronto was obliged to monitor and care for
the Keele Valley Landfill Site when it is closed.
18. 18
However in the late 1990s the landfill was reaching capacity. At that time no
other municipality in Southern Ontario was willing to accept the garbage and there
was also no political support for a change to incineration. The city made a new deal
with Carlton Farms Landfill in Michigan and Keele Valley closed in December 2002.
Michigan’s landfill had disposal capacity for Toronto’s private and public sector
waste from industrial, commercial and municipal waste. Throughout this time
period essentially all of Toronto’s garbage was handled and regulated under the
state of Michigan’s regulatory framework but the landfill was still required to
comply with some of Toronto’s conditions. Subsequently in September 2006,
Toronto City council agreed to purchase the privately owned Green Lane landfill site
in Southwold Township, Elgin County. On January 1, 2011 the first load of garbage
went to Green Lane landfill (City of Toronto, 2007).
Green Lane Landfill encompasses 320 acres, 176 of which are approved for
landfilling and a 2 000 acre buffer zone around the landfill (Hiscock, slide 7, 2012).
This landfill has met all environmental and regulatory requirements for a landfill in
Ontario and its monitoring data shows no adverse impacts to surface or
groundwater since its incipient. Green Lane’s liner is comprised of 30cm continuous
drainage blanket on entire base underlain by continuous woven geotextile filter
fabric, overlain by continuous non-woven geotextile filter fabric, perforated 200 mm
diameter HDPE header and collection pipes that collect leachate for treatment
(Hiscock, slide 10, 2012). This Leachate Treatment Plant commenced in 2002 with
capacity of 131m3/day and has since been monitored monthly. With continually
development and expansion of the facility the landfill was given the green light to
19. 19
treat 300m3/day in 2011. Likewise occurred with the gas collection and flaring
plants, capacity was uplifting from 1 600cfm in 2004 to 3 200cfm in 2011 (Hiscock,
slide 19, 2012). If Ontario can boost its municipal waste diversion rate to 70% the
landfill’s estimated life expectancy to about 2034 (Hiscock, slide 25, 2012).
Nearby residents have shown their concern for the air quality of the
surrounding communities. In the year 2012 alone the MOE received 418 odour
complaints about the landfill (Daubs, 2013). The landfill is met by heavy opposition
from neighbouring regions whose residents have organized multiple protests for the
closure of the landfill (Daubs, 2013).
Municipal responsibilities/funding
Recycling services are mandated by the provincial government, but are
carried out by local municipalities. Municipal and/or local governments can also
regulate waste management and recycling activities through their by-laws. These
by-laws generally impact residential waste and can for example:
Set limits for the amount of garbage that can be generated by residents
Require the recycling of materials
Determine fees for waste collection service (e.g. bag tags)
Set landfill bans (restrict what materials can be landfilled)
(Recycling Council of Ontario, 2010).
Both the municipalities of York and Durham run on a two-tiered government
structure. With the regions of York and Durham, the lower tier is responsible for the
20. 20
collection on municipal waste and the upper tier government is responsible for the
disposal of municipal solid waste, processing of blue box recyclables; the operation
of a recycling center and a rural landfilling site, a hazardous waste facility and a
composting one (Clapp, R.J & Curtis, C.R 2013).
Environmental Assessment Act York-Durham EFW center
The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) applies to all proposals from enterprises
that would like to plan a development or activity on crown or public land. This act
requires an environmental assessment to be conducted for any major developments
that has the potential for environmental effects. This study determines the
ecological, cultural, economic and social impact of the project. It is a key part of the
planning process and must be completed before decisions are made to proceed with
a project (Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2010). This study involves the
consideration of alternatives, the needs of the environment and the priorities of the
respected community. The considerations of such alternatives would fall under
assigned priorities:
1. Natural environment considerations – most important
2. Social/cultural considerations – important
3. Economic considerations – important
4. Technical considerations – important
5. Legal considerations – least important
(Macviro Consultants & Jacques Whitford, 2006, pg. v)
21. 21
Substances of Concern
When examining EFWfacilities, the obvious concern forresidents is the significant
release of pollutants and GHG’s into the environment; these are dependent on what kind
of waste goes through the chamber. There are specific pollutants emitted in EFWthat the
government takes very seriously. These include polychlorinateddibenzo-p-dioxins and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/F),commonly knownas dioxins/furans, which
are persistent organic pollutants (POPs) that can result fromincomplete combustion or
an improperly operated facility (EnvironmentCanada, 2013). Mercury is the other
pollutant that bio accumulates in the atmosphere. It is only released if mercury-
containing items are fed through the chamber like alkaline batteries or fluorescentlight
bulbs. This means resident have to be progressively more careful on what they are
throwing into the trash (EnvironmentCanada, 2013).
Canada has committed to numerous initiatives to reduce dioxins, furans as wellas
mercury release such as:
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants;
CCMEPolicy for Management of Toxic Substances;
Federal Toxics Substances Management Policy (TSMP),
Canada Wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans;
Canada Wide Standards for Mercury; and,
Chemicals Management Plan.
(Environment Canada, 2013).
The Environmental Assessment for York/Durham’s EFW facility was
submitted to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) on July 31, 2009, and the
final amended EA was submitted on November 27, 2009. The following
22. 22
November the MOE announced the approval of the project and construction
began in 2011 with the anticipated completion date in late 2014
(DurhamYorkWaste, 2012).
The Durham/York EFW facility,which is expected to operate for thirty
years or more, will be fully owned by their respected Municipalities through a
partnership agreement. Both owners will have complete oversight of the
operation throughout the twenty-year contract, which was granted to
Covanta Energy Corp as the “design-build-operate contractor”
(DurhamYorkWaste, 2012). Covanta, a worldwide operator in EFW owns over forty
waste combustion facilities in North America. This contract was supposed to reach a
total payable to Covanta of 272 million, but according to a Durham/York Energy
Center Construction Update on Sept 19 2013, the projected actual contractor costs
will be around 255 million (Clapp, R.J & Curtis, C.R, 2013). Essentially York and
Durham’s municipal waste will be fed into a furnace where it is heated to
above 1 000 degrees Celsius leaving residual ash and ferrous and non-ferrous
metals which are separated for recycling. This mass burn technology
produces large quantities of steam which can be sold or used to run a turbine to
produce electricity to then be sold to Ontario’s grid (Appendix 1, Graph 2). This will
depend on buyer location and preferences. The facility is located in Clarington
and will have the capacity to process 140,000 tons of post-diversion waste
annually while recovering all metals and 20MW of energy, enough energy to power
14 000 homes (Ontario Power Authority, 2013).
23. 23
The following is a list published by Environment Canada of the predicted
pollutants that will be omitted from this facility annually at 140,000 tons of MSW
per year:
(Environment Canada, 2012)
Also worth mentioning is Algonquin Power Energy From Waste Inc. located
in Brampton, Ontario. This EFW facility has been combusting non-recyclable waste
since it was commissioned in 1992 and meets all A7 Guidelines (Dodds, 2011). This
facility thermally treats 174,000 tons of waste annually and generates 9MW
generated by a steam turbine. MSW from the Region of Peel equals 93% of
Algonquin Power annual waste intake (Dodds, 2011).
After over 20 years of shipping their garbage to Algonquin Power, the Region
of Peel has followed York and Durham’s route in building their own EFW facility that
was approved on June 27, 2013, set to open in 2020. Peel Region disposed of over
250 000 tons of waste post diversion in 2012, which is a figure expected to jump to
24. 24
270 000 tons by 2020 when the Centre becomes operational (Peel Energy Recovery,
2013). The plant will use similar technology as the Durham/York EFW facility,
residential garbage will be placed in a chamber to produce steam, which drives a
turbine that converts that energy to electricity. This EFW facility will be capable of
processing 300 000 tons of input annually and reducing their reliance on landfill
and recovering all metals (Peel Energy Recovery, 2013).
It is worthy to point out that EFW facilities have Provincial guidelines and
limits for quantities they can release of several different toxins. Every thermal
combustion facility must oblige by the A-7 Guidelines for Air Pollution Control, Design
and Operation Guidelines for Municipal Waste Thermal Treatment Facilities. Included
in the A7 report is also the guidelines for groundwater monitoring, noise
monitoring, soil testing, live air quality monitoring and recommendations for
acceptable design and operating parameters (Ministry of the Environment, 2010).
These facilities are expected to meet the emission limits in the stack as set out in
Appendix A, Table 3 of this paper.
When looking at the waste hierarchy, one can feel content that the GTA
municipalities are finally implementing the second least desirable option (Waste
Recovery) before sending waste to landfill. This is undoubtedly a step forward
because it will increase diversion, but there is still much room for improvement.
EFW still remains an ‘end of the pipe’ solution to a long term problem. Critics
against waste combustion will be quick to point out that the move towards EFW
embraces the input of waste rather than discouraging it. There is fear that the
energy generated from these facilities will distract the province from larger issues
25. 25
embedded within our socio-economic system that waste management plays into,
like Ontario’s 80% GHG reduction below 1990 levels by 2050 (Environmental
Registry, 2013). Toronto’s mayor Rob Ford told the Toronto Star in June 2013, “I’ve
always said that garbage is money: when you see truckloads of garbage going down
the 401, it’s like truckloads of $100 bills. We have to turn that garbage into money.”
(Moloney, 2013). However when we reference EU countries that have already
implemented EFW programs like Denmark and Germany (Appendix A, Graph 3) it
can be seen that EFW reduces landfill waste but not recyclables. Although the future
of the proposed Waste Reduction Act, 2013 is uncertain for now, the act can
definitely serve as a cornerstone for the direction the industry is moving in; and that
is toward Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and EFW.
If EPR was presented as an instrument to achieve Ontario’s GHG reduction
goal and waste diversion it would gain political backing from other legislation and
only increase its chances of becoming a prosperous and beneficial law. The MOE
also needs to break the link between economic growth and waste generation if they
want to look forward to a future of less waste and GHG emission then Ontario
currently has. One must question the lack of ingenuity coming from the government
in the most preferred methods of waste management; reduction and reuse.
ProposedBill 91
On June 6, 2013 the government introduced the new draft Waste Reduction
Strategy. There are heated debates at legislative assembly in passing this bill. Under
this bill, industry and government will need to collaborate to dispose of MSW. The
26. 26
main talking point of this bill is that it makes the producers of waste products
financially and environmentally responsible for the proper disposition of the
material they sell in Ontario. On one side, it pushes the recycling industry forward
because it in the producer’s best interest to reduce packaging and use easily
recyclable/reusable products. However this bill has come under heavy criticism
from the Conservative party because the bill downloads a financial burden onto
businesses.
Bill 91 is not the MOE’s first attempt at making producers financially and
environmentally responsible for their end products. In fact the confusion around the
“Eco Tax” in 2010 was because of this push. To commence the Municipal Hazardous
and Special Waste (MHSW) program, a fee was charged to industry stewards per
product introduced to the Ontario marketplace that required special disposal. Under
the MHSW program, stewards could either absorb the fee or pass it along in the
wholesale price. Retailers also had a similar choice and some even added a separate
line to signify the price increase as an “eco tax”. The government was quick to
respond to the outrage of residents and the fee was soon abolished (Miller, 2010).
Bill 91 is again another push for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in Ontario,
and although the idea of EPR may not be novel by any means, there has been a
surprisingly strong resistance from conservatives and industry. In a legislative
debate on December 4 2013, John Yakabuski made it very clear what stance
industry was taking against this bill:
“So businesses now have a choice. They’re going to be able to make
the choice to absorb this half-a-billion-dollar cost, and perhaps lose
27. 27
thousands—they would have to fire thousands of people across the
province of Ontario to be able to cut their expenditures—or they’re
going to do what they’ve always done, and that is just pass the cost
on to the consumer. So the consumer is going to pay.” (Yakabuski,
2013).
Companies with low cash flow may not have the up-front capital to put into a
recycling plant and will suffer an extra expense at the end of the day. The
denunciation of this bill is ironically the conflicting threat it may pose to job
stability. The manufacturing sector has taken a big hit since the Liberal party took
office. NDP leader Andrea Horwath revealed to the Toronto Star in April 2013 that
Ontario’s manufacturing industry has lost 300, 000 jobs since 2005 (Brennan,
2013). It goes without saying that there has been some indifference between the
Liberal party and the manufacturing sector over the last nine years. Opposition has
categorized high-energy costs and Bill 91 as factors that are forcing manufacturing
out of Ontario (Yakabuski, 2013). The current provincial government has dealt with
some bad publicity over the gas plant scandal, as talks about an impending
provincial election come to light. The MOE will be eager to see if the bill goes
through a third reading before election time. If this does not happen and a new
government is elected, the winning party will appoint a new minister of the
environment who will ultimately have the choice whether to adopt the bill or not.
Although the future of this bill is uncertain, it serves as the foundation of the
direction that the waste diversion is moving toward. The producers are now the
28. 28
focus as the actors that need to help calibrate waste diversion in not only Ontario
but around the world. This is an area where globalization and international
standards like the ISO could have a positive impact for waste reduction. Consumers
have seen the packaging of some popular products become revamped to include
more recyclable content over the past few years for this reason. Stricter packaging
rules elsewhere in the world and EPR in Europe have served as methods to pressure
the production industry to continue to scrutinize their own packaging until they
reach the most innocuous material possible.
Essentially, one of the biggest impediments Ontario has in reaching its
diversion goals is the lack of liaise that exists between the producers and those that
are managing waste. The waste management industry has no influence over the
design and recyclability of consumer products or packaging (Environmental
Commissioner of Ontario 2011). Thus municipalities are not able to tackle the root
of the problem, which is waste reduction and modification at the source. Although
we are seeing improvements in residential diversion, the abysmal results of non-
residential sources show evidence of a broken framework.
Encouraging producers to incorporate environmental considerations in the
design phase is ultimately the goal of EPR. Packaging, which is a significant portion
of the waste stream, was flagged as priority by the Canadian Council of Ministers of
the Environment (CCME) in their report titled, A Canada-Wide Strategy for
Sustainable Packaging written in 2009. The CCME established the EPR task group
who published two documents: Canada-wide strategy for sustainable packaging and
Canada-wide action plan for EPR. These documents gave recommendations on ways
29. 29
to transition into EPR, how to strengthen and solidify the program as well as ways
to ensure its maximum effectiveness. This task force also established Canada-wide
sustainability indicators that can be used to measure sustainability of packaging
(CCME, 2009).
The authors mention one noteworthy complication with packaging. Presently
some packaging that enters into the waste stream may technically be recyclable, but
often end up in landfill because of its impracticability or difficulty to manage (CCME,
2009). If producers are financially and environmentally responsible for their
product’s end of life management, it will definitely be in their best interest to
alleviate their own difficulties, limit their eventual waste products and use easily
manageable material (CCME, 2009). The target that each producer is encouraged to
develop must reveal recyclable content, compostable content, product-to-package
ratio, GHG output, package reduction percentage, collection percentage and
diversion percentage (CCME, 2009).
Conclusion
As a resident of the GTA, one must wonder if the area is in fact taking the
correct path to waste management and if this strategy is most logical under a
sustainable resource management point of view. If the MOE wants to stay
committed to harnessing the potential Ontario’s waste has in generating jobs,
investment and increasing Ontario-made products, they must look at extending the
product life-cycles and stress the reuse of the product before recycling or recovery.
With EPR, all the products sold in Ontario’s market will go down as waste generated
30. 30
by these producers. In order to make this an effective waste management tactic and
not just the government passing along the bill for someone else to pay, there needs
to be more emphasis placed on stimulating markets for reused and recycled
products. By reinforcing policies that encourage the purchase of recycled material
and a network for producers to sell their reusable ‘waste’ products, especially for
the wastes that can be used as an aggregate in the manufacturing of another
product. These are things that Ontario residents are open to, but the government
needs to make a regulatory push to provide the right conditions for investment in
the “reused and recycled” market. One of the self-defeating aspects of the market is
the current tipping costs vs. the cost of recycling. In their publication titled “Rethink
Waste”, the OWMA stated that they believed, “the only way to drive greater
diversion in Ontario especially in the IC&I sector, is to find a way to change the
economics of recycling of disposal. This often involves government intervention.”
(Ontario Waste Management Association, pg 10, 2013). The OWMA is referring to
tools like disposal bans and higher tipping fees to discourage landfilling and
encourage recycling.
This thesis set out to analyze the progression Ontario’s municipal waste
management industry has made from the 1970’s to present day and the underlying
problems that still persist today. This thesis examined current and past industry
performance, diversion techniques, private sector stewards and NGO’s within the
sector. It has suggested ways in which Municipal Waste Management in Ontario
could be improved and requires the cooperation of the Federal Government of
Canada, the private sector and the MOE. The Federal government’s involvement is
31. 31
needed to take a more holistic approach to EPR and the entire waste management
industry. Now that the recommendations are in place from the CCME for a nation
wide EPR framework, Canada needs to take the next step forward and propose an
enforceable draft EPR bill to the cabinet. A bill based on mandatory compliance and
not voluntary participation. The justifications for EPR in Ontario are the same
nation-wide; each province has manufacturers with similar goals and packaging.
EPR would gain caliber, political backing, funding and additional expertise from
national regulations. The government must not see EPR solely as a tool to meet
municipal diversion targets because it has the capacity to aid in reaching other goals
such as GHG reduction targets, national waste diversion targets and an incentive for
industry to progress towards a more sustainable resource management model. Thus
thesis will serve as a document that provoked the need for an Interdisciplinary
approach to waste management from the Federal Government of Canada, the MOE
and the private sector and it is highly recommended that research within this
subject emerges in that direction.
32. 32
Appendix A
Table 1
Disposalof Waste by Source, Provinceand Territory. (Statistics Canada,
Table 3.1, 2013).
Table 2
Materials Diverted by Source, Provinceand Territory. (Statistics Canada,
Table 3, 2013).
37. 37
APPENDIX B
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
ONTARIO REGULATION 102/94 - Waste Audits and Waste Reduction Work
Plans
Ontario Regulation 102/94 requires owners of the following establishments to
conduct waste audits, develop and implement waste reduction plans, and update the
audits and plans annually: Schools, retail complexes, construction projects,
hospitals, hotels and motels, demolition, office buildings, restaurants, manufacturers
(all have exceptions for smaller enterprises). These audits must contain: The
amount, nature and composition of the waste, the manner by which the waste gets
produced, the way in which waste gets managed and the extents to which materials
or products consist of recyclable or reusable material (Greener, 2013). To increase
effectiveness a customized Waste Reduction Work Plan must be formulated from
the information gathered in the audit.
This Waste Reduction Work Plan will include:
- Plans to reduce, reuse, and recycle waste (respectively)
- Who is responsible for implementing each part of the plan and when that will
happen
- What the expected results are
- The measures for communicating the plan to employees who work at the building
and to any persons who occupy premises in the building as tenants of the owner.
(Greener, 2013).
38. 38
ONTARIO REGULATION 103/94 & ONTARIO REGULATION 104/94
Ontario Regulation 103/94 requires owners of the establishments listed in
Ontario Regulation 102/94 to have source separation programs for specified
wastes. While Ontario Regulation 104/94 requires manufacturers, packagers and
importers of packaged food, beverage, paper or chemical products to conduct a
packaging audit and implement a packaging reduction work plan (EPA, Ontario
Regulation 103/94 and 104/94, 2011).
Ontario Regulation 101/94
This regulation outlines the requirements for waste management by the
program that is used. For ex. Part II says that each municipality with a population
of at least 5,000 shall establish, operate and maintain a blue box waste
management system, it goes on to outline what the blue box program must
include as well as the yard and leaf composting program, green bin programs
and the legislation for municipal recycling sites and depots (EPA, Ontario
Regulation 101/94, 2011).
39. 39
Appendix C
WM actors in Ontario – NGO’s and Professional Organizations
Waste Diversion Ontario
In December 2006 under the WDA 2002, the MOE appointed a multi-
stakeholder non-governmental corporation called Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO)
to develop a program for household hazardous wastes, which included paints,
cleaners, fluorescent tubes batteries and pharmaceuticals (Waste Diversion Ontario,
2013). WDO is responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of waste diversion
programs. This organization, however, has very few staff and resources, and has not
been able to perform much in the way of evaluation to date (Canadian Institute For
Environmental Law and Policy, 2008).
MunicipalWasteAssociation (MWA)
The Municipal Waste Association, formerly known as the Association of
Municipal Recycling Coordinators, is an incorporated not-for-profit organization
formed in 1987 by Ontario municipal waste management professionals to facilitate
the sharing of municipal waste reduction and recycling information and experience.
The MWA undertakes research; works with industry to keep them informed,
organizes workshops and provides support services.
http://www.municipalwaste.ca/about_background.cfm
40. 40
Recycling Councilof Ontario (RCO)
Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) is a not-for-profit organization that is
actively involved in by-law implementation, educational awareness, and project
work around the issues in waste management such as: waste generation, reduction
and diversion, and recycling (Recycling Council of Ontario, 2014).
Stewardship Ontario (SO)
A not-for-profit organization funded and governed by industry stewards, brand
owners, first importers or franchisors of the products and packaging materials managed
under the Blue Box and Orange drop program. Both of these programs collect municipal
hazardous or non hazardous waste for recycling (Stewardship Ontario, 2014).
Ontario Electronic Stewardship
A not-for-profit industry organization that oversees the responsible reuse
and recycling of waste electronics through a program that includes 600 collection
sites and numerous other affiliate sites across the province. Each Ontario resident
and business can have their electronics responsibly recycled through the Ontario
Electronic Stewardship at no cost. The program was developed with Waste
Diversion Ontario on behalf of the Ontario government under the Waste Diversion
Act, 2002. The OES electronic waste recycling program accepts 44 items of
electronic waste including computers, televisions, DVD players, hand-held devices
and more (Ontario Electronic Stewardship, 2014).
41. 41
Ontario Tire Stewardship
The OTS organization is growing rapidly soon Ontario will be able to recycle
100% of its tires. Tires are a very viable waste to reproduce because of the extensive
uses for rubber in our everyday lives. The program’s success is shown below:
(Ontario Tire Stewardship, 2014).
Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA)
OWMA is the voice of the waste management sector in Ontario. It contains
private sector companies, public sector, non-profits and any individuals involved
with waste management. Members have diverse interests including Landfill,
Recycling, EFW, Transfer Stations, Organics and is a strong supporter of Resource
Recovery. This organization directly contributes 3 billion dollars in revenue, and
over 130 000 jobs in Ontario. The average salary paid in this sector is also 22%
above the province average salary (OWMA, 2014).
42. 42
References
Brennan, Richard. (2013, April, 3). Kathleen Wynne says Death of Ontario’s
Manufacturing Sector a Myth. Toronto Star. Retrieved from:
http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/04/03/kathleen_wynne
_says_death_of_ontarios_manufacturing_sector_a_myth.html
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. (2009). A Canada-Wide Strategy
for Sustainable Packaging. Winnipeg, MB. Retrieved from:
https://www.library.yorku.ca/find/Record/2391372
Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, (2008). A Brief History of
Waste Diversion in Ontario. Toronto ON. Retrieved from:
http://www.cielap.org/pdf/WDA_BriefHistory.pdf
Clapp, R.J & Curtis, C.R. (2013). Durham/York Energy From Waste Facility
Construction Update Report. Report 2013-J-28. Retrieved from:
http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/project/project_doc.htm
City of Toronto, (2001). The Keele Valley Landfill Site. Toronto, ON Retrieved from:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/94660921/THE-KEELE-VALLEY-
LANDFILL-SITE
City of Toronto, (2007) City of Toronto acquires Green Lane Landfill. Toronto ON.
Retrieved from:
http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/it/newsrel.nsf/af1ffa833dc5afb485256dde005
a4471/ae07918b3bbf2c6b852572b2006e44c7?OpenDocument
Covanta. (2011). COVANTA Energy-from-Waste Process. PDF. Retrieved from:
http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/project/project_doc.htm
43. 43
Covanta. (2012). Sustainable Waste Management in Ontario: Benefits & Policy,
Niagara Falls, ON [Powerpoint]. Retrieved from:
http://www.swanaon.org/symposium6/SWANA%20PDF%20Presentation
s/Michael%20Van%20Brunt.pdf
Daubs, Katie. (2013, Jun 07). Toronto garbage stinks in Southwold Township, locals
complain. The Toronto Star. Retrieved from:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/06/07/toronto_garbage_stinks_i
n_southwold_township_locals_complain.html
DurhamYorkWaste. (2012). Durham York Energy Centre, Project Overview.
Retrieved from:
http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/project/project_overview.htm
Dodds, Bob. (2011). Algonquin Power Energy From Waste Facility. [Powerpoint].
Retrieved from: http://www.simcoe.ca/ws_cos/groups/public/@pub-cos-
sta-com/documents/agenda_documents/wscos_033911.pdf
Environment Canada. (2012). Pollution Issues: Energy from Waste Facility,
Clarington, ON. Retrieved on December 6, 2013 from:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/air/default.asp?lang=En&n=5427E598-1
Environment Canada. (2013). Municipal Solid Waste and the Environment,Technical
Document for Batch Incineration. Retrieved on March 6, 2014 from:
https://www.ec.gc.ca/gdd-mw/default.asp?lang=En&n=B8DA5596-1
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. (2011). What a Waste: Failing to Engage
Waste Reduction Solutions. Retrieved from:
44. 44
http://www.ecoissues.ca/index.php/What_a_Waste:_Failing_to_Engage_
Waste_Reduction_Solutions#Diversion_Programs_Fail_to_Cover_all_Costs
Environmental Registry. (2013). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions in Ontario: A
Discussion Paper Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-
External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTE4MzMy&statusId=MTc3
MDg5.
EPA. (2011). Ontario Regulation 101/94. Retrieved from: http://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_940101_e.htm
EPA. (2011). Ontario Regulation 103/94. Retrieved from: https://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_940103_e.htm
EPA. (2011). Ontario Regulation 104/94. Retrieved from: http://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_940104_e.htm
EPA. (1994). Ontario Regulation 102/94. Retrieved from: http://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_940102_e.htm
Gregory, Jacob. (2010). Climate Change and Waste – The Missing Link. Canadian
Institute For Environmental Law and Policy. Retrieved from:
http://www.cielap.org/pdf/EPRclimatechangeBrief.pdf.
Greener, Leslie. (2013). Stantec, Solid Waste Management. November 26, 2013. [In
Class Lecture]
Hiscock, Anne. (2012). Perpetual Care & Landfill Closure Projection Costs A Case
Study – Green Lane Landfill. [PowerPoint slides] Retrieved from:
http://www.swanaon.org/symposium6/SWANA%20PDF%20Presentati
ons/Anne%20Hiscock.pdf
45. 45
ICF Consulting. (2005). Determination of the Impact of Waste Management
Activities on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Environment Canada and
Natural Resources Canada. Print.
Miller, Gord. (2010, July 27). Clearing up the Confusion around Eco-Fees [Blog].
Retrieved from: http://www.eco.on.ca/blog/2010/07/27/clearing-up-
the-confusion-around-eco-fees/
Macviro Consultants Inc., Jacques Whitford Ltd. (2006). Durham/York Residual
Waste Study. Results of Public Agency Consultation and Identification of
Preferred Residuals Processing System. Markham ON. Print.
Ministry of the Environment. (2010). Guideline A-7 Air Pollution Control, Design and
Operation Guidelines for Municipal Waste Thermal Treatment Facilities.
Toronto ON. Retrieved from:
http://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=3223
Moloney, Paul. (2013, June 19). Mayor backs burning trash for energy. Toronto Star.
Retrieved from:
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/06/19/rob_ford_backs_b
urning_trash_for_energy.html
Ontario Electronic Stewardship. (2014). OES. About OES. Retrieved from:
http://www.ontarioelectronicstewardship.ca/
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, (2010). Environmental Assessment Act - R.S.O.
1990, CHAPTER E.18 – Part 1 Interpretation and Application. Toronto
46. 46
ON. Retrieved on November 5, 2013 from: https://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90e18_e.htm#Top
Ontario Power Authority. (2013). Durham York Energy Centre (Clarington 01) (20.
MW) – Municipality of Clarington. Retrieved from:
http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/current-electricity-contracts/efw.
Ontario Tire Stewardship. (2014). Rethink Tires. Retrieved from:
http://www.rethinktires.ca/#sthash.WZovfSBL.dpbs
Ontario Waste Management Association, (2013). Waste Hierarchy. Brampton ON.
Retrieved from: http://www.owma.org/Issues/WasteHierarchy.aspx
Ontario Waste Management Association. (2013). Rethink Waste. A Blue Print for
Harnessing the Economic Benefits of Resource Management in Ontario.
Retrieved from:
http://www.owma.org/Publications/OWMAReportsandPolicies/tabid/1
80/ctl/DisplayAttachment/mid/624/AnnotationId/9b3991b7-0bd2-
e211-9cac-00155d607900/Default.aspx
OWMA. (2014). Who We Are. Retrieved from:
http://www.owma.org/About/WhoWeAre.aspx
Peel Energy Recovery. (2013). Council Approves Plan to Build an Energy Recovery
Centre. [News Release]. Retrieved from:
http://www.peelenergyrecovery.ca/council-approves-plan-to-build-an-
energy-recovery-centre/
47. 47
Pollution Probe, (1997). We Recycle – The creators of the Blue Box Program. Toronto,
ON Retrieved from:
http://www.pollutionprobe.org/old_files/Reports/we%20recycle.pdf
Sound Resource Management Group Inc. (2009). Environmental Life Cycle
Assessment of Waste Management Strategies With Zero Waste Objective.
Olympia, WA Retrieved from:
http://www.belkorp.ca/Dr_Morris_Report.pdf
Recycling Council of Ontario. (2010). How is Waste Regulated. Retrieved from:
https://www.rco.on.ca/how_waste_is_regulated
Recycling Council of Ontario. (2014). About RCO. Retrieved from:
https://www.rco.on.ca/about_rco
Statistics Canada. (2013). Chart 3.1. Disposal of Waste by Source, Province and
Territory. Retrieved on March 6 2014 from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-201-
x/2012000/t001-eng.htm
Statistics Canada. (2013). Chart 2-1. Major Categories of Solid Waste, Various Years.
Retrieved on March 6 2014 from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-
201-x/2012000/ct001-eng.htm
Statistics Canada. (2013). Table 3. Materials diverted by source, province and
territory Retrieved on December 6 2013 from:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16f0023x/2013001/t002-eng.htm
Stewardship Ontario. (2014). About Us. Retrieved from:
http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/about-us/
48. 48
Waste. (2014). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from:
http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/waste?show=0&t=1397080555
Waste Diversion Ontario, (2013). 2012 Datacall: Residential Highlights. Toronto ON.
Retrieved from:
http://www.wdo.ca/files/6813/8030/8303/Datacall_Highlights_2012.p
df
Waste Diversion Ontario, (2014). 2012 Organic Trends (Residential). Toronto ON.
Retrieved from:
http://www.wdo.ca/files/6213/8997/4569/2012_Organics_Residential.
pdf
Yakabuski, John. (2013).Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Official Records for 4
December 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-
proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=2013-12-
04&Parl=40&Sess=2&locale=en#para28
