1 / 135

Ontario Recycler Workshop

Ontario Recycler Workshop. November 3, 2005. Welcome!. Introduction. First Ontario Recycler Workshop Joint initiative of WDO, Stewardship Ontario, AMO Reflects interests & information needs Nearly 100 people here in person More than 30 registered by webcast Goals for the day

watkinsmichael
Download Presentation

Ontario Recycler Workshop

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ontario Recycler Workshop November 3, 2005

  2. Welcome!

  3. Introduction • First Ontario Recycler Workshop • Joint initiative of WDO, Stewardship Ontario, AMO • Reflects interests & information needs • Nearly 100 people here in person • More than 30 registered by webcast • Goals for the day • Share E&E Fund project results to date • Encourage more E&E Fund applications • Describe MIPC’s work on Reasonable Cost Bands & its effect on municipal funding allocation • Introduce Knowledge Network & 'What If' Tool

  4. Agenda • E&E Fund initiatives in morning • Introduction & update • Selected project profiles • big city, urban/northern, financing & communications • Knowledge Network launch • slides for webcast plus live for in person • MIPC/WDO initiatives in afternoon • Reasonable Cost Bands • 'What If' tool launch • slides for webcast plus live for in person • AMO reception

  5. Our Audiences • Webcast audience listening on-line • speakers will refer to slide numbers to prompt you to move to the next slide • two sets of slides • morning & afternoon sessions • email questions/comments to: • Archived webcast available for 180 days ORW@stewardshipontario.ca

  6. Introduction to the Effectiveness & Efficiency Fund Guy Perry Stewardship Ontario

  7. Stewardship Ontario • Created by the Waste Diversion Act • Blue box industry funding organization (IFO) • 5 year goal of 60% blue box waste diversion

  8. Municipal Funding • The Waste Diversion Act (2002): blue box stewards to pay 50% of the net costs of recycling • Total gross recycling costs reported by WDO from 2004 Municipal Datacall increase ~ 6.5% • $182.4M ( for 2005 fees) • $194.4M (for 2006 fees) • 2004 net system cost was $120M • less $10M in negotiated cost reductions for ‘06 fees • Municipal transfer for 2006 • $48.6M payment • $1.5M CNA in kind contribution • $5.4M through Effectiveness & Efficiency Fund

  9. Overview of the Effectiveness & Efficiency Fund 10% of industry contribution to municipalities to Effectiveness & Efficiency (“E&E”) Fund • $3.3 million available in first year • $5.7 million for 2005 • $20 million + over 5 year program Objectives: • Reduce system cost (net cost per tonne) • Minimize future cost increases as recovery increases

  10. Application Evaluation • Increased diversion (30 points) • Reduced costs (30 points) • Project management (15 points) • evidence that project is well managed & results will be beneficial • Replicability & communicating results (25 points) • Leverage factor for percentage of funding provided by applicant/others (not scored) • Level of in-kind support by municipality (not scored)

  11. Summary of Applications • 33 projects approved $5.14M • 10 applications in development $3.19M • 33 applications rejected/withdrawn $2.84M • 76 applications received to date $11.17M

  12. Summary of Number & Type of Projects

  13. Year One Accomplishments • 13 peer reviewers trained & active; electronic review system working well; Stewardship Ontario Projects Committee in place • Best practices approach in 60% of projects • $4M projects committed to “proactive” priorities • Fund is well known, well-advertised • Strategic investments in multi-family recycling, “best practices,” innovative technology business cases

  14. e.g. best practices for collection, processing & transfer, recycling contracts, enhancing material revenues Year Two Priority Areas • Maintain original priorities with shift in focus to “best practice identification & implementation” • MRF Rationalization • Multi-family Recycling • User Pay & Program Compliance • Waste Audits & Benchmarking • Communication & Education • Cost Containment

  15. Year Two Program Plans Explicit best practice focus • analysis of better performing programs/cost areas • invest in under-performing programs • Capital funding projects — case by case • Program evaluation system • Communicate results/success; key audiences • For more information & to apply • gperry@stewardshipontario.ca • Guy Perry, 647-777-3354www.stewardshipontario.ca & then go to funding

  16. “Big City” E&E Fund Projects Guy Perry Stewardship Ontario Moderator

  17. Big City Projects • Why are projects in major urban areas important to Stewardship Ontario & the E&E Fund? • they represent large sources of the ”new tonnes” needed to reach 60% • they represent high “total dollar” costs • there are major opportunities to reduce per tonne costs – e.g. MRF automation (paper & plastics), implementing collection efficiencies & ensuring “top dollar” for materials marketed

  18. Big Cities Session Speakers • Geoff Rathbone – City of Toronto • Acting General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services • has guided Toronto’s diversion policy & programs for several years • discussing one of Toronto’s most ambitious new projects – user pay in multi-family buildings • Jay Stanford – City of London • Division Manager of Environmental Programs & Customer Relations, Environmental & Engineering Services Department • been involved in waste diversion for 20 years • reporting on progress of year long study to examine potential for a large scale, regional MRF in Southwestern Ontario

  19. Toronto’s Multi-UnitUser Pay Program Geoff Rathbone City of Toronto

  20. Toronto’s Integrated Multi-Unit Recycling Strategy • Project goal – to provide a financial incentive (through user fees) to reduce blue box waste from multi-units to the same level as single family households • Anticipated impacts – 30,000 tonnes each year of more blue box waste diverted in a highly cost effective manner • More information: grathbo@toronto.ca www.toronto.ca/garbage

  21. Background – Driving Forces • Toronto’s last landfill closed in 2002 • All waste now goes to Michigan • Goal of 100% diversion from landfill by 2012 • Council adopted multi-unit waste reduction levy (June 2005); initiate by July 2006 • Purpose: provide financial incentive to reduce waste (not increase revenue)

  22. Diverting9% through blue box Levy set to divert 26% of blue box

  23. How Does it Work? • Buildings given fixed amount of no-charge waste • 500 kilograms/unit/year • based on amount each should produce if recycling at single family rate of ~ 60% Blue/Grey Box materials • Levy on waste above no-charge limit • Measurement by meter • transponder on bins sends information (location, date & volume) to central database at collection

  24. Technology: Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Transponder on bin & RFID reader allows information to be sent via satellite (bin size, location, date, time) Service & billing information provided to customer

  25. Implementation • Buildings to develop “comprehensive recycling improvement plan” • communications; increased recycling container availability; make recycling as easy as disposal • 16 new By-law enforcement officers • Landlord/property manager workshops • “Education first, enforcement second” • tenant/resident communication education program

  26. Financial Impact • Levy set at $30/tonne (cost of collection) with escalating charge up to $90 per tonne • Building costs: $3/unit/year average; ~$20/unit/year for poor recyclers • City cost: $1.6 million (2005); $2.8 million (2006) • Estimated revenue: $0.7 million (2006)

  27. How to Reduce Levy Costs • Improve recycling program • Set out only full bins for collection • Properly compact waste in bins • Keep bulky items out of garbage bins (bulky items collected separately)

  28. Next Steps • Superintendent/Property Management Workshops: Oct/Nov 2005 • Recycling Improvement Plans: Nov 2005 • Tenant/Resident Education: Jan/Feb 2006 • Implementation: Mock Billing: January to June 2006 • Live Billing: July 2006

  29. London’s Regional MRF Study Jay Stanford City of London

  30. London Regional MRF • Project goal – examination of the potential economic & environmental benefits of a new regional MRF to process recyclables from London & surrounding municipalities • Anticipated impacts – lower recycling costs • More information: jstanfor@london.ca

  31. Why Are We Looking At A Regional MRF? • Significant budget issues • Optimize programs – 60% recycling & diversion • Track record exists in London • Foundation exists in Ontario • Integrated waste management opportunities

  32. Background • MRF Optimization Study (2001) suggests regional savings possible • Ontario blue box MRFs (2005) • 45 municipalities currently ship to 10 MRFs • 55,000 tonnes of municipal recyclables • Variety of programs

  33. Study Details • Analysis of various collection & transfer options • Single stream, two stream • Identification of the catchment area for the regional facility • Consider potential environmental benefits/costs

  34. Study Details • Information sources • WDO Datacall • Municipal interviews • Empirical/calculated data • Interim WDO MRF Regionalization Report • Knowledge Network (1 versus 2 stream)

  35. Cost/Financial Impact • Project cost (study) = $160,000 • Funding sources • E&E Fund • FCM • City of London • Savings of $10,000 by participation in Knowledge Network (single stream)

  36. Preliminary Findings • Study not complete • Direct haul cheaper than transfer haul • Potential cost savings of $0.5 to $1 million ($10 to $20 per tonne) • More clout with markets • Can absorb difficult/small volume recyclables • Different programs present issues

  37. Implementation • Complete Study Jan 2006 • Municipal Decisions Mar 2006 • Tender/RFP Dec 2006 • New MRF Apr 2008

  38. Barriers • Defining partners • Commitment from partners • Governance issues • Ownership issues • Loss of local jobs/local control

  39. Outside Influence Factors • WDO payments • Emerging cost bands • Other incentives • Small/medium businesses • The future . . . more recycling = more cost

  40. Next Steps • Meet with potential partners • Complete study (report available by early 2006) • Make it happen

  41. Questions & Answers

  42. Rural/Northern Ontario E&E Fund Projects Joe Hall Ottawa Valley Waste Recovery Centre Moderator

  43. Why Focus on Rural & Northern Projects • Identify & address specific geographical/ demographic issues: • collection costs - longer roads, fewer homes • different levels of service – more depots • fewer multi family vs. single family households • less transient but higher seasonal population • shipping costs – distance-processing/markets • waste composition/amounts different

  44. E&E Fund Rural Northern Ontario Projects • 4 specific northern/rural projects underway - $372,000 E&E Fund commitment • Dryden Transfer Facility Brad Johns 807-223-1405 bjohns@dryden.ca • Renfrew County MRF Study Joe Hall 613-732-9285 jhall@ovwrc.com • E&E Fund North Strategy Michael Cant 905-668-9363 mcant@tsh.ca • Quinte Depot Review Rick Clow 613-394-6266 rick@quinterecycling.org

  45. Projects with Rural/Northern Component • Waste audits in North Glengarry, Sudbury, Osgoode Village (Ottawa) • Time & Motion Collection work in Pelham & Port Colborne (Niagara Region) • P&E Best Practices (focus group in Kirkland Lake) • AMRC User Pay Study

  46. Main Presenters • Rick Clow • General Manager, Centre & South Hastings Waste Services Board • reporting on study to optimize depot recovery & cost in nine leading depot programs • Michael Cant • Manager, Solid Waste Group, Totten Sims Hubicki Associates • working with northern municipalities over past 15 years on landfill, diversion & composting projects • reporting on study of diversion in Northern Ontario to establish future funding needs via E&E Fund

  47. Depot Recycling Best Practices Rick Clow Quinte Waste Solutions

  48. Quinte Depot Review • Goals: • review practices at rural recycling depots & locate/report on ‘best’ • assess Quinte’s rural depot system, trial ‘best’ results from depot review report • Expect: • increased capture rates • reduced unit costs • ‘better’ practices to be made common tested, knowledge • For more information: Mary Little MLittle@jacqueswhitford.com

  49. Background • Rural depot systems traditionally have lower kilograms/household/year compared to curbside • What is the average rural depot recyclable recovery rate/comparator? • Which programs have higher capture rates? • What factors contribute to a higher capture rate? • Lower unit costs appear to follow from higher capture rates

  50. Sources & Findings • Sources: • 2003 WDO Tonnage Datacall • Rural recycling depot systems; no curbside • Findings: • Average: 75 kilograms/household/year • Rural depots: 10/22 south & 4/23 north higher • 5 > 200 kg/hh/yr (286 kg/hh/yr) • Leading programs: Twp. Amaranth, Casey, Augusta & Algonquin Highlands & Perry

More Related