IC&I and C&D Management Options Report IC&I 3Rs …ottawa.ca/cs/groups/content/@webottawa/documents/pdf/mdaw/mdm3… · IC&I 3Rs Strategy IC&I and C&D ... building owners and managers

The City of Ottawa

IC&I and C&D Management Options ReportIC&I 3Rs Strategy Project

6 July 2007

Submitted to:

City of Ottawa Department of Public Works and Services 110 Laurier Ave. W., Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1

Attn: Ms. Sally McIntyre

Submitted by:

City of Ottawa IC&I 3Rs Strategy IC&I and C&D Management Options Report

i July 6, 2007

Table of Contents 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................... 2-1

2. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 2-1

3. Considering Options for IC&I and C&D Waste Diversion....................................... 3-1 3.1 Distinguishing Between IC&I and C&D Solutions ............................................................3-1 3.2 Identifying and Evaluating Municipal, State and National Level Government Initiatives

to Achieve IC&I and C&D Waste Diversion......................................................................3-2 3.3 Applying the ReCYCLING CYCLE ..................................................................................3-3

4. A Targeted Approach and Target Setting ................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Value of Targets..................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Experience With Waste Diversion Targets .........................................................................4-1 4.3 Target Waste Streams .........................................................................................................4-2

4.3.1 Target IC&I Sectors ................................................................................................................ 4-2 4.3.2 Target Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Materials ................................................ 4-3

4.4 The Importance of Numerical Targets ................................................................................4-3 4.5 Impacts of Targets on Landfill Capacity Requirements......................................................4-3 4.6 Recommended Approach For City of Ottawa.....................................................................4-4

5. Ottawa IC&I 3Rs Strategy – Phase Two Consultations............................................. 5-1 5.1 Background .........................................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC)............................................................................5-1

5.2.1 SAC Membership.................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Survey of Local Business Community................................................................................5-3 5.4 One Day Forum...................................................................................................................5-3

Appendix A: IC&I Waste Management Policy and Program Options Appendix B: C&D Waste Management Policy and Program Options

List of Tables Table 2-1: IC&I and C&D Target Materials*............................................................................. 2-1 Table 2-2: IC&I Waste Generation Sectors* .............................................................................. 2-2 Table 3-2: Applying the ReCYCLING CYCLE to Waste Diversion Initiatives........................ 3-3

List of Figures Figure 2-1: The ReCYCLING CYCLE ...................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 3-1: IC&I Waste Stream.................................................................................................. 3-1 Figure 4-1: Ottawa Waste Capacity Versus Demand – Residential and IC&I Sectors –

Organics Included ................................................................................................ 4-5


ES-1 July 6, 2007

Executive Summary In June and August 2006, Ottawa City Council directed staff to carry out an Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) waste management study; to develop a strategy for the minimization, diversion and disposal of IC&I and C&D waste and to extend the life of local landfills. This report, Task 3 - Identification and Evaluation of IC&I Waste Management Options is a summary of the options available to the City for inclusion in this strategy, known as the IC&I 3Rs Strategy; and it builds upon previously completed tasks, specifically Task 1 – Project Notification and Scoping and Task 2 – IC&I Waste Characterization. Background The development of the IC&I 3Rs Strategy involves the completion of four tasks. Task 1 – Project Notification and Scoping focused on defining the scope of the project and what will be produced upon its completion. This task culminated with the development and release of a recommended project scope of work in January 2007 that reflected two months of consultation with the waste generators, waste service providers and members of the public. This document was presented to the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) on February 27, 2007 and was subsequently approved by Council March 28, 2007. This report is available on the City’s web site. Task 2 – IC&I Waste Characterization involved the construction of an IC&I waste composition profile for the City of Ottawa based on data collected from a wide variety of sources including past City of Ottawa studies; studies from other jurisdictions; and information provided by stakeholders. Once this data was normalized, it was allocated to different sectors using an IC&I Waste Allocation Model. Task 2 provides the City with a good understanding of the quantities and sources of materials generated in the IC&I and construction and demolition (C&D) sectors within the City of Ottawa. This report will be available on the City’s web site, summer 2007. Task 3 – Identification and Evaluation of IC&I Waste Management Options is described in detail in this report and involved the identification and evaluation of options for waste diversion in Ottawa. The project team identified waste diversion programs and practices in other municipalities from North America and Europe and reviewed these options with the assistance of a Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC). A detailed review of these options followed and 35 options are profiled in this report. Task 4 – Development of IC&I 3Rs Strategy will involve the consolidation of public input and the development of a final IC&I 3Rs Strategy for consideration by the PEC and Council. In September, the SAC will meet for the final time and a one day waste forum will take place on September 21, 2007. The one-day forum will be an opportunity for the public to learn about options and waste management issues such as the use of alternative technologies. In October, the project team will draft the IC&I 3Rs Strategy for review and approval by PEC and Council late 2008.


ES-2 July 6, 2007

IC&I and C&D Waste Breakdown Approximately 30% of the total waste disposed (192,000 tonnes) by the IC&I sectors comes from construction and demolition activities whereas the remaining 70% (438,000 tonnes) is disposed from all other IC&I activities combined. Task 2 provided the basis for the identification of materials, and sectors to target with waste diversion options. The amounts of IC&I and C&D waste disposed from City of Ottawa sources in 2005 are summarized in Table ES-1.

Table ES-1: IC&I and C&D Materials Disposed By City of Ottawa Businesses in 2005 Sector Disposed

(tonnes) Diverted (tonnes)

Generated (tonnes)

C&D 192,000 30,000 222,000

IC&I 438,000 70,000 508,000

Total (rounded to nearest 10,000 tonnes)

630,000 100,000 730,000

It should be noted that the project team chose to separate C&D waste from all other forms of waste for two important reasons: • All C&D projects tend to produce the same six or seven materials making diversion easier;

and • Many municipalities studied have implemented programs targeted specifically at C&D waste

with reasonable success. Task 3: Identification and Evaluation of IC&I Waste Management Options This report contains 23 IC&I and 12 C&D waste management options. A profile of each option, appended to the report, provides an overview of anticipated diversion, potential costs, benefits and barriers to implementation. The options listed below represent the long-list of potential approaches identified by the study team, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, and the public to date. The objective of this Discussion Paper is to identify and describe each option and to solicit feedback regarding the potential viability, desirability, and efficacy of each option. All comments received prior to August 20, 2007 will be reviewed and represented in a report to Planning & Environment Committee and Council to be tabled this fall.


ES-3 July 6, 2007

IC&I Waste Diversion Options

1. Landfill Ban – A ban on designated materials would be placed at all public and private transfer stations and landfills within City boundaries. Loads containing banned material would be rejected or subject to a surcharge or fine. Banned materials could include Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC), electronic waste, and easy to divert materials such as metal, glass, food and yard waste.

2. Dedicated Landfill Levy – Dedicated Landfill Levy for IC&I waste at all public and private landfills within City boundaries. A levy (ranging from $2 to $40 per tonne) could be placed on all mixed, unseparated waste at the point of disposal. Monies collected could be used to fund waste diversion programs.

3. Differential Tipping Fees for Source Separated Loads – Differential tipping fees for IC&I waste at public and private landfills within City boundaries. Source separated loads (e.g., those excluding specified recyclables) would receive preferential tipping rates to mixed waste loads.

4. Front-End Disposal Levies/Deposits on Designated Materials or Products – A front-end surcharge (disposal-fee, deposit-return, front-end levy) for designated products or packaging at the point of sale to discourage manufacturers from using non-recyclable packaging, to allow for proper reuse and recycling of products and the safe disposal of materials at the end of their useful life, and to encourage consumer conservation.

5. Flow Control – By-law would impose flow control on specific waste generated within the City boundaries and direct the waste to designated waste management facilities.

6. Mandatory Recycling or Source Separation Bylaws or 3Rs Regulations at the Municipal Level – By-law could require designated IC&I sectors to prepare waste reduction plans, to source separate specified recyclables and arrange for their separate collection, or prohibit the discard of specified materials into the garbage.

7. Reuse and Drop-off Depot Program – The City would provide for the establishment of voluntary reuse centres and drop-off depots.

8. Waste Diversion Assistance Program – The City would provide training and incentives to building owners and managers to implement waste diversion programs.

9. Green Procurement Specifications and Policies – Policy could require minimum recycled content for materials purchased by/for the City; or prescribe installation and operation of specific waste system; or require suppliers to take back used goods and packaging.

10. Mandatory Food Waste Collection Program – By-law would prohibit the collection and disposal of food waste or stipulate that it must be source separated for IC&I (food producers/generators).

11. Mandatory Requirements to Properly Manage Designated Wastes or Mandatory Take Back of Designated Wastes – By-law would regulate the collection and disposal of specific waste (e.g., computers, batteries, fluorescent lighting) containing small amounts of designated substances (e.g., lead, mercury, cadmium) or stipulate that it must be returned to point of sale for proper management and disposal.

12. Business Permit Surcharge – A mandatory surcharge would be imposed on some or select business permits to provide recycling collection and processing services to those businesses.

13. Private Sector Licensing to Mandate Recycling Service and Submission of Waste Quantity Information – The City would require waste haulers to obtain licences to operate that would obligate them to provide designated waste diversion services to IC&I customers, which could include recycling services, food waste collection, technical assistance, and educational literature. Licences could also include mandatory reporting requirements about tonnages of waste collected, recycled, composted, and where and how the materials were managed or


ES-4 July 6, 2007

IC&I Waste Diversion Options disposed.

14. Franchising of Collection or City provides Collection Service to All IC&I Generators to ensure Service for Waste Diversion – The City awards franchises to commercial waste collection haulers to operate within designated zones of the City. The City may stipulate: diversion service levels, target diversion rates, fees charged, and reporting requirements.

15. City enforces Provincial 3Rs Regulations – The City enforces the provincial 3Rs regulations in partnership with MOE.

16. City advocates Expansion of 3Rs Regulations/Waste Policies and lobbies Province to Enforce existing 3Rs Regulations – The City, if possible in conjunction with other municipalities, lobbies at both the provincial and federal level for action on a number of waste related issues or additional powers.

17. School Waste Diversion Programs – The City partner with local school boards to enhance diversion.

18. Research Partnerships with Educational and Other Institutions – The City participates in, facilitates or develops research partnerships to examine reuse of materials and the establishment of end markets for recyclable and reusable goods.

19. IC&I Sector Roundtable on Waste Diversion – The City facilitates regular round-table discussions with sector-specific representatives to discuss/resolve common waste reduction challenges.

20. Waste Exchange Program – The City facilitates a waste exchange program that connects generators of used products with those wishing to obtain those products.

21. IC&I Waste Reduction Promotional Programs – The City partners with IC&I sector and waste management service providers to host and promote waste reduction.

22. Mandatory Diversion at Special Events – By-law would impose recycling and diversion requirements for special/public events.

23. Waste Diversion Certification and Awards Program – Certification and recognition of businesses that meet specific waste reduction and diversion standards set by the City (e.g., Mayor’s 60% Club).

C&D Waste Diversion Options

1. Landfill Ban – A ban on C&D waste at all public and private transfer stations and landfills within City boundaries. Loads containing banned material would be rejected or subject to a surcharge or fine. Banned materials could include concrete, drywall, wood, metal, asphalt, OCC (old corrugated cardboard), and brick/stone.

2. Dedicated Landfill Levy – Dedicated Landfill Levy for C&D waste at all public and private landfills within City boundaries. A levy (ranging from $2 to $40 per tonne) could be placed on all mixed, unseparated waste at the point of disposal. Monies collected could be used to fund waste diversion programs.

3. Differential Tipping Fees for Source Separated Loads – Differential tipping fees for C&D waste at public and private landfills within City boundaries. Source separated loads (e.g., those excluding specified recyclables such as wood and shingles) would receive preferential tipping rates to mixed waste loads.

4. Front-End Disposal Levies/Deposits on Designated Materials or Products – A front-end surcharge (disposal-fee, deposit-return, front-end levy) for designated products or packaging at the point of sale to discourage manufacturers from using non-recyclable packaging, to allow for proper reuse and recycling of products and the safe disposal of materials at the end of their


ES-5 July 6, 2007

useful life, and to encourage consumer conservation.

5. Flow Control – By-law would impose flow control on specific waste generated within the City boundaries and direct the waste to designated waste management facilities.

6. Mandatory Recycling or Source Separation Bylaws – By-law could require C&D sector to source separate specified recyclables and arrange for their separate collection, or prohibit the discard of specified materials into the garbage.

7. Reuse and Drop-off Depot Program – The City would provide for the establishment of voluntary reuse centres and drop-off depots.

8. Green Building Incentives and Technical Assistance – The City would provide training and incentives to building designers, builders, and developers to build green.

9. Green Procurement Specifications and Policies – Policy could require minimum recycled content for materials purchased by/for the City; or prescribe installation and operation of specific waste system; or require suppliers to take back used goods and packaging.

10. Mandatory Diversion Specifications for City of Ottawa C&D Projects – Tender/bid documents could specify waste diversion targets to be met, waste handling and disposal methods and requirements, and establish hold-back requirements related to achievement of pre-established diversion targets.

11. Mandatory C&D Waste Diversion Plans and Mandatory Recycling Targets – By-law could require the development and approval of a Waste Diversion Plan prior to the initiation of a C&D project, and require its subsequent implementation. The by-law could include fines for non-compliance, and establish a minimum diversion target of 50%.

12. LEED Certification – The City currently requires all new facilities >500 m2 to achieve LEED certification. This program could be expanded to include specific targets for waste minimization and diversion.

Detailed Review of the Options Approaching waste diversion without providing adequate support in terms of recycling infrastructure will result in lower diversion rates; taking a closed loop or ReCYCLING CYCLE approach ensures maximum success.

Figure ES-1: The ReCYCLING CYCLE


ES-6 July 6, 2007

Each of the 23 IC&I and 12 C&D waste management options were evaluated from the perspective of feasibility and diversion potential using the ReCYCLING CYCLE. One page profiles have been prepared that describe each option, its estimated diversion potential, costs, benefits and barriers to implementation and are included in Appendices A and B of this report.


2-1 July 6, 2007

1. Introduction The fundamental goal of the IC&I 3Rs Strategy is to reduce the amount of materials being disposed. To achieve this goal reasonable options must be put into place that businesses and institutions are able to implement in a cost-effective and efficient manner without unduly disrupting their day-to-day activities and commerce. Many municipalities have implemented programs that address one or two materials or a specific industry as a means of improving the environment, educating the public about solid waste generation and disposal, or increasing diversion from disposal. However, very few municipalities in North America have attempted to address the entire Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) and/or the Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste streams in a single strategy. The City of Ottawa is looking to become the first major municipality in Canada to develop a comprehensive IC&I 3Rs Strategy. The IC&I 3R Strategy is being developed in stages: Task 1 – Project Notification and Scoping focused on defining the scope of the project and what will be produced upon its completion. The scoping document was released for public review in January 2007. The document was presented to the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) on February 27, 2007 and was subsequently approved by Council March 28, 2007. The report is available on the City’s web site. Task 2 – IC&I Waste Characterization involved the construction of an IC&I waste composition profile for the City of Ottawa based on data collected from a wide variety of sources including past City of Ottawa studies; studies from other jurisdictions; and information provided by stakeholders. Once the data was normalized, it was allocated to different sectors using an IC&I Waste Allocation Model. Task 2 provided the City with a good understanding of the quantities and sources of materials generated in the IC&I and C&D sectors within the City of Ottawa. This report will be available on the City’s web site upon completion of its translation, scheduled for early July. This report represents the culmination of Task 3 – Identification and Evaluation of IC&I Waste Management Options. Within this report is a list of 23 IC&I and 12 C&D Management Options for consideration. They represent a broad cross-section of policies and programs extracted from municipalities that have successfully implemented similar activities. Each option is outlined in detail with a full description of the materials targeted, potential quantity that could be diverted and complete details of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges associated with each. The resources required to implement each policy or program are also provided. In combination, the options could allow the City to divert upwards of 60% of its IC&I and C&D waste streams. The final step, Task 4 – Development of IC&I 3Rs Strategy, will involve the consolidation of public input on the options contained in this report, the development of a final IC&I 3Rs Strategy, and presentation of the strategy to the PEC and Council for review and approval in late 2008.


2-1 July 6, 2007

2. Methodology The development of the IC&I 3Rs Strategy started with Task 1 – Project Notification and Scoping. The following consultation activities took place in support of the scoping exercise: • Meetings were held with stakeholders (generators, haulers, NGOs, the public); • Four open houses were held to introduce the study to Ottawa residents; and • A web page was set up where stakeholders could send comments to the City by email. Although the primary purpose of the above activities was to obtain direction on the scope of the project and to obtain supplemental data in the development of the IC&I and C&D waste characterizations in support of Task 2, the discussions with the various stakeholders also initiated the process of identifying options to increase the diversion of IC&I and C&D materials. In addition, stakeholders expressed a desire to see the City of Ottawa learn from successes in other municipalities and to include more significant public consultation. As a result, the project scope was expanded to include the following tasks: Create a Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) comprised of waste generators, waste

service providers, citizen coalition groups, and members of the City’s Business Advisory and the Environmental Advisory Committees, with City staff participating as advisors.

Host a One-day Waste Forum to solicit feedback from the greater community and enable discussion within the context of the range of waste issues facing the City.

Develop and administer a Small Business Survey to ensure that businesses that are typically not represented by large organizations such as the Chamber of Commercial are made aware of the study and provided an opportunity to have input into the study.

At the heart of Task 3 was the development of the long list of options for waste diversion. In the completion of this task, the Project Team was not be limited by the current regulatory framework at any level of government, and the results of Task 2 were used to identify where to focus in terms of materials and waste generator groups – see Tables 2-1 and 2-2.

Table 2-1: IC&I and C&D Target Materials*

Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Construction and Demolition • Mixed Paper (27%) • Corrugated Cardboard (15%) • Food (14%) • Plastics (10%) • Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Metals (10%) • Glass (5%).

• Wood (26%) • Asphalt (17%) • Paper (14%) • Gypsum (drywall) (10%) • Concrete (9%) • Metals (9%)

*From the Task 2: IC&I and C&D Waste Characterization Report.


2-2 July 6, 2007

Table 2-2: IC&I Waste Generation Sectors*

IC&I Sector • Retail (17% to 24%) • Accommodation and Food Services (15% to 19%) • Health Care and Social Assistance (11% to 14%) • Manufacturing (9% to 15%) • Public Administration (7%) • Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (7%) • Information and Cultural Industries (3% to 7%)

*From the Task 2: IC&I and C&D Waste Characterization Report. Single page descriptions were prepared for each option. Each option sheet includes the following: Option name: Title of the option; Lead agency: The agency that should lead the initiative; typically the City of Ottawa; Target materials: What materials would be addressed through the option; Quantities of the target materials available: How much of the total IC&I or C&D waste stream is being targeted; Estimated quantity divertable: Of the targeted materials, how much could be diverted through the implementation of the option; presented as a range; Strengths: What are the positive aspects associated with the option; Weaknesses: What are the negative aspects associated with the option; Opportunities: What other positive benefits could occur if the option was implemented; Challenges: What difficulties may be faced by the lead agency, the generator or the marketplace if the option is implemented; and Resources: What staffing would be required; what is the estimated cost of implementing the option. In addition to information on diversion potential, each summary addresses the following issues: Education: Is the option’s primary purpose to educate the generator? Environmental: Is the option’s primary purpose to address a potential environmental issue (e.g., heavy metals in computers)? Diversion: Is the option’s primary purpose to divert materials from disposal? Finally, each option was to be identified with an icon as to where it fits in the overall ReCYCLING CYCLE developed by the City for this project (Figure 2-1). Two lists were prepared: a list of IC&I options and a list of C&D options. The SAC reviewed each list, provided comment and assigned relative weight to each option through an informal process of voting. This provided some initial indication to the City and the Project Team as to where focus should be placed. In the end the two lists were shortened to reflect the feedback from of the SAC Members that consolidation of some options was desirable.


2-3 July 6, 2007

The more communities develop waste diversion policies and programs that work in a holistic and synergistic manner, the greater the overall waste diversion. Approaching waste diversion at the point of waste generation without providing adequate support in terms of recycling infrastructure will result in lower diversion rates. Taking a closed loop or ReCYCLING CYCLE (Figure 2-1) approach to the problem ensures maximum success in addressing waste diversion. Ideally, each stage of the ReCYCLING CYCLE should be addressed thereby provided a well-rounded waste diversion program not reliant on one aspect of the CYCLE.

Figure 2-1: The ReCYCLING CYCLE

When examining the options it is important to understand that in many instances the implementation of an option has precedents or dependents, which, if not in place, will limit or preclude its success. Based on the theories of supply and demand in the context of solid waste management and relative to the legislative jurisdictions typically responsible for implementing waste management initiatives, there are six stages in the ReCYCLING CYCLE: Stage 1: Consume Waste reduction is the highest level of waste diversion, and is preferable to reuse, recycling, composting or disposal. Avoiding generating the waste also avoids having to manage it. Stage 2: Source Separate Separating recyclable materials such as paper, glass or metal from garbage before it is collected and disposed reduces contamination of the recyclables thereby reducing processing costs and enabling higher diversion rates. Examples of source separation include the reuse, recycling and composting of recyclables and compostables. When identifying materials for source separation, it is critical to ensure that the infrastructure for their management is available (Stages 3 and 4).


2-4 July 6, 2007

Stage 3: Collect & Transfer Once a material is identified for source separation, it must be collected and transferred to a processing facility. There are numerous options available for collection from self-management (e.g., taking materials to a reuse centre) to mandatory curbside collection provided by the public or private sector where every business and/or institution would participate (e.g., recycling paper). Stage 4: Process Processing capacity must be available and within an economic distance of generators, to enable participation in recycling programs. This is true whether the generators are from the residential, IC&I or C&D sectors. Stage 5: Markets There are two points of consideration under markets. The first is that there must be a market available for materials being targeted. Secondly, if the diversion program is successful and very large quantities of a specific material enter the marketplace, the market must be able to absorb the large quantity without a negative impact on market value. Both must be considered equally. Stage 6: Reuse of Products and Packaging This encompasses both traditional reuse, e.g., reusable shipping containers (gaylords, pallets), but also the transfer of a reusable product no longer of value to one customer, to another (e.g., the Computers for Schools program). Reusable packing and the reuse of products reduces consumption of raw materials and also reduces quantities of materials going to disposal. Each of the options has a stage icon on it to show where it fits in the overall ReCYCLING CYCLE. The overall distribution of the options in the ReCYCLING CYCLE is identified in Chapter 3. The options in this report will be going out to public consultation over the summer months. In addition, the City will administer a business survey to local IC&I and C&D generators to get feedback on related issues and this will help to identify viable and preferred options to be used to develop the IC&I 3Rs Strategy.


3-1 July 6, 2007

3. Considering Options for IC&I and C&D Waste Diversion 3.1 Distinguishing Between IC&I and C&D Solutions Waste reduction and diversion options are differentiated between those targeting the IC&I from those targeting the C&D sector for the following reasons: • The IC&I waste stream is significantly different from the C&D waste stream, as shown in

Figures 3-1 and 3-2. The C&D waste stream is more homogenous in nature as a product of its generation – construction or demolition of buildings and roads/bridges. Conversely, the IC&I sector comprises a wide range of different occupations, e.g., manufacturing, food preparation, provision of health and education services, general office environments, etc.

• The cities studied for this project have had some success developing policies and programs that differentiate between the IC&I and C&D sectors. Their efforts have resulted in some targeted policies and programs yielding successful diversion initiatives for each sector.

• Due to the more homogeneous nature of C&D businesses and waste stream targeting this sector provides a faster and greater initial return on investment on diversion.

Table 3-1: IC&I Waste Stream

Source: Ontario Waste Management Association. December 2004. The Private Sector IC&I Waste Management System in Ontario


3-2 July 6, 2007

Figure 3-2: C&D Waste Composition

3.2 Identifying and Evaluating Municipal, State and National Level

Government Initiatives to Achieve IC&I and C&D Waste Diversion Research into initiatives resulted in the development of a list of waste diversion policy and program options used by North American cities and internationally to encourage waste diversion among IC&I waste generators and C&D waste generators. The list of options was presented to City staff and the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) for review and feedback. SAC members were asked to respond to the following three questions: • What did you like about each option? • What are your concerns? • What is needed to make it work? City staff underwent a similar review and feedback exercise. The feedback provided by City Staff and the SAC helped to better define the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Barriers of each option. In a number of instances, because of the overlap between options, they were combined to generate a shorter list to be put forth for consultation. The resulting one-page descriptions of each of the options are provided in Appendices A and B. Since all options have been implemented in jurisdictions outside of Ontario, the regulatory framework within which they were applied differs from what exists in Ottawa. The City’s Legal Services Division is currently reviewing the long-list of options and will provide opinion to Council on these matters in the fall.


3-3 July 6, 2007

In the interim, it is recognized that some of the options have greater legal surety and precedent than others. However, Council has indicated a willingness to consider the full range of options, including those outside current municipal practice. This follows on Council’s direction to undertake the IC&I 3R study, which in itself was unique not only in Ontario but Canada. 3.3 Applying the ReCYCLING CYCLE Table 3-1 presents the waste diversion policy and program options under consideration under each stage in the ReCYCLING CYCLE. Although there may be repetition in the initiatives listed between the IC&I and C&D sectors, the manner in which the initiative would be developed and implemented varies. More detailed descriptions and implementation considerations are included in the one-page descriptions provided in Appendix A (IC&I) and Appendix B (C&D). In reviewing the one-page descriptions, it should be noted that the efficiency and effectiveness of some options improves when undertaken in concert with one or more other options; and, that the integration of options can also lead to reduced implementation costs.

Table 3-1: Applying the ReCYCLING CYCLE to Waste Diversion Initiatives

Option

#

IC&I Waste Diversion

Policies and Programs

Option

#

C&D Waste Diversion


Stage 1 - Consume 4 Front-End Disposal Levies/Deposits on

Designated Materials or Products – A front-end surcharge (disposal-fee, deposit-return, front-end levy) for designated products or packaging at the point of sale to discourage manufacturers from using non-recyclable packaging, to allow for proper reuse and recycling of products and the safe disposal of materials at the end of their useful life, and to encourage consumer conservation.

4 Front-End Disposal Levies/Deposits on Designated Materials or Products – A front-end surcharge (disposal-fee, deposit-return, front-end levy) for designated products or packaging at the point of sale to discourage manufacturers from using non-recyclable packaging, to allow for proper reuse and recycling of products and the safe disposal of materials at the end of their useful life, and to encourage consumer conservation.

9 Green Procurement Specifications and Policies – Policy could require minimum recycled content for materials purchased by/for the City; or prescribe installation and operation of specific waste system; or require suppliers to take back used goods and packaging.


19 IC&I Sector Roundtable on Waste Diversion – The City facilitates regular round-table discussions with sector-specific representatives to discuss/resolve common waste reduction challenges.

10 Mandatory Diversion Specifications for City of Ottawa C&D Projects – Tender/bid documents could specify waste diversion targets to be met, waste handling and disposal methods and requirements, and establish hold-back requirements related to achievement of pre-established diversion targets.


3-4 July 6, 2007

Option

#



Option

#

C&D Waste Diversion


21 IC&I Waste Reduction Promotional Programs – The City partners with IC&I sector and waste management service providers to host and promote waste reduction.

Stage 2 – Source Separate 6 Mandatory Recycling or Source

Separation Bylaws or 3Rs Regulations at the Municipal Level – By-law could require designated IC&I sectors to prepare waste reduction plans, to source separate specified recyclables and arrange for their separate collection, or prohibit the discard of specified materials into the garbage.

6 Mandatory Recycling or Source Separation Bylaws – By-law could require C&D sector to source separate specified recyclables and arrange for their separate collection, or prohibit the discard of specified materials into the garbage.

8 Waste Diversion Assistance Program – The City would provide training and incentives to building owners and managers to implement waste diversion programs.

8 Green Building Incentives and Technical Assistance – The City would provide training and incentives to building designers, builders, and developers to build green.

10 Mandatory Food Waste Collection Program – By-law would prohibit the collection and disposal of food waste or stipulate that it must be source separated for IC&I (food producers/generators).

11 Mandatory C&D Waste Diversion Plans and Mandatory Recycling Targets – By-law could require the development and approval of a Waste Diversion Plan prior to the initiation of a C&D project, and require its subsequent implementation. The by-law could include fines for non-compliance, and establish a minimum diversion target of 50%.

15 City enforces Provincial 3Rs Regulations – The City enforces the provincial 3Rs regulations in partnership with MOE.

12 LEED Certification – The City currently requires all new facilities >500 m2 to achieve LEED certification. This program could be expanded to include specific targets for waste minimization and diversion.

16 City advocates Expansion of 3Rs Regulations/Waste Policies and lobbies Province to Enforce existing 3Rs Regulations – The City, if possible in conjunction with other municipalities, lobbies at both the provincial and federal level for action on a number of waste related issues or additional powers.

17 School Waste Diversion Programs – The City partner with local school boards to enhance diversion.

22 Mandatory Diversion at Special Events – By-law would impose recycling and diversion requirements for special/public events.

23 Waste Diversion Certification and Awards Program – Certification and recognition of businesses that meet specific waste reduction and diversion standards set by the City (e.g., Mayor’s 60% Club).


3-5 July 6, 2007

Option

#



Option

#

C&D Waste Diversion


Stage 3 – Collect & Transfer 11 Mandatory Requirements to Properly

Manage Designated Wastes or Mandatory Take Back of Designated Wastes – By-law would regulate the collection and disposal of specific waste (e.g., computers, batteries, fluorescent lighting) containing small amounts of designated substances (e.g., lead, mercury, cadmium) or stipulate that it must be returned to point of sale for proper management and disposal.

12 Business Permit Surcharge – A mandatory surcharge would be imposed on some or select business permits to provide recycling collection and processing services to those businesses.

13 Private Sector Licensing to Mandate Recycling Service and Submission of Waste Quantity Information – The City would require waste haulers to obtain licences to operate that would obligate them to provide designated waste diversion services to IC&I customers, which could include recycling services, food waste collection, technical assistance, and educational literature. Licences could also include mandatory reporting requirements about tonnages of waste collected, recycled, composted, and where and how the materials were managed or disposed.

14 Franchising of Collection or City provides Collection Service to All IC&I Generators to ensure Service for Waste Diversion – The City awards franchises to commercial waste collection haulers to operate within designated zones of the City. The City may stipulate: diversion service levels, target diversion rates, fees charged, and reporting requirements.

Stage 4 – Process 1 Landfill Ban – A ban on designated

materials would be placed at all public and private transfer stations and landfills within City boundaries. Loads containing banned material would be rejected or subject to a surcharge or fine. Banned materials could include Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC), electronic waste, and easy to divert materials such as metal, glass, food and yard waste.

1 Landfill Ban – A ban on C&D waste at all public and private transfer stations and landfills within City boundaries. Loads containing banned material would be rejected or subject to a surcharge or fine. Banned materials could include concrete, drywall, wood, metal, asphalt, OCC (old corrugated cardboard), and brick/stone.

2 Dedicated Landfill Levy – Dedicated Landfill 2 Dedicated Landfill Levy – Dedicated


3-6 July 6, 2007

Option

#



Option

#

C&D Waste Diversion


Levy for IC&I waste at all public and private landfills within City boundaries. A levy (ranging from $2 to $40 per tonne) could be placed on all mixed, unseparated waste at the point of disposal. Monies collected could be used to fund waste diversion programs.

Landfill Levy for C&D waste at all public and private landfills within City boundaries. A levy (ranging from $2 to $40 per tonne) could be placed on all mixed, unseparated waste at the point of disposal. Monies collected could be used to fund waste diversion programs.

3 Differential Tipping Fees for Source Separated Loads – Differential tipping fees for IC&I waste at public and private landfills within City boundaries. Source separated loads (e.g., those excluding specified recyclables) would receive preferential tipping rates to mixed waste loads.

3 Differential Tipping Fees for Source Separated Loads – Differential tipping fees for C&D waste at public and private landfills within City boundaries. Source separated loads (e.g., those excluding specified recyclables such as wood and shingles) would receive preferential tipping rates to mixed waste loads.

5 Flow Control – By-law would impose flow control on specific waste generated within the City boundaries and direct the waste to designated waste management facilities.

5 Flow Control – By-law would impose flow control on specific waste generated within the City boundaries and direct the waste to designated waste management facilities.

Stage 5 - Market 9 Green Procurement Specifications and

Policies – Policy could require minimum recycled content for materials purchased by/for the City; or prescribe installation and operation of specific waste system; or require suppliers to take back used goods and packaging.


18 Research Partnerships with Educational and Other Institutions – The City participates in, facilitates or develops research partnerships to examine reuse of materials and the establishment of end markets for recyclable and reusable goods.

Stage 6 – Reuse: Products & Packaging 7 Reuse and Drop-off Depot Program – The

City would provide for the establishment of voluntary reuse centres and drop-off depots.

7 Reuse and Drop-off Depot Program – The City would provide for the establishment of voluntary reuse centres and drop-off depots.

20 Waste Exchange Program – The City facilitates a waste exchange program that connects generators of used products with those wishing to obtain those products.


4-1 July 6, 2007

4. A Targeted Approach and Target Setting 4.1 Value of Targets In achieving any policy goal, targets are a good management tool for measuring progress. Targets motivate action and activities, which can be monitored and adjusted as necessary to help improve the chances for success. For waste management systems, targets are typically expressed as: • Percentage diversion against a given baseline; • Kg/capita disposed; or • Principle based targets such as Zero Waste or Continuous Improvement. 4.2 Experience With Waste Diversion Targets In the 1980s, the Province of Ontario set waste diversion targets of 25% by 1992 and 50% by 2000, to be measured against a 1987 baseline. While the 25% target was met, the 50% target was not. The best available information at this time indicates that about 30% of residential waste and about 22% of IC&I waste is diverted. In 2003, the province announced a 60% diversion target, but no sector-specific targets were established. A recently posted draft provincial policy proposes to require municipalities to develop long-term waste management plans, with the private sector encouraged to do so. Diversion targets would be expected as part of these plans. Many cities, provinces and states set targets of 50% diversion from disposal by 2000 in the early 1990’s. In all but a few cases (Nova Scotia, California) the targets were not met. In most cases, the targets were reset for a future date. Cities do not typically set IC&I targets, as their control over IC&I waste varies. However, there are exceptions: For example, the Greater Vancouver Regional District set a 50% target for diversion of residential plus IC&I waste, to be achieved by year 2000. The Region was in a good position to measure progress towards the target, as most IC&I waste is disposed of within its borders at landfills and an incinerator that it operates. The Region decided that the level of staff effort required to support IC&I diversion programs was too intensive, and that its role was more as a facilitator to develop processing facilities, and effectively “flow controlling” IC&I and C&D waste to the facilities through landfill bans. By comparison, the City of Seattle initially set a target of 60% for 1998, but achieved only 43% by that date. While the City argued that it was doing what was economically reasonable and justifiable it chose to reset the 60% target to 2008, with an ultimate goal of Zero Waste by 2020. It is unlikely that Seattle will achieve the 2008 target, but its approach is to re-set the target date and use the zero waste as an ultimate goal. Generally, California is more aggressive about setting goals and measuring success. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) was set up through the passage of


4-2 July 6, 2007

AB939 to provide assistance to municipalities to reach 50% diversion by 2000. Those who did not achieve the goal were in some cases fined. Some cities have set a “zero waste” goal. This does not necessarily mean no waste to landfill, rather it means setting a framework to reduce waste over time through a variety of policy instruments including: • Redesign the way resources and materials flow through society; • Eliminate subsidies for raw material extraction and waste disposal; and • Hold producers responsible for their products and packaging from “cradle to cradle”. Finally, some jurisdictions set targets such as the amount of waste disposed per capita per year. For example, the Province of Alberta has set a target of reducing landfilled waste to 500kg/capita/year. This target is easy to measure as the quantities of waste landfilled are reported to the province, and can be divided by the population to identify the kg/capita landfilled. It is easy to see progress each year towards the target. While “percentage reduction” targets are more commonly used, “kg/capita/year” are considered easier to calculate and monitor and, therefore, more useful. 4.3 Target Waste Streams Task 2 of this study recommended that the City of Ottawa IC&I 3Rs Strategy focus on three target waste streams: • Paper; • Organics (primarily food waste); and • C&D waste. Together, these materials make up over 70% of the 630,000 tonnes of non-residential waste disposed each year. 4.3.1 Target IC&I Sectors Six IC&I sectors should be targeted for the paper strategy, as together they produce over 70% of the paper in the waste stream. These are: • Retail; • Manufacturing; • Public Administration (federal, provincial and municipal governments);

Accommodation and Food Services; • • Health Care and Social Assistance; and • Professional, Scientific and Technical Services.

Accommodation and Food Services;

Four IC&I sectors in Ottawa produce seventy five per cent (75%) of the food waste disposed and should be the focus of a food waste recovery strategy: •


4-3 July 6, 2007

• Retail; • Health Care and Social Assistance; and

.3.2 Target Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Materials ction and demolition

Paper; e;

o construction and demolition projects in Ottawa would be required to source separate

argets o motivate action, monitor progress, and

e strategy, ous policies have been implemented

are not being met,

ecting efforts.

apacity Requirements 2005. This equates

ar of IC&I and C&D waste combined landfilled ; 540kg/capita/year IC&I waste currently landfilled; and

ail, Carp and Springhill landfills, with a mall amount sent to the Moosecreek and Navan landfills. By comparison, C&D waste is

• Information and Cultural Industries. 4The Task 2 report recommended that C&D waste (i.e., waste from construactivities) be addressed in the IC&I 3Rs Strategy. Approximately 58% of C&D waste is composed of four materials, which can be recycled in Ottawa today: •• Concret• Wood; and• Metal.

st large Mthese materials and other materials where it made economic sense to do so. The practicality of recycling on some sites must be considered, particularly where there are space constraints that could lead to unsafe conditions for workers.

.4 The Importance of Numerical T4Target setting is a valuable management tool that helps tdemonstrate success. Specifically, targets: Provide a framework and rationale for th•

• Are a good communication tool to illustrate why vari• Provide a metric against which progress can be measured, • Provide the rationale for requiring budgets to be assigned to various diversion activities. • Enable design and approach modifications if interim targets• Demonstrate commitment, • Are expected by environmental advocates, and, • Provide a clear focus for dir 4.5 Impacts of Targets on Landfill CAbout 630,000 tonnes of IC&I and C&D waste were landfilled in Ottawa in to approximately: • 775kg/capita/ye 1

•• 235 kg/capita/year C&D waste currently landfilled. Currently, IC&I waste is largely disposed of at the Trs

1 Based on a population of approximately of 812,000.


4-4 July 6, 2007

primarily disposed of at the Navan and Springhill landfills, with some disposed of at the Carp site and a small amount at the Trail site. Various factors will influence the long-term capacity of these five landfills, including: • The outcome of applications to expand the Navan and Carp landfills; Implementation of a residential organics program in the City of Ottawa (with possible

• s funded to promote IC&I waste diversion; and iversion.

ion of garbage in e er facilities

eet both the residential and

&D waste in landfills serving the should be expressed numerically

•addition of IC&I organics);

• Operation of the Plasco demonstration facility and the commercialization of the technology should it prove successful;

• Potential establishment of a thermal facility at the Carp site; Targets set for and program

• Targets set for and programs funded to promote C&D waste d

ductFigure 4-1 contrasts the supply of waste disposal capacity against the procity. If both the Carp and Navan facilities close, as illustrated in this Figure, othth

will need to absorb the waste currently being managed at those sites. The scenario represented in Figure 4-1 shows Trail Waste Facility as dedicated to the disposal of residential waste. If, however, the City chose to permit Trail to receive the balance of the IC&I and C&D waste, the lifespan of the landfill would decrease significantly. The IC&I and C&D targets and programs set by this Strategy are, therefore, a critical element in

etermining the requirement for disposal capacity to mdcommercial/institutional needs of the city. 4.6 Recommended Approach For City of Ottawa Separate targets should be set for the landfilling of IC&I and Cneeds of City of Ottawa IC&I and C&D generators. The targetsas kg/capita/year landfilled, as this is the easiest metric to monitor and measure. Progress towards the targets should be reviewed on an annual basis.


4-5 July 4, 2007

Table 4-1: Ottawa Waste Capacity Versus Demand – Residential and IC&I Sectors – Organics Included

Ottawa Waste Capacity Versus Demand Residential & ICI Sectors - Organics In

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

2040

Year

Tonn

es

Spring HillNavanLafleche (ICI)Carp (ICI)ICI DiversionTrail RoadCarpLaflechePLASCOSSOResidential DiversionTotal Waste GeneratedTotal Res. Waste Generated

Assumptions: 1) Carp Not expanded 2) PLASCO pilot not expanded 3) Growth of residential diversion and organics are at 3% 4) Lafleche continues to take 30,000 TPY Residential from Ottawa 5) Waste Generated grows at 3% with population growth 6) City-wide Residential SSO rolls out in 2008 7) Organics facility continues to grow with demand 8) In residential sector Trail closes 2034 assuming no further expansions to source-reduction programs / policies, recycling, and organics

Total Annual Tonnes of Residential Waste Generated

Trail Closes with SSO

Remaining TonnageCapacity

Total Annual Tonnes of ICI Waste Generated


5-1 July 6, 2007

5. Ottawa IC&I 3Rs Strategy – Phase Two Consultations 5.1 Background In its review of the Scoping Document for the IC&I 3Rs Strategy, the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) instructed City staff to undertake an appropriate level of consultation. The PEC approved the plan to focus public consultation on meeting the needs of key stakeholder groups, namely waste generators, haulers, processors and disposal firms since they would be most immediately affected by any policy and program changes. The PEC amended the scope to increase the size of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, made specific recommendations regarding the proposed survey of businesses and then recommended approval by Council contingent upon these changes. 5.2 Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) A Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) was formed to obtain input on key deliverables and to discuss the proposed approach to be taken on the next phase of work. Three meetings were held between April and June and each meeting was facilitated by the Study Team. A fourth meeting is tentatively scheduled for mid-September to review input to the Discussion Paper. 5.2.1 SAC Membership Membership to the SAC committee included the following: • 4 Representatives – Two from each of the citizen coalitions operating in the east and west of

the City; • 2 Representatives – City’s Environmental Advisory Committee; • 2 Representatives – City’s Business Advisory Committee; • 4 Representatives – Major waste generators representing key waste streams; • 2 Representatives – Waste service providers; • 2 Representatives – City staff; and • 2 Representatives – Consultant team. The majority of the members were present at each meeting, and where a member was unavailable, an alternate was usually in attendance. SAC Meeting #1 – April 12, 2007 Overview Participants received an overview of the project background, a description of waste characterization and a review of the potential IC&I and C&D diversion initiatives. All participants received the project scoping documents, the presentation, the initiative lists and the minutes for the next meeting. Results The following recommendations were brought forth from the participants:


5-2 July 6, 2007

• For all profiled initiatives that are potential measures for Ottawa, the economic impact on Ottawa businesses should be considered;

• Social marketing needs to be considered to encourage clients and customers to change behaviour;

• Small businesses should be interviewed at their place of businesses to get their feedback of the IC&I Small Business survey; and

• Contaminated soils should be included in the Waste Quantities. Comments from the participants were noted for inclusion in the IC&I and C&D diversion options. SAC Meeting #2 – May 16, 2007 Overview In advance of the second SAC meeting, participants were asked to review the following documents provided to them by the Study Team: • Municipal, Provincial, State and National Level Government Initiatives to Achieve IC&I

Waste Diversion; and • Municipal, Provincial, State and National Level Government Initiatives to Achieve C&D

Waste Diversion. During the meeting, participants were asked to select or vote for five initiatives that should receive further consideration. The purpose of this informal voting process was to prioritize and facilitate discussion on the initiatives. Results Initiatives with the most votes were discussed in terms of their advantages and concerns. Any action items specific to the initiatives were identified. The comments and suggestions were incorporated into the final description of potential IC&I and C&D initiatives. SAC Meeting #3 – June 7, 2007 Overview Participants were asked to review the revised versions of the potential IC&I and C&D initiatives and to discuss any additional concerns or questions about each one. Participants were also advised to provide all comments and suggestions regarding the survey and all material reviewed during the SAC meetings to the Study Team to be incorporated in the Discussion Paper. Results The following recommendations were brought forth from the Committee: • Waste acceptance and diversion rates should be completed for all facilities—municipal and

private. • Environmental and educational benefits should be included, as well as the amount of

diversion for each of the potential IC&I and C&D initiatives; and • Waste diversion for each option should be provided as a range.


5-3 July 6, 2007

Participants also identified any additional advantages, concerns and action items to be included in the final list of IC&I and C&D options. 5.3 Survey of Local Business Community A survey of the local business community is to be carried out over the summer. The objective of the survey will be to identify the opportunities and constraints to increasing diversion, and to explore the factors that would influence the likelihood that businesses would accept and implement voluntary or regulatory controls. The design of the survey was influenced by the contribution of SAC members at the three meetings held from April to June. The survey will be available online, with businesses notified of the survey via local Chambers of Commerce (CoCs) and Business Improvement Areas (BIAs), and advertisements in local business journals. Summer students, in a cross section of wards, will also administer the survey on a door-to-door basis across the City. City Councillors will be provided copies of the survey so they may interview business owners in their ward as opportunities present themselves. 5.4 One Day Forum The One Day Forum will be held on September 21, 2007 at the Nepean Sportsplex to provide a venue for consideration of the specific issues raised in the Discussion Paper and the results of the survey of local businesses. Planning for this event will be completed during July and August.


June 29, 2007

Appendix A: IC&I Waste Diversion Policy and Program Options


Target Materials: Fibres, metals, plastics, food waste, yard waste

ReCycling Cycle Stage

Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 1: Landfill Ban Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy X Program X

Estimated Quantity IC&I Divertable: 140,000 to 200,000 tonnes/year Summary Description: A ban on designated materials would be placed at all public and private transfer stations and landfills within City boundaries. Loads containing banned material would be rejected or subject to a surcharge or fine. Banned materials could include Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC), electronic waste, and easy to divert materials such as metal, glass, food and yard waste.

Efficiency & Effectiveness Strengths:

• Ban would address materials typically diverted, e.g. PET, HDPE, mixed plastic bottles, industrial plastic films, fibres, organics and metals. • Most of the above materials have firm markets.

Ban would extend the life of existing landfill capac• ity. Ban would reduce natural resource consumption thro• ugh reduced consumption, and the reuse, recycling, and composting of a greater portion of the waste stream.

Weaknesses: • iveness of the ban is dependent upon maintenance of strong markets for banned materials. • Ban only works to increase diversion if other disposal options are unavailable. If the same ban is not

The effect implemented at landfills within economic hauling distance of Ottawa,

the waste may flow elsewhere (i.e. US, Quebec, other Ontario landfills.)

Implementation

ProcessProcess

July 6, 2007

Opportunities: • The City already bans certain materials at Trail Waste Facility, imposes a surcharge on non-compliant loads, and turns away loads exceeding accepted limits, which

provides a foundation for program development. • The private sector has indicated a willingness and ability to provide collection and processing services if the program is sustained and enforced. • City could target specific materials and address a broader range of materials and generators with a phased-in program. Challenges:

• The effectiveness of the ban would be dependent upon program set-up and enforcement. For example, if the program imposes a penalty for bringing banned materials to the landfill, some generators/haulers will chose to pay the fee. If, however, the load is rejected, it is more likely that the material will be diverted.

• Material bans can lead to increased illegal dumping, particularly if loads are refused. This requires increased by-law enforcement to effectively mitigate. • Program implementation would require the cooperation of haulers and landfill operators to enforce the bans, collect fines, and to track and transfer monies to the City. • A level playing field can only be established at the provincial level. • Waste generators would incur additional costs to address the need for additional bins, material storage requirements, separate collection and other costs incured by

haulers and transferred to their clients such as accounts management. • Program implementation has the potential to flood the recyclables market with consequent impacts on material prices and marketability. • Ability to implement comprehensive diversion programs will vary amongst generators due to space and financial limitations. • Processing infrastructure would be required for a broader range and volume of materials than what currently exists. • Secure, sustainable markets must be established for all banned materials. City Resources:

• 1.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • 3.0 FTE – to enforce the by-law and mitigate illegal dumping. • 0.5 FTE – to collect and manage surcharges and data. • Promotional costs – capital (min. $40,000)


Target Materials: ling Education: Environmental: Diversion: All IC&I ReCycCycle Stage

I edicated Landfill Levy

inimal impact).

C&I Option 2: Dead Agency:L City of Ottawa

Policy X Program X Estimated Quantity IC&I Divertable: 4,400– 22,000 tonnes for levy less than $10/tonne (m44,000 to 66,000 tonnes for levy $30 to $40.

S mmary Description: Dedicated Landfill Levy for IC&I waste at all public and private landfills within City boundaries. A levuplaced on all m

y (ranging from $2 to $40 per tonne) could be ixed, unseparated waste at the point of disposal. Monies collected could be used to fund waste diversion programs.

Efficiency & Effectiveness ngths: Stre

, and reduced consumption.

lls within economic hauling distance of Ottawa,

able to or greater than the cost of implementing a diversion program.

• Levy may increase waste diversion as a result from the generator’s desire to minimize disposal costs. • Levy would address all materials typically diverted, e.g. PET, HDPE, mixed plastic bottles, industrial plastic films, fibres, and metals. • All of the above materials have firm markets. • Levy would extend the life of existing landfill capacity.

Levy would reduce natural resource consumption through the reuse, • recycling, and composting of a greater portion of the waste streamWeaknesses: • Levy only works to increase diversion if other disposal options are unavailable. If the same levy is not implemented at landfi

the waste may flow elsewhere (i.e. US, Quebec, other Ontario landfills.) • Levy only works to increase diversion if the gross cost to dispose is compar

ProcessProcess

July 6, 2007

Implementation Opport

of IC&I materials, which provides a foundation for price adjustments. d for disposal of IC&I waste at Trail Waste Facility has increased. Therefore, the City is in a position to manage

hallenges: privately ow the City tion, tracking, a

be established at the provincial level. ld incur additional costs to address the need for additional bins, erial storage requirements, separate collection and other costs incured by

o their clients such as acco• Ability to implement comprehensive diversion progr ace and financial limitations.

• The levy may lead to increased illegal dumping if disposal costs are perceived of as too high and processing systems and markets are not developed. City Resources: • 0.5 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • 0.25 FTE – to collect and manage levies and data. • Promotional costs – capital (min. $10,000) .

unities: • Trail Waste Facility already has a levy in place for the disposal• As capacity at other local landfills has decreased, deman

demand for space by adjusting pricing. C• Implementation requires cooperation of ned and operated landfills in for the collec nd transfer of levies to the City. • A level playing field can only • Waste generators wou

haulers and transferred t mat

unts management. ams would vary amongst generators due to sp

• Processing systems and markets do not exist for all materials affected, therefore any residual waste disposed could further impact the bottom line of generators. • Processing infrastructure would be required for a broader range and volume of materials than what currently exists.


Target Material Education: Environmental: Diversion: s: All materials ReCycling Cycle Stage

IC&I OptionSource Sepa

3: Differential Tipping Fees for rated Loads

aPolicLe d Agency: City of Ottawa Estimated Quantity IC&I Divertable: 15,000 to 25,

y X Program X 000 tonnes per year

Su mary Description: Differential tipping fm aste at public and private landfills within City boundaries. Source separated loads (i.e. those excluding specified cy d waste loads.

ees for IC&I wre clables) would receive preferential tipping rates to mixe

Efficiency & Effectivenesst

cs and metals.

pping fees would extend the life of existing landfill capacity. pping fees would reduce natural resource consumption through reuse and recycling of a greater portion of the waste stream and potentially reduce

s dependent upon maintenance of strong markets for targeted recyclable materials. lls within economic

S rengths:

Preferential fees would apply to loads excluding targeted materials that• are easily recycled, e.g. PET, HDPE, mixed plastic bottles, paper, organi• Differential tipping fees could increase waste diversion as a result of the generator’s/hauler’s desire to minimize disposal costs. • Differential ti• Differential ti

consumption. • Differential tipping fees would raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Weaknesses: • Effectiveness i• Differential tipping fees only work to increase diversion if other disposal options are unavailable. If the same tipping fees are not implemented at landfi

ProcessProcess

July 6, 2007

c, other Ontario landfills). hauling distance of Ottawa, waste may flow elsewhere (US, QuebeImplementation

Opportunities: • Trail Waste Facility already has a levy in place for the diposal of IC&I materials, which provides a foundation for the addition of other materials and price adjustments.

nd for

perated landfills in the City for the collection, tracking, and transfer of tipping fees to the City. ress additional bins, material storage requirements, separate collection and other costs incurred by haulers and

t gement. n programs would vary amongst generators due to space and finanical limitations.

Processing infrastructure would be required for a broader range and volume of materials than what currently exists. • Tipping fees may lead to increased illegal dumping if disposal costs are perceived as too high and processing systems and markets are not developed. • A level playing field can only be established at the provincial level. • Secure, sustainable markets must be established for the affected materials. City Resources: • 1.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • 0.25 FTE – to collect and manage fees and data.

• As capacity at other local landfills has decreased, demand for disposal at Trail Waste Facility has increased. Therefore, the City is in a position to manage demaspace by adjusting pricing.

• City could gradually expand list of materials subject to differential tipping fees. Challenges: • Implementation requires cooperation of privately owned and o• Waste generators would incur additional costs to add

anaransferred to their clients such as accounts mAbility to implement comprehensive diversio•

•


Target Materials: Material by material basis (e.g., plastic bags)


Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 4: Front-End Disposal Levies/Deposits on Designated Materials or Products

ttawa Lead Agency: City of OPolicy X Program X

Estimated Quantity IC&I Divertable: 1,000 – 2,000 tonnes

Summary Description: A front-end surcharge (disposal-fee, deposit-return, front-end levy) for designated products or packaging at the point of sale to discourage manufacturers from using non-recyclable packaging, to allow for proper reuse and recycling of products and the safe disposal of materials at the end of their useful life, and to ncourage consumer conservation. e


• The tax/levy could be used to target “problem” or “nuisance” products (e.g., plastic bags caused a litter problem; refrigerators with designated coolants, electronics with

air and extended use of other products (e.g. electronics.)

• n help to ensure that hazardous materials are properly recycled and disposed (e.g., refrigerators, propane cylinders, electronic devices). cilities, and markets for specialty items.

me or weight and, therefore, does not have significant impact on

heavy metals). • The tax/levy may encourage reuse of some items (e.g. bags), and the rep• The tax/levy raises public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

The tax/levy ca• The tax/levy would provide the monies needed to help establish collection systems, processing faWeaknesses:

• Levies tend to target products that do not constitute a significant portion of the waste stream by voluxtending landfill life.

ConsumeConsume

e

July 6, 2007

Implementation Opportunities:

vies have high approval ratings in jurisdictions where implemented.

Ch

m would require the establishment of infrastructure to monitor and collect the levy from retailers.

C

• Plastic bag le• Tax/levy may require the establishment of recycling facilities in advance of implementation. • The City could gradually expand the list of materials subject to the tax/levy.

allenges: • Responsibility for collection of the tax/levy would be with retailers. • The progra• Retailers outside of the City limits, and not subject to the tax/levy, could benefit at the expense of retailers within the City. • A level playing field can only be established at the provincial level.

ity Resources: • 1.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • 0.5 FTE – to enforce the by-law and mitigate illegal dumping. • 2.0 FTE – to collect and manage levies. • Promotional costs – operating (min. $10,000)


Target Materials: All materials ReCycling Cycle Stage

Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 5: Flow Control Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy X Program X Estimated Quantity IC&I Divertable: 25,000 to 45,000 tonnes

Summary Description: By-law would impose flow control on specific waste generated within the City boundaries and direct the waste to designated waste management facilities.


• A level playing field would be established by a municipal by-law. am would provide specific waste management facilities with a guaranteed supply of specific recyclables to improve economies of scale and potentially improve

• posting facilities are established on the basis of flow control, then increased diversion may occur.

istance of Ottawa, the waste may

• The progrprogram affordability. If recycling/com

Weaknesses: • Effectiveness is dependent upon maintenance of strong markets. • The program would not necessarily increase diversion unless combined with other measures such as mandatory recycling/food composting. • The program only works if other disposal options are unavailable. If the program is not implemented at landfills within economic hauling d

re (i.e. US, Quebec, other Ontario landfills.) flow elsewheImplementation

ProcessProcess

July 6, 2007

portunities: Op• The City already implements flow control for residential waste which provid mplementation of this program.

ould be used to establish/expand existing or planned large- material recovery facilites). and generators than those affected by provincial legislation.

ven that there would be a certainty that the flow control measures will remain i

rials and generators with a phased-in program.

itations. nd volume of materials than what currently exists.

require the allocation of significant monitoring and enforcement resources to ensure effectiveness. ketplace.

level. City

the program. 1.0 FTE – to enforce the by-law.

• Promotional costs – operating (min. $5,000)

es a foundation for iscale facilities (e.g.,• The program c

• A municipal by-law could target specific materials and a broader range of materials • Additional processing infrastructure could be economical for the private sector to construct gi

n place indefinitely and will be enforced. w to target specific materials and address a broader range of mate• City by-la

Challenges: • y owned and operated landfills. • The effectiveness of the program would be dependent upon program set-up and enforcement.

Implementation requires cooperation of waste haulers and privatel

• Ability to implement comprehensive diversion programs would vary amongst generators due to space and finanical lim• Processing infrastructure would be required for a broader range a• • The program could significantly reduce competition in the mar

Program would

• A level playing field can only be established at the provincial Resources:

• 1.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer•


July 6, 2007

Target Materials: Fibres, metals, plastics, food waste, yard waste, glass


Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 6: Mandatory Recycling or Source ulations at the

wa Policy X Program X

Separation Bylaws or 3Rs RegMunicipal Level Lead Agency: City of Otta Estimated Quantity IC&I Divertable: 160,000 to 220,000 tonnes

Summary Description: By-law could require designated IC&I sectors t to source separate specified recyclables and arrange for their ection, or prohibit the discard of specified materials into t

o prepare waste reduction plans,he garbage. separate coll

Efficiency & Effectiveness Stre

plastic films, fibres, and metals.

he reuse, recycling, and composting of a greater portion of the waste stream, and reduced consumption.

• rong markets for all affected materials. • There is potential for duplication of effort between the province and the mu

ngths: • The program has the potential to divert greater than 50% of the waste stream.

The program would like• ly address all materials typically diverted, e.g. PET, HDPE, mixed plastic bottles, industrial• All of the above materials have firm markets. • The program would extend the life of existing landfill capacity. • The program would reduce natural resource consumption through t• The program would raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Weaknesses:

Effectiveness is dependent upon maintenance of stnicipality. Implementation

• ess and ability to provide collection and processing services if the program is sustained and enforced. Ch

ators would incur additional costs to address the need for additional bins, material storage requirements, separate collection and other costs incured by

space and financial limitations.

s and marketability. d a level playing field.

City

clables

Opportunities: • A level playing field would be established by a municipal by-law. • A municipal by-law could target specific materials and a broader range of materials and generators than those affected by provincial legislation. • A phased approach could be applied to target large producers with application to medium and small generators over time.

The private sector has indicated a willingnallenges:

• Waste generhaulers and transferred to their clients such as accounts management.

• Ability to implement comprehensive diversion programs would vary amongst generators due to • Processing infrastructure would be required for a broader range and volume of materials than what currently exists. • Markets do not exist for all materials potentially affected. • Program implementation has the potential to flood the recyclables market with consequent impacts on material price

cement resources to ensure effectiveness an• Program would require the allocation of significant monitoring and enfor Resources:

evelop, promote, and administer the program. • 2.0 FTE – to d• 5.0 FTE – to enforce the by-law.

apacity and markets for recy• 1.0 FTE – to secure processing c• Promotional costs – operating (min. $50,000)

Source SeparateSource

Separate


July 6, 2007

Target Materials: ElectronFurniture, Bulky goods, limited other materials

ics, yReCycling C cle Stage

Reuse

Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 7: Reuse and Drop-off Depot Program Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy ____ Program X

Estimated Quantity IC&I Divertable: 1,500 to 2,000 tonnes per year Summary Description: The City would provide for the establishment of voluntary reuse centres and drop-off depots.


• The progThe program

ram would reduce natural resource consumption through t er portion of the waste stream, and reduce consumption. cycle.

quent impacts on storage and ultimately disposal requirements.

he reuse and recycling of a great• would raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse and re• The program would increase the supply of reusable products. Weaknesses:

• Supply of recyclables could quickly exceed demand with conse• Limited control over product quality and ability to reuse and recycle, therefore, actual diversion rates could be low.

Implementation

er recycling programs to improve product screening and marketing, and the appropriate recycling and disposal of non-reusable products.

would promote and may sustain markets for reusable materials and sustainable building practices.

h

Opportunities: • The City could partner with one or more non-profit organizations that already administ

• The program C allenges:

ns. • Ability to implement comprehensive diversion programs would vary amongst generators due to space and finanical limitatio• The scale of the operation could quickly outpace administrative capacity. • mplementation has the potential to flood the reusables market. Program i• Depending on materials being exchanged, special transportation permits could be required. City Resources:

• 0.5 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • Promotional costs – operating (min. $5,000).

Reuse Centres & Drop-off Depots – will depend upon t• he scope of program, and partnership arrangements.


July 6, 2007

Target Materials: Open to any material


Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 8: Waste Diversion AssistancProgram

e

tity IC&I Divertable: 5,000 es per year Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy ____ Program X

Estimated Quan to 6,500 tonn

Summary Description: The City would provide training and incentives to building owners and managers to implement waste diversion programs. Efficiency & Effectiveness

Strengths: • The program would extend the life of existing landfill capacity.

d provide for the undertaking of demonstration projects that could be broadly promoted.

r potential application in other buildings/facilities. institutions that may lack the resources to implement programs otherwise.

Weaknesses: ll vary between projects.

ram.)

• The program coul• The program would raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse, recycle, as well as water and energy conservation. • The program would transfer knowledge and provide experience to the private sector fo• The program could provide for participation of businesses and

• Diversion rates wi• Program results may not be easily measured (i.e. the rate and efficacy of programs implemented as a result of the training prog


• The program could provide educational materials and standard designs/im ms to facilitate the participation of businesses/institutions that lack the etain professional support.

• tion. h

nless tied to financial assistance. vels may not match or adequately offset the increased costs of design changes or enhancements required to achieve program objectives.

i

plementation prograresources to r

• The City could target specific materials, building types, or generators. The City could use this program as a vehicle to better understand IC&I waste management challenges and to identify potential solutions for broadscale implementa

C allenges: No mandatory requirements for businesses to implement recommendations from technical assistance program u•

• Incentive le• Waste diversion is an on-going operational practice. A one-time incentive may not lead to on-going diversion.

ifficult to measure. • The benefits of training programs are not always immediate and can be d C ty Resources: • 1.5 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • Promotional costs – operating (min. $10,000).

SourceSeparate

SourceSeparate


Target Materials: Fibres, garbage bags, compost, reusable materials, etc.


Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 9: Green Procurement Specifications and Policies Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy X Program Estimated Quantity IC&I Divertable: 11,000 to 22,000 tonnes per year.

Summary Description: Policy could require minimum recycled content for materials purchased by/for the City; or prescribe installation and operat

ConsumeConsume

ion of specific waste system; or require suppliers to take back used goods and packaging.


m, and reduce consumption.

e. ould increase the demand for recycled content products and support the recycled materials processing and manufacturing industries.

ience with the design and installation of appropriate waste management systems for application on non-municipal projects.

ngths: • The policy would extend the life of existing landfill capacity. • The policy would reduce natural resource consumption through the reuse and recycling of a greater portion of the waste strea• The policy would raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse, and recycle. • The policy could result in suppliers developing take-back systems that could be used by clients other than the City as a value added servic• The policy c• The policy could increase contractor exper• Specifications developed under the program could be made available to designers of non-municipal projects.

Weaknesses:

July 6, 2007

Implementation

andards. essarily reduced operating costs (with respect to waste diversion/minimization only—energy and water efficiency will yield

operational savings.)

City Resources: • To be defined through the Environmental Sustainability Division initiative. • Potential increased capital costs to meet requirements of procurement by-law.

Opportunities: • This initiative is already under development by the City’s Environmental Sustainability Division, and requires limited additional effort to ensure inclusion of waste

nt provisions. manageme• A level playing field would be established by tender or contract specifications. • The City could target specific materials. • A phased-in approach could be applied.

The program would promote and may sustain markets for recycled materials and sustainable building practices.• Challenges:

• Identifying products that meet the City’s green certification/st• Increased procument/capital costs without nec


July 6, 2007

Target Materials: Food waste, ReCycling Cycle Stage non-recyclable paper Source

parateSeSource

parate

Education: Environmental: Diversion:

Se

IC&I Option 10: Mandatory Food Waste Collection Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy ____ Program X

Estimated Quantity IC&I Divertable: 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes

Summary Description: By-law would prohibit the collection and disposal of food waste or stipulate that it must be source separated for IC&I (food producers/generators). Efficiency & Effectiveness

Strengths: • A source-separated food waste program could reduce the producti local landfills.

ercial chemical fertilizers. on of leachate, gas and odours at

• Use of municipal compost may reduce the local use of comm• Food wastes constitute greater than 10% of the IC&I waste stream. Weaknesses:

• Implementation

Opportunities: rogram is sustained and enforced. • The private sector has indicated a willingness and ability to provide collection and processing services if the p

Major food generators are easily identifiable allowing for targeted communications. •• Material coll Material proce

ection could be carried out (in some areas) via the City’s pending Green Bin program. ssing could be carried out (to some degree) at facilities commissioned by the City.

A phased approach could be applied to target large producers with applicat small generators over time.

by

enerators due to space and financial limitations.

ignificant monitoring and enforcement resources to ensure a level playing field. alth issues (e.g. flies, rats, other vectors, and odours.)

2.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. nforce the by-law and mitigate illegal dumping.

8 vehicles, however, it could be a contracted service.)

•• ion to medium and Challenges:

Waste gener• ators would incur additional costs to address the need for additional bins, material storage requirements, separate collection and other costs incuredhaulers and transferred to their clients such as accounts management. Ability to implement compre• hensive diversion programs would vary amongst g

• Processing infrastructure and market development would be required. • Program would require the allocation of s• Program must address potential public heCity Resources:

• • 1.0 FTE – to e• Collection Vehicles – capital, operating and driver compensation (min.• Promotional costs – capital (min. $40,000)


Target Materials: Small Quantities of Hazardous Wastes Contained in IC&I Solid Waste Stream


Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 11: Mandatory RequirementManage Designated Wastes or Mandatory

s to Proper Take Bac

s

ly k

of Designated Wastes awa Lead Agency: City of Ott

Policy X Program X Estimated Quantity IC&I Divertable: 1,000 to 2,000 tonne

Summary Description: By-law would regulate the collection and disposal of specific wastes (e.g., computers, batteries, fluorescent lighting) containing small amounts of designated substances (e.g., lead, mercury, cadmium) or stipulate that it le for proper management and disposal. must be returned to point of sa


• The program would reduce the volume of hazardous wastes going to landfill. The program would raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse, and recycle. •

Weaknesses: • The program would likely target products that do not constitute a significant portion of the waste stream by volume or weight and, therefore, does not have significant

impact on extending landfill life. • A portion of the targeted materials would be durable goods, which are purc of at lengthy intervals (i.e. years). hased and disposed


Collect & TransferCollect & Transfer

July 6, 2007

• The City currently coordinates the voluntary Take it Back program, which provides a foundation for development of a mandatory program. a new electronics stewardship program in June 2007).

. l and IC&I programs could be coordinated.

• uct vendors due to space and financial limitations. lume of product sold, with the potential for

am. ists.

iveness and a level playing field. necessitate vendors to change facility designs, materials management practices, contracts with

s.

• 1.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • 1.0 FTE – to educate and promote compliance. • Promotional costs – operating (min. $30,000)

• The program would be compatible with provincial stewardship programs (the province announced• Program implementation could be phased both in terms of the products affected and rollout of a collection / drop-off system• ResidentiaChallenges:

Ability to participate in a Take it Back program would vary amongst prod• Individual vendors could find that the volume of products received for proper recycling and disposal does not correlate to the vo

some vendors incurring a disproportionate cost to implement the progr• Collection and processing infrastructure would be required for a much greater volume of materials than what currently ex• Markets do not exist for all materials potentially affected.

require the allocation of monitoring and enforcement resources to ensure effect• Program would• Depending upon the scale and scope of the program, it could

manufacturers, and pricing structures. Costs for the above would be transferred to consumers/generat• ors or absorbed by retailers depending upon market conditionCosts transferred to consumers/generators could be significant for those that use a significant volume of an affected product. •

City Resources:


Tamew

rgt rd

as

et Materials: Fibres, als, plastics, food waste, yate, glass, etc.


Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 12: Business Permit Surcharge Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy X Program X

Esti rtable: 80,000 to 120,000 tonnes per year mated Quantity IC&I Dive

Summary Description: A mandatory surcharge would be i s to provide recycling collection and processing services to those mposed on some or select business permitbusinesses.


am would reduce natural resource consumption through th er portion of the waste stream, and reduce consumption. ecycle.

es needed for small businesses to achieve 60% diversion. n programs and end use markets.

• The progr e reuse and recycling of a great• The program would raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse and r• Funds collected under this program would allow the City to provide the collection servic• ted under this program could be used to develop innovative waste diversio Funds collecWeaknesses:

• The program would provide for the collection of recyclables and compostables but would not obligate generators to participate unless combined with other programs. • Diversion rates may not increase significantly in the absence of mandatory recycling/organics diversion,


d expand the residential collection program in niche market as of small businesses) that need greater help establishing recycling • The City coulrograms.

s (e.g., concentrated are


p

July 6, 2007

hof the IC&I waste stream, the program could result in some haulers losing market share.

plementation would require the cooperation of haulers. ste collection contract.

ongst generators due to space and financial limitations, therefore, not all generators would

were to provide a portion or all of the collection service (i.e. collection vehicles/transfer station.)

• uired for a greater volume of materials than what currently exists.

ollect and manage surcharge.

• The City could require mandatory reporting of diversion rates by haulers to track and monitor program effectiveness. • The City could direct waste flows collected under the program to generate the volumes required to establish/support large-scale waste facilities. C allenges:

• By assuming responsibility for the collection of a portion • • The program would require the allocation of monitoring and enforcement resources to ensure compliance with the City’s wa

Program im

• Waste generators could incur increased hauling/disposal costs and contest municipal intervention in the selection of their waste service providers. The ability to implement comprehensive diversion programs would vary am• participate in or realize the full range of benefits of the program.

• Significant capital investment would be required if the City• Program design, implementation and administration resource requirements would be significant. • Fees must cover the cost of program delivery but not exceed it, with funds designated to waste diversion activities.

Processing infrastructure would be reqCity Resources:

• 1.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • 1.0 FTE – to c• Promotional costs – capital (min. $50,000).


Target Materials: All materials ReCycling Education: Environmental: Diversion: Cycle Stage

IC&I Option 13: Private Sector Licensing To of

b 20,000 tonnes/year Mandate Recycling Service and Submission Waste Quantity Information

Ottawa Lead Agency: City of Policy X Program X

Estimated Quantity IC&I Diverta le: 80,000 to 1

Summary Description: Could would require waste ha nated waste diversion services to IC&I g


ulers to obtain licences to operate that would obligate them to provide desigcustomers, which could include recycling services, food waste collection, technical assistance, and educational literature. Licences could also include mandatory reportinrequirements about tonnages of waste collected, recycled, composted, and where and how the materials were managed or disposed.


The program • would ensure that the collection services required to achieve 60% diversion were provided by all haulers operating within the City boundaries. The City would obtain detailed information regarding IC&I waste generation that is currently unavailable. •

Weaknesses: • The program would provide for the collection services but would not obligate generators to participate unless combined with other programs. • Diversion rates may not increase significantly in the absence of mandatory recycling/organics diversion.

Implementation

• The broadscale promotion and delivery of diversion services would increa he establishment of new processing facilities.

Opportunities:

• Licencing of haulers can be implemented without reducing competition in the marketplace. se opportunities for t

July 6, 2007

waste generation and management data could be used to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of existing and new programs and services.

ators would incur additional costs to address the need for additional bins, material storage requirements, separate collection and other costs incured by

m would require the allocation of monitoring and enforcement resources to ensure compliance with licencing agreements and prevent black market activities. station.)

irements would be significant. City

•

• Detailed IC&I• Challenges:

Waste gener• haulers and transferred to their clients such as accounts management.

• Waste haulers could incur additional costs to obtain licences and to fulfil waste tracking and reporting requirements. • The progra• Significant capital investment would be required if the City were to provide a portion or all of the collection service (i.e. collection vehicles/transfer • Program design, implementation and adminhsitration resource requ

Resources: • 1.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • 1.0 FTE – to enforce the by-law.

0.25 FTE – to collect and manage data. • Promotional costs – operating (min. $7,000).


Target Materials: All materials


Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 14: Franchising of Collection or City Provides ollection Service to All IC&I Generators to Ensure Service

y I lCfor Waste Diversion Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy X Program X

Estimated Quantit C&I Divertab e: 80,000 to 120,000 tonnes/year

Summary Description City awaersion rat

rds franchises to commerci he City. The City may stipulate: diversion es, fees charged, and reporting requirements.

al waste collection haulers to operate within designated zones of tservice levels, target div


• The program would provide all IC&I generators with comparable levels of service and pricing. • The program may reduce waste vehicle traffic, improve truck routing cle fuel consumption and air pollution.

am would ensure that the collection services required to achieve 60% diversion were available and accessible in the Ottawa market.

es may not increase significantly in the absence of mandatory recycling/organics diversion.

and scheduling, and reduce vehi• The progrWeaknesses:

ess combined with other programs. • The program would provide for the collection services but would not obligate generators to participate unl • Diversion rat


The City could establish franchise targets and penalties to ensure that haul rator part• icipation. ers encourage gene


July 6, 2007

d require mandatory reporting of diversion rates to track and monit ctiveness. ses) that need greater help establishing recycling programs.

h

liance with franchise agreements and prevent black market activities. tal investment would be required if the City were to provide a portion or all of the collection service (i.e. collection vehicles/transfer station.)

requirements would be significant.

Cityer the program.

1.0 FTE – to enforce the by-law. Promotional costs – capital (min. $60,000).

or program effe• The City coul• The City could focus franchising in niche markets (e.g., concentrated areas of small busines• The broadscale promotion and delivery of diversion services would increase opportunities for the establishment of new processing facilities. • The City could use franchising as a means to direct waste flows and generate the volumes required to establish/support large-scale waste facilities.

The City could use managed competition to ensure receipt of competitive bids and permit public delivery of the service within a competitive procurement process.• C allenges:

• Franchise areas must be developed to ensure fair competition. The program could reduce competition in the marketplace and could res• ult in some haulers losing market share. Waste generators would incur additional costs to address the need for additional bins, material storage requirements,• separate collection and other costs incured by haulers and transferred to their clients such as accounts management.

• Waste haulers could incur additional costs to obtain franchises and to fulfil waste tracking and reporting requirements. • The program would require the allocation of monitoring and enforcement resources to ensure comp• Significant capi• Program design, implementation and adminhsitration resource

Resources: • 2.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administ• •


July 6, 2007

Target Materials: 3Rs regulation list (paper, glass, some plastics and metals)


Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 15: City Enforces Provincial 3Rs egulations ead Agency: City of Ottawa

ed Q e: ,000 tonnes

RLPolicy X Program X Estimat uantity IC&I Divertabl 40,000 to 50

Summary Description: The City enforces the provincial 3Rs regulations in partnership with MOE. Efficiency & Effectiveness

plastic films, fibres, and metals. All of the above materials have firm markets.

would extend the life of existing landfill capacity. ing of a greater portion of the waste stream, and reduced consumption.

ste stream

Strengths: • Existing provincial legislation targets specific generators and materials, and provides clear expectations. • Program addresses all materials typically diverted, e.g. PET, HDPE, mixed plastic bottles, industrial • • Program • Program would reduce natural resource consumption through the reuse, recycling, and compostWeaknesses:

• Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are largely exempt from the provincial legislation, but are believed to contribute over 50% of the IC&I waImplementation

• Municipal enforcement may be less expensive and more effective than use of provincial staff. • Local enforcement of provincial legislation could provide the basis for implementation of an expanded 3R program at the municipal level. • A level playing field has been established by the proinvicial legislation. • The private sector has indicated a willingness and ability to provide collection and processing services if the program is sustained and enforced. Challenges:

• In future, the province may withdraw funding and other supports without assuming enforcement responsibilities (i.e. downloading of responsibility.) • Identification of those businesses subject to the Provincial 3Rs regulations could prove difficult. • Processing infrastructure would be required for a broader range and volume of materials than what currently exists. • Waste generators would incur additional costs to address the need for additional bins, material storage requirements, separate collection and other costs incured by

haulers and transferred to their clients such as accounts management. • Ability to implement comprehensive diversion programs would vary amongst generators due to space and financial limitations. • Markets do not exist for all materials potentially affected. • Program implementation has the potential to flood the recyclables market with consequent impacts on material prices and marketability. City Resources:

• 2.0 FTE – to educate and promote compliance • 2.0 FTE – to enforce the by-law • Promotional costs – operating (min. $10,000)

Opportunities: • The province could provide support (financial and other) to municipal effort.


Separate


July 6, 2007

Target Materials: Fimetals, plastics, food waste, yard

ling Education: Environmental: Diversion: bres, ReCyc

waste, glass, etc. Cycle Stage

I City Advocates Expansion of /Waste Policies and Lobbies

ePolic

existing provincial 3Rs regulations – 40,000 to 50,000 tonnes fforts on

00 tonnes per year

C&I Option 16: 3Rs RegulationsProvince to Enforce Existing 3Rs Regulations L ad Agency: City of Ottawa Estimated Quantity IC&I Divertable: Enforcement of

y X Program per year. New provincial 3Rs regulations – additional 40,000 to 70,000 tonnes per year. Additional epackaging design – minimal impact in the short term; Longer term impacts 20,000 to 40,0

Sum f waste related issues mary Description: City, if possible in conjunction with other municipalities, lobbies at both the provincial and federal level for action on a number oor additional powers.


cial enforcement at these facilities could significantly

ervice providers alike, and would provide the surety

provements in

islation and regulations take considerable time to effect (sometime decades.) The City may not see results from this initiative for some period of time, if

ngths: • The MOE estimates that 500 businesses/insitutions are subject to the Ontario 3Rs Regulations in Ottawa. Provin

increase the diversion rates of major waste generators in Ottawa. • Expansion of the 3R regulation to include a broader range and number of IC&I waste generators would further improve waste diversion in this sector. • Province-wide implementation and enforcement of regulations provides a level playing field for waste generators and s

in materials supply that the waste industry needs to justify major investments in waste processing infrastructure. Weaknesses:

• diversion rates will occur slowly without use of these enforcement tools. The province has indicated that it is phasing-in enforcement of the regulations, which to date has excluded any laying of charges or imposition of fines. Im

• Changes in legever.

Implementation

municipalities to lobby for improvements in enforcement and broadened application of the 3R regulations. As the nation’s capital, Ottawa could spearhead lobby efforts at the federal level and with the Canadian Council of Minister’s of the Environment to enhance and enforce 3Rs legislation and related tools such as packaging and product stewardship regulations, R&D, and green procurement.

• The City could define and defend its legislated authority to implement controls over IC&I waste management. Challenges:

• Professional, coordinated, and lengthy commitment of resources required with no guarantee of success. • City could face significant counter lobby effort depending upon the positions taken on particular matters. • City’s position on some matters could impede progress on other fronts where all parties agree. City Resources:

• Travel and communication costs – operating (min. $15,000). • Profesional support – depends upon scope and duration of contract. • Senior management and political time commitment.

Opportunities: • The City could work in partnership with other •

Source eSeparat

Source eSeparat


July 6, 2007

Target Materials: Papebottles, glass bottles, alumincans, food waste

r, plastic um


Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 17: School Waste Diversion Programs Lead Agency: City of Ottawa

X Policy ____ Program Estimated Quantity IC&I Divertable: 2,500 to 3,000 tonnes per year

Summary Description: City partner with local school boards to enhance diversion. Efficiency & Effectiveness

Strengths: • The program would address all materials typically diverted, e.g. PET, HDPE, mixed plastic bottles, industrial plastic films, fibres, and metals.

ion of the waste stream, and reduced consumption.

approximately 80% diversion rates. eed to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

• The program may reduce natural resource consumption through the reuse and recycling of a greater port• The program may extend the life of existing landfill capacity. • Some schools have been shown to achieve • Educating children helps to raise public awareness of the n• Promoting recycling and composting at schools can also help to improve residential diversion rates. Weaknesses:

• The program would impact only a small fraction of the IC&I waste stream. Implementation

Opportunities: • The City is already in discussion with local school boards regarding opportunities to improve waste diversion.

ns and recycle to some degree, which provides a foundation for the

rogram promotion and continuity, material

i

• Many schools including local colleges and universities are subject to the provincial 3R regulatiodevelopment of this program.

es to participating schools and institutions. • The City could provide at-cost collection of recyclables and compostabl• The City could provide promotional and educational support to school programs. Challenges:

• Local school boards have limited funds to commit to new initiatives that could impact operating costs. • Each school requires someone to take responsibility for program delivery. • Schools, universities, and colleges experience regular turn-over in staff and students, which presents challenges in p

contamination rates, and participation rates. C ty Resources:

1.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • Program delivery costs – dependent upon municipal contribution provided. •


Separate


Target Materials: None specifically


Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 18: Research Partnerships with Educational & Other Institutions Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy ____ Program X

Estimated Quantity IC&I Divertable: 4,000 to 12,000 tonnes per year

MarketMarket

Summary Description: City participates in, facilitates clable and reusable goods.

or develops research partnerships to examine reuse of materials and the establishment of end markets for recy


• The program would draw attention to the need to address all elemenwould provide for outreach to local universities, colleges and the R&D sector.

• he field of materials recycling and marketing with consequent business opportunities.

ts of the ReCycling Cycle. • The program • The program would raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse and recycle.

The program could result in the development of local expertise in tWeaknesses:

• Research takes time and resources to yield results, and venture capital to bring viable options to market. The City may not see results from this initiative for some period oftime, if ever.

Implementation

• Ottawa. Opportunities:

The program could target waste streams that are of particular concern in

July 6, 2007

• he program could be used to showcase innovative companies and products. • The City could pilot methods and products applicable to municipal operatio

d access grants from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Industry Canada, SDTC (Sustainable Development Technology Canada) and other research

h• City

to facilitate meetings, minutes, and follow-up actions.

• The program could be undertaken in partnership with individual groups or sectors to address industry specific needs. T

ns. • The City coul

and funding institutions. C allenges:

Unaffordable without partnerships to sustain research effort and bring options to market. Resources:

• 0.25 FTE - • Program delivery costs – dependent upon municipal contribution provided.




Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 19: IC&I Sector Roundtable oWaste Diversion

n

ty IC&I Divertable: Lead Agency: City of Ottawa X Policy ____ Program

Estimated Quanti 4,000 to 12,000 tonnes per year

Summary Description: City facilitates regular round-table discussions with sector-specific representatives to discuss/resolve common waste reduction challenges.

ConsumeConsume


the exchange of successful waste diversion ideas, processing options and lessons learned.

sses and institutions to participate and to collectively work towards improvements in their respective sectors.

• Promotes• The program would raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse and recycle. Weaknesses:

• Program success will depend upon the willingness of busineImplementation

cooperate on effecting improvements in waste diversion. ast information regarding diversion opprotunities and initiatives.

w waste diversion trends and best practices. Ch

may have difficulty attracting support and cooperation fr dual businesses/institutions they may not see immediate value to their

Opportunities: • Sector-based consultations undertaken in December 2006 indicate a willingness of some sectors to

ld work in cooperation with industry associations to promote the program and to broadc• The City cou• The program could identify new market development opportunities and ne

allenges: he program om some sectors and indivi
• T
July 6, 2007

participation. • May need to introduce incentives to maintain membership and participation over time. Resources:

0.25 FTE - to facilitate meetin• gs, minutes, and follow-up actions.


July 6, 2007

Target Materials: ElectrFurniture, Bulky goods, limother materi

onics, ited

als

ycReCycling C le Stage

Reuse

Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 20: Waste Exchange Program Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy ____ Program X


Summary Description: The City facilitates a waste exchange program products with those wishing to obtain those products. that connects generators of usedEfficiency & Effectiveness

Stre a greater portion of the waste stream, and reduced consumption.

would increase the supply of reusable products.

We • Supply of recyclables could quickly exceed demand with impacts on progr

d have limited control over product quality, therefore, actual diversion rates could be low.

ngths: • The program would reduce natural resource consumption through the reuse and recycling of• The program would extend the life of existing landfill capacity. • The program would raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse and recycle. • The program• The program would benefit those without resources to buy new.

aknesses: am credibility.

• The City woulImplementation

could provide the foundation for this program. nd sustainable building practices.

• recycling and disposal of non-reusable products.

neration. g specified quality.

h• gst generators due to space and finanical limitations.

The scale of the operation could quickly outpace administrative capacity. Program implementation has the potential to flood the reusables market.

• Depending on materials being exchanged, special transportation permits could be required. City Resources:

• 1.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program (depends upon the scope of program.) • Promotional costs – operating (min. $15,000).

Opportunities: • The City already manages a goods exchange web site for its employees, which• The program would promote and may sustain markets for reusable materials a• The City could partner with other on-line goods exchange sites that already exist.

The City could partner with one or more non-profit organizations that already administer recycling programs to improve product screening and marketing, and the appropriate

• The City could use the exchange itself when renovating offices, e.g., help avoid waste geallow participants a waste services tax deduction for certain items meetin• The City could

• The City could target specific materials and industries. C allenges:

Ability to implement comprehensive diversion programs would vary amon• •




Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 21: IC&I Waste Reduction Promotional Programs Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy ____ Program X


Summary Description: City partners with IC&I sector and waste management service providers to host and promote waste reduction. Efficiency & Effectiveness

Strengths: • Events would help raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

IC&I and waste serv• Program would help to develop and enhance the City’s working relationships with the • ould help to off-set promotional costs.

ice industry.

• Resulting increases in diversion may not be readily attributable to this prog

Partnering cWeaknesses:

• Events may not directly result in the diversion of waste. ram.

Implementation

ch

ips could be used to coordinate the implementation of initiatives developed under the IC&I 3R Strategy.

Opportunities:

• The City already cooperates with the waste services industry on matters such as the Household Hazardous Waste Depot, the Electronic Waste Depot, and other suevents, which provides a foundation for the expansion into other areas.

artnersh

ConsumeConsume

• P

July 6, 2007

Ces/institutions thay may not see immediate value to their participation.

o introduce incentives to maintain membership and participation over time. can be difficult to measure.

City Resources: • 0.25 FTE - to facilitate meetings, minutes, and follow-up actions. • Program delivery costs – dependent upon initiatives undertaken.

• Partnerships could be used to undertake pilot diversion initiatives. hallenges:

• The program may have difficulty attracting support and cooperation from some business• May need t• The benefits of promotion programs are not always immediate and


July 6, 2007

Target Materials: Plastic bottles, glass bottles, aluminum cans, food waste


Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 22: Mandatory Diversion at Special

IC&I Divertable: 1,000 es per year

Events wa Lead Agency: City of Otta

Policy X Program X Estimated Quantity to 2,000 tonn

Summary Description: By-law would impose recycling and diversion requirements for special/public events. Efficiency & Effectiveness

Strengths: • The program would extend the life of existing landfill capacity. • The program would reduce natural resource consumption through th er portion of the waste stream.

he program raises public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

ste stream by volume or weight and, therefore, would not have significant impact on

• T

e reuse and recycling of a great

• The program would target high market value materials (e.g., aluminum and plastic bottles). Weaknesses:

• The program would target products that do not constitute a significant portion of the waextending landfill life.

• Diversion rates would vary by event and venue. Implementation

am. • The City could phase-in implementation by initially requiring it at all munici ts and at municipal venues.

d require event organizers to identify waste reduction/recycli and submit plans and to audit results. events.

h, attendance levels and the commercial viability of

s. financial contribution. urs) if designed to include food wastes.

not, unto themselves, warrant the required level of investment. Other benefits will be less easily measured.

recyclables.

Opportunities: • The City issues permits for special events which provides a foundation for the development of this progr

aplly sponsored evenng opportunities• The City coul

• The City could work with venue owners/operators to develop standard waste collection plans for sites regularly used for public C allenges:

impact entry fees and, in some cases• Waste handling and disposal costs at special events would increase, which could an event.

• The City would have to impose this requirement on all municipal events to maintain credibility, with consequent increases to event costs. Application of the program to municipal venues only could result• in reduced bookings at City facilitieApplication of the program to events receiving municipal grants/loans may offset or exceed the valu• e of the

• Program implementation must address potential public health issues (e.g. flies, rats, other vectors, and odo• The diversion rates achieved through the program may City Resources:

• 0.5 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • Promotional costs – capital (min. $60,000). • Increased costs at all municipal events to ensure appropriate management


Separate


July 6, 2007

Target Materials: All materials ReCycling Cycle Stage


Separate

Education: Environmental: Diversion: IC&I Option 23: Waste Diversion Certifiand Awards Program

cation

Estimated Quantity IC&I Divertable: 4,400 – 6,600 tonnes

Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy ____ Program X

Summary Description: Certification and recognition of businesses that nd diversion standards set by the City (e.g., Mayor’s 60% Club). meet specific waste reduction aEfficiency & Effectiveness

Stre

nized and promoted for being community environmental leaders. would allow consumers to support businesses and institutions with shared environmental values and priorities.

to ensure that applicable criteria continue to be met. • The program would not significantly increase diversion as most participant iversion programs already in place.

ngths: • The program would raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse, and recycle. • Businesses and institutions would be publicly recog• The programWeaknesses:

• The program would require annual review of certified businesses and institutionss would likely have dImplementation

Opportunities: The City runs several Community Pride programs that promote community participation in environmental initiatives, which provides a foundation for development of th• is

diversion. dinated with Earth Day, Environment Week, and similar events.

h

ncentive may not lead to on-going diversion. lt to measure.

City Resources: • 0.5 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • Promotional costs – operating (min. $30,000) • Financial Awards – operating (TBD)

program. Club”, for businesses/institutions achieving 60% • An element of the program could be branded as the “Mayor’s 60%

ment of certificate holders and award winners can be coor• Announce• Certificate holders / award winners can act as mentors to their peers.

f scale. • Industry associations could facilitate industry-wide initiatives that improve economies oC allenges:

• base administration costs may exceed the total value of the awards being offered. Promotion and• Waste diversion is an on-going operational practice. A one-time i

The benefits of promotion and recognition programs can be difficu•


July 6, 2007

Appendix B: C&D Waste Diversion Policy and Program Options


Target Materials: Concrete, Drywall, Wood, Metal, Asphalt, OCC, Brick/stone

Cycle StagReCycling

e Education: Environmental: Diversion: C&D Option 1: Landfill Ban

Lead Agency: City of Ottawa

Estimated Quantity C&D Divertable: 85,000 to 95,0 onnes per year Policy X Program X

00 tSummary Description: A ban on C&D waste at all pu aries. Loads containing banned material would be rejected or subject to a surcharge or fine. Banned materials could include concrete, drywall, wood, metal, asphalt, OCC (old corrugated cardboard), and brick/stone.

blic and private transfer stations and landfills within City bound


address materials with good potential to be diverted (concrete, drywall, wood, metal, asphalt, OCC).

nd potentially reduce consumption.

s of the ban is dependent upon maintenance of strong markets for banned materials. onomic hauling distance of

• Ban would • Ban would extend the life of existing landfill capacity. • Ban may reduce natural resource consumption through reuse and recycling of a greater portion of the waste stream aWeaknesses:

• EffectivenesBan only works to increase diversion if other disposal options are unavailable. If the same ban is not implemented at landfills within ecOttawa, waste may flow elsewhere (US, Quebec, other Ontario landfills).


• The City already bans certain materials at Trail Waste Facility, imposes a surcharge on non-compliant loads, and turns away loads exceeding accepted limits which

ProcessProcess

July 6, 2007

provides a foundation for program development. • Additional processing infrastructure could be economical for the private sector to construct given that there would be a certainty that the bans will remain in place

hr example, if the program imposes a penalty for bringing banned materials

dfill, some generators/haulers will chose to pay the fee. If, however, the load is rejected, it is more likely that the material will be diverted.

ess and level playing field. erators to enforce the bans, collect fines, and to track and transfer monies to the City.

Waste generators would incur additional costs to address additional bins, material storage requirements, separate collection and other costs incurred by haulers and eir clients such as accounts management.

vary amongst generators due to space and finanical limitations. r a broader range and volume of materials than what currently exists.

established for all banned materials. • A level playing field can only be established at the provincial level. • Program implementation has the potential to flood the recyclables market with consequent impacts on material prices and marketability City Resources:

• 1.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • 3.0 FTE – to enforce the by-law and mitigate illegal dumping. • 0.5 FTE – to collect and manage surcharges and data. • Promotional costs – capital (min. $40,000)

indefinitely and will be enforced. City could target specific materials and address a broader range of materials and generators with a phased-in program. •

C allenges: • The effectiveness of the ban would be dependent upon program set-up and enforcement. Fo

into the lan• Material bans can lead to increased illegal dumping, particularly if loads are refused. • Program would require the allocation of significant monitoring and enforcement resources to ensure effectiven• Program implementation would require the cooperation of haulers and landfill op•

transferred to th• Ability to implement comprehensive diversion programs would• Processing infrastructure would be required fo• Secure, sustainable markets must be

ns Report y of Ottawa

y IC&I and C&D Management Optio

Target Materials: All C&D materials


Educati vironmental: Diversion: En on: C&D Option 2: Dedicated C&D Landfill Levy Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy X Program X Estimated Quantity C&D Divertable: 1,900 to 29,000 tonnes per year de on a number of assum

regarding size of levy and other disposal options available to generators. pending ptions

Summary Description: Dedicated Landfill Levy for C&D waste at all public and private landfills within City boundaries. A levy (rangin 2 to $40 per tonne) co e placed on all mixed, unseparated waste at the point of disposal. Monies collected could be used to fund waste diversion programs.

g from $ uld b


• Levy may increase waste diversion as a result from the generator’s desire to minimize disposal costs. • Levy would extend the life of existing landfill capacity. • Levy would reduce natural resource consumption through reuse and recycling of a greater portion of the waste stream and potentia e consumption. Weaknesses:

• Levy only works to increase diversion if other disposal options are unavailable. If the same levy is not implemented at landfills withi mic hauling distance of Ottawa, waste may flow elsewhere (US, Quebec, other Ontario landfills) .

• Levy only works to increase diversion if the gross cost to dispose is comparable to or greater than the cost of implementing a divers ram for the project.

lly reduc

n econo

ion progImplementation

ortunities:

CitIC&I 3Rs Strateg

ProcessProcess

Opp

July 6, 2007

• Trail Waste Facility already has a levy in place for the disposal of IC&I materials, which provide a foundation for the addition of other als and price adjustments. • As capacity at other local landfills has decreased, demand for disposal at Trail Waste Facility has increased. Therefore, the City is i ition to manage demand for

space by adjusting pricing. Challenges: • Implementation requires cooperation of prviately owned and operated landfills in the City for the collection, tracking, and transfer of the City. • Waste generators would incur additional costs to address additional bins, material storage requirements, separate collection and ot s incurred by haulers and

transferred to their clients such as accounts management. • Ability to implement comprehensive diversion programs would vary amongst generators due to space and finanical limitations. • Processing infrastructure would be required for a broader range and volume of materials than what currently exists. • Levy may lead to increased illegal dumping if disposal costs are perceived as too high and processing systems and markets are not ped. • A level playing field can only be established at the provincial level. • Processing systems and markets do not exist for all materials affected, therefore any residual waste disposed could further impact t m line of generators. City Resources:

• 0.5 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • 0.25 FTE – to collect and manage levies and data. • Promotional costs – capital (min. $10,000) .

materin a pos

levies toher cost

develo

he botto


Target Materials: All C&D materials


Education: Environmental: Diversion: C&D Option 3: Differential TippSource Separated Loads

ing Fees for

e ic materials such as wood and drywall would be source separated er year.

Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy X Program X

Estimated Quantity C&D Div rtable: Specifif processing is available. Diversion is estimated at 17,000 to 22,000 tonnes p

Summary Description: Differential tipping fees for C&D waste at public and private landfills within City boundaries. Source separated loads (i.e. those excluding specifirecyclables such as wood and shingles) would receive preferential tipping rates to mixed waste loads.

ed


• Differential tipping fees could increase waste diversion as a result of the generator’s/hauler’s desire to minimize disposal costs. andfill capacity.

duce .

• • tions are unavailable. If the same tipping fees are not implemented at landfills within economic

hauling distance of Ottawa, waste may flow elsewhere (US, Quebec, other Ontario landfills).

• Differential tipping fees would extend the life of existing l• Differential tipping fees would reduce natural resource consumption through reuse and recycling of a greater portion of the waste stream and potentially re

consumptionWeaknesses:

Effectiveness is dependent upon maintenance of strong markets for all C&D materials. Differential tipping fees only work to increase diversion if other disposal op

Implementation

ProcessProcess

July 6, 2007

Opportunities: • Trail Waste Facility already has a levy in place for the diposal of IC&I materials, which provide a foundation for the addition of other materials and price adjustments. • As capacity at other local landfills has decreased, demand for disposal at Trail Waste Facility has increased. Therefore, the City is in a position to manage demand for

space by adjusting pricing. • City could gradually expand list of C&D materials subject to differential tipping fees. Challenges: • Implementation requires cooperation of privately owned and operated landfills in the City for the collection, tracking, and transfer of tipping fees to the City. • Waste generators would incur additional costs to address additional bins, material storage requirements, separate collection and other costs incurred by haulers and

transferred to their clients such as accounts management. • Ability to implement comprehensive diversion programs would vary amongst generators due to space and finanical limitations. • Processing infrastructure would be required for a broader range and volume of materials than what currently exists. • Tipping fees may lead to increased illegal dumping if disposal costs are perceived as too high and processing systems and markets are not developed. • A level playing field can only be established at the provincial level. • Secure, sustainable markets must be established for the affected materials. City Resources: • 1.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • 0.25 FTE – to collect and manage fees and data.


Target Materials: Ma cling Education: Environmental: Diversion: terial by ReCymaterial basis (e.g., aggregate) Cycle Stage

C&D Option 4: FLevies/Deposit

ront-End Disposal

eo

s on Designated C&D Materials or Products

ad Agency: City of Ottawa Estimated Quantity C&D Divertable: 1,000 – 2,000 tonnes per year of source reduction

LP licy X Program X Sum cts or packaging at the point of sale to

cts and the safe disposal of materials at mary Description: d surcharge (disposal-fee, deposit-return, front-end levy) for designated produ

d courage manufacturers from using non-recyclable packaging, to allow for proper reuse and recycling of produA front-en

isthe end of their useful life, and to encourage consumer conservation.


alty items.

ight and therefore does not have significant impact

ste and reduce costs, limiting the amount of material to be addressed.

ngths: • The tax/levy could be used to target “problem” or “nuisance” products (e.g. shingles and carpet.) • The tax/levy may encourage reuse of some items and the repair and extended use of other products.

The tax/levy raises public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse, and recycle. • • The tax/levy can help to ensure that hazardous materials are properly recycled and disposed. • The tax/levy would provide the monies needed to help establish collection systems, processing facilities, and markets for speciWeaknesses:

• on extending landfill life. Taxes/Levies tend to target products that do not constitute a significant portion of the waste stream by volume or we

ontractors carefully specific construction materials to minimize wa

ConsumeConsume

• C

July 6, 2007


• Tax/Levy may require the establishment of recycling facility in advance of implementation. s (e.g., asphalt shingles, wood).

Responsibility for collection of the tax/levy would be with retailers. f llect the taile

ad ns, material storag ts, separate collecti as accounts manag

hensive diversion progr• The program would require the establishment of in

• Retailers outside of the City limits, and not subject to the tax/levy, could benefit at the expense of retailers within the City. City Resources:

• 1.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • 0.5 FTE – to enforce the by-law and mitigate illegal dumping. • 2.0 FTE – to collect and manage levies. • Promotional costs – operating (min. $10,000)

• Tax/Levy could targets very visible or easily conserved product• City could gradually expand list of subject to tax/levy. Challenges:

• • The program would require the establishment of in

dditional costs to rastructure to monitor and codress additional bi

levy from re rs. • Waste generators would incur a

s suche requiremen on and other costs incurred by haulers and

transferred to their client• Ability to implement compre

ement. ams would vary amongst generators due to space and finanical limitations.

frastructure to monitor and collect the levy from retailers. • Tax/levy may lead to increased illegal dumping if disposal costs are perceived as too high and processing systems and markets are not developed. • A level playing field can only be established at the provincial level.


Target Materi Education: Environmental: Diversion: als: All C&D ReCycling materials Cycle Stage

C&D Option Lead Agenc

5: Flow Control

Polic 000 tonnes. y: City of Ottawa

y X Program X stimated Quantity C&D Divertable: 0 to 35,E

Sum nagement mary Description: By-law would impose flow control on specific waste generated within the City boundaries and direct the waste to designated waste mafacilities.

Efficiency & Effectiveness rengths: St

y improve dability.

sarily increase diversion unless combined with other measures such as mandatory recycling/food composting. m only works if other disposal options are unavailable. If the program is not implemented at landfills within economic hauling distance of Ottawa, the waste ewhere (i.e. US, Quebec, other Ontario landfills.)

• A level playing field would be established by a municipal by-law. • The program would provide specific waste management facilities with a gu specific recyclables to improve economies of scale and potentiallaranteed supply of

program afforIf recycling fa• cilities are established on the basis of flow control, then increased diversion may occur.

Weaknesses: • Effectiveness is dependent upon maintenance of strong markets for all C&D materials.

The program would not neces• • The progra

may flow elsImplementation

ProcessProcess

July 6, 2007

Opportunities:

• The City already implements flow control for residential waste which provides a foundation for implementation of this program. • The program could be used to establish/expand existing or planned large-scale facilities (e.g., material recovery facilites).

e sector to construct given that there would be a certainty that the flow control measures will

City by-law to target specific materials and address a broader range of materials and generators with a phased-in program.

y incur increased costs, and privately owned and operated landfills which could lose business. nt upon program set-up and enforcement.

n programs would vary amongst generators due to space and finanical limitations. Processing infrastructure would be required for a broader range and volume of materials than what currently exists. Program would require the allocation of significant monitoring and enforcement resources to ensure effectiveness.

• The program could significantly reduce competition in the marketplace. • A level playing field can only be established at the provincial level. City Resources:

• 1.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • 1.0 FTE – to enforce the by-law. • Promotional costs – operating (min. $5,000)

• A municipal by-law could target specific materials and a broader range of materials and generators than those affected by provincial legislation. • Additional processing infrastructure could be economical for the privat

remain in place indefinitely and will be enforced. • Challenges:

• Implementation requires cooperation of waste haulers that ma• The effectiveness of the program would be depende• Ability to implement comprehensive diversio• •


July 6, 2007

Target Materials: ConcreteDrywall, Wood, Metal, AsphaltOCC, Brick/

, ,

stone


Education: Environmental: Diversion: C&D Option 6: Mandatory Recycling or SourSeparation Bylaws

ce

Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy X Program X Estimated Quantity C&D Divertable: 80,000 to 100,000 tonnes/yr of wood, drywall, asphalt shingles, asphalt

and concrete, depending on the list of banned materials

Summary Description: By-law could require C&D sector to source separate specified recyclables and arrange for their separate collection, or prohibit the discard of specified materials into the garbage.


eam. • The program has the potential to divert greater than 50% of the waste str• The program would extend the life of existing landfill capacity. • The program would reduce natural resource consumption through the reuse and recycling of a greater portion of the waste stream, and reduce consumption.

• The program would raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

•

Weaknesses:

Effectiveness is dependent upon maintenance of strong markets for all C&D materials. There is potential for duplication of effort between the province and the municipality. •


• A level playing field would be established by a municipal by-law. • A municipal by-law could target specific materials and a broader range of materials and generators than those affected by provincial legislation.

A phased approach could be• applied to target large producers with application to medium and small generators over time. ocessing services if the program is sustained and enforced.

h

nt resources to ensure effectiveness and a level playing field.

1.0 FTE – to secure processing capacity and markets for recyclables Promotional costs – operating (min. $50,000)

• The private sector has indicated a willingness and ability to provide collection and pr C allenges: • Waste generators would incur additional costs to address additional bins, material storage requirements, separate collection and other costs incurred by haulers and

transferred to their clients such as accounts management. • Ability to implement comprehensive diversion programs would vary amongst generators due to space and finanical limitations. • Processing infrastructure would be required for a broader range and volume of materials than what currently exists. • Markets do not exist for all materials potentially affected.

market with consequent impacts on material prices and marketability. • Program implementation has the potential to flood the recyclables • Program would require the allocation of significant monitoring and enforceme

ityC Resources: 2.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. •

• 5.0 FTE – to enforce the by-law. • •


Separate


July 6, 2007

Target Materials: Any number ReCycling Cycle Stage of C&D materials on a case-by-case basis Reuse

Education: Environmental: Diversion:

C&D Option 7: Reuse and Drop-off Depot


Program Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy ____ Program X

Summary Description: The City would provide for the establishment of voluntary reuse centres and drop-off depots. Efficiency & Effectiveness

Strengths: • The program would reduce natural resource consumption through t er portion of the waste stream, and reduce consumption. he reuse and recycling of a great• The program would raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse and recycle.

The program would increase the supply of reusable products. • Weaknesses:

• Effectiveness is dependent upon maintenance of strong markets for all C&D materials. • An incentive may be required to encourage participation.


• The City already administers mobile depots in partnership with the private sector, which provides a foundation for implementation of this program. • The program would promote and may sustain markets for reusable materials and sustainable building practices. Challenges:

• Waste generators would incur additional costs to address additional bins, material storage requirements, separate collection and other costs incurred by haulers and transferred to their clients such as accounts management.

• Ability to implement comprehensive diversion programs would vary amongst generators due to space and finanical limitations. • Processing infrastructure would be required for a broader range and volume of materials than what currently exists. • Program implementation has the potential to flood the reusables market. City Resources:

• 1.0 FTE – to develop, promote, and administer the program. • Promotional costs – operating (min. $15,000). • Reuse Centres & Drop-off Depots – will depend upon the scope of program, and partnership arrangements.


Target Materials: cling ycle Stage

Education: Environmental: Diversion: Any number ReCyof C&D materials on a case-by-case basis

CC&D Option 8: Technical Assi

Green Building Incentives and

ePolic 0 to 2,000 tonnes per year

stance L ad Agency: City of Ottawa

y X Program X Estimated Quantity C&D Divertable: 1,00

Summary Description: The City would provide training and incentives to building designers, builders, and developers to build green. Efficiency & Effectiveness

Stre

ng recycled content.

s may not be easily measured (i.e. the use of recycled building materials and goods containing recycled content.)

ngths: • The program would raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse, recycle, as well as water and energy conservation.

The program would transfer knowledge and provide experi• ence to the private sector for application on future projects. • The program could enable construction of projects that demonstrate alternative design approaches. • The program could help to establish the base demand needed to facilitate increased supply of goods containi• The program could provide for participation of businesses and institutions that may lack the resources to implement programs otherwise. Weaknesses:

• Diversion rates will vary between projects. • Program result

Implementation rtunities:

ConsumeConsume

Oppo

July 6, 2007

the City’s Environmental Sustainability Division, and requires limited additional effort to ensure inclusion of waste management provisions.

• The City could target specific materials or building types. • A phased approach could be applied. Challenges:

• No mandatory requirements for businesses to implement recommendations from technical assistance program unless tied to financial assistance. • Incentive levels may not match or adequately offset the increased costs of design changes or enhancements required to achieve program objectives. • Waste diversion is an on-going operational practice. A one-time incentive may not lead to on-going diversion. • The benefits of training programs are not always immediate and can be difficult to measure. City Resources:

• To be defined through the Environmental Sustainability Division initiative.

• This initiative is already under development by


Target Materials: Recovereaggregate/concrete; drywall

d ReCycling Cycle Stage

Education: Environmental: Diversion: C&D Option 9: Green Procurement

nnes per year initially if reuse of concrete and asphalt specified for all City construction projects and reuse of demolition waste specified in projects where viable

Specifications and Policies ttawa Lead Agency: City of O

Policy X Program Estimated Quantity C&D Divertable: 10,000 to 12,000 to

Summary Description: Policy could require minimum recycled content for materials purchased by/for the City; or prescribe installation and operation of specific waste system; or require suppliers to take back used goods and packaging.


• The program would extend the life of existing landfill capacity. • The program would reduce natural resource consumption through the reuse and recycling of a greater portion of the waste stream, and reduce consumption.

The program woul• • The program could result in suppliers developing take-back systems that could be used by clients ot

d raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse, and recycle. her than the City as a value added service.

d increase the demand for recycled content products and support the recycled materials processing and manufacturing industries. ppropriate waste management systems for application on non-municipal projects.

W

• The program coul• The program could increase contractor experience with the design and installation of a

Specifications developed under the program could be made available to designers of non-municipal projects.

eaknesses:

ConsumeConsume

July 6, 2007


ffort to ensure inclusion of waste

•

and water efficiency will yield operational

City.

• This initiative is already under development by the City’s Environmental Sustainability Division, and requires limited additional emanagement provisions.

• A level playing field would be established by tender or contract specifications. • The City could target specific materials.

A phased-in approach could be applied. • The program would promote and may sustain markets for recycled materials and sustainable building practices.

hC allenges: • Identifying products that meet the City’s green certification/standards. • Increased procument/capital costs without necessarily reduced operating costs (wrt waste diversion/minimization only—energy

savings.)

Resources: • To be defined through the Environmental Sustainability Division initiative


Target Materials: Concrete, ,

ReCycling

Education: Environmental: Diversion: Drywall, Wood, Metal, AsphaltOCC, Brick/stone

Cycle StageC&D Option 10: Mandatory Diversion

e 0 to 40,000 tonnes per year, depending on the number of

Specifications for City of Ottawa C&D Projects Lead Agency: City of Ottawa Policy X Program X Estimated Quantity C&D Div rtable: 20,00

construction projects to which mandatory diversion specifications apply (only City funded, or federal/provimcial/municipal projects, or a broader range).

Summary Description: Tender/bid documents could spe nd disposal methods and requirements, and establish cify waste diversion targets to be met, waste handling ahold-back requirements related to achievement of pre-established diversion targets.


• The progThe program

ram has the potential to divert greater than 50% of the wa

e and recycling of a greater portion of the waste stream, and reduce consumption. reuse, and recycle.

Effectiveness is dependent upon maintenance of strong markets for all C&D materials. ential for duplication of effort between the province and the municipality.

ste stream of a specific project. • would extend the life of existing landfill capacity. • The program would reduce natural resource consumption through the reus• The program would raise public awareness of the need to reduce, Weaknesses:

• • There is pot

ConsumeConsume

July 6, 2007


• A level playing field would be established by tender or contract specifications. • The City could target specific materials. • A phased approach could be applied. Challenges:

• Potential increased capital costs to meet requirements of specifications. • Processing infrastructure would be required for a broader range and volume of materials than what currently exists. City Resources:

• 2.0 FTE – to review/approve Waste Diversion Plans. • 1.0 FTE – to develop the program, educate and promote compliance. • 1.0 FTE – to enforce the by-law. • 1.0 FTE – to to secure processing capacity and markets for recyclables. • Promotional costs – capital (min. $10,000) • Potential increased capital costs to meet requirements of procurement by-law.


July 6, 2007

Target Materials:

d, Metal, Asphalt, one

cling Cycle Stage

Education: Environmental: Diversion: Concrete, ReCyDrywall, WooOCC, Brick/st

C&D Option 11:Diversion Plans

Mandatory C&D Waste

ae

Police projects to which

s

and Mandatory Recycling T rgets L ad Agency: City of Ottawa Estimated Quantity C&D Divertable: 40,000 to 50,000 tonnes/year depending on th

y X Program X mandatory plan submission apply and the targets stipulated in the plan

Sum ire its subsequent n. The by-law could include fines for non-compliance, and establish a minimum diversion target of 50%.

mary Description: By-law could require the development and approval of a Waste Diversion Plan prior to the initiation of a C&D project, and requimplementatio

Efficiency & Effectiveness S rengths: t

waste stream, and reduce consumption.

dependent upon maintenance of strong markets for applicable C&D materials. e and the municipality.

• The program has the potential to divert greater than 50% of the waste stream. • The program would extend the life of existing landfill capacity.

through the reuse and recycling of a greater portion of the • The program would reduce natural resource consumption• The program would raise public awareness of the need to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Weaknesses:

• Effectiveness isThere is potent• ial for duplication of effort between the provinc

Implementation

munierials a and cted by

applied to target large ium and smal er time.

• Waste generators would incur additional costs to ad d other costs incurred by haulers and transferred to their clients such as accounts mana

mitations.

1.0 TFE – to to secure processing capacity and markets for recyclables. – operating (min. $10,000)

Opportunities: • A level playing field would be established by a cipal by-law.

nd a broader range of materials producers with application to med

• A municipal by-law could target specific mat generators than those affe provincial legislation. • A phased approach could be

l generators ov

Challenges: dress additional bins, material storage requirements, separate collection an

gement. • Ability to implement comprehensive diversion programs would vary amongst generators due to space and finanical li• Processing infrastructure would be required for a broader range and volume of materials than what currently exists.

City Resources: • 2.0 FTE – to review/approve Waste Diversion Plans. • 1.0 FTE – to develop the program, educate and promote compliance. • 2.0 FTE – to enforce the by-law. • • Promotional costs


Separate


July 6, 2007

Target Materials: ling Education: Environmental: Diversion: All C&D ReCycmaterials Cycle Stage

C&D Option 12:Lead Agency:

LEED Certification

Policonnes per year

City of Ottawa y ____ Program X Estimated Quantity C&D Divertable: 2,000 to 10,000 t

Summary Description: The City currently requires all new facilities >500 m2 to achieve LEED certification. This program could be expanded to include specific targets for aw ste minimization and diversion.


and environmental health: sustainable site door environmental quality.”

ould help to sustain markets for recycled materials and sustainable building practices. ough the reuse and recycling of a greater portion of the waste stream, and reduce consumption.

reduce, reuse, and recycle. cessing and manufacturing industries.

Weaknesses: Waste management credits form a limited component of the LEED certification process, but are easily attained.

ngths: • LEED “promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human

development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and inThe program would extend the life of existing landfill capacity. •

• The program w• The program would reduce natural resource consumption thr

the need to• The program would raise public awareness of • The program may increase the demand for recycled content products and support the recycled materials pro

•


• The City already has a policy in place, which can be enhanced to better address waste management objectives. • A level playing field is established through tender and contract specifications. Challenges:

• Increased procument/capital costs without necessarily resulting in reduced operating costs (wrt waste diversion/minimization only—energy and water efficiency components will yield operational savings.)

• Knowledge of the policy is inconsistent across the organization. City Resources:

• 0.25 FTE – to develop targets, and to review/approve waste elements of LEED projects.


Separate

Documents

IC&I and C&D Management Options Report IC&I 3Rs …ottawa.ca/cs/groups/content/@webottawa/documents/pdf/mdaw/mdm3… · IC&I 3Rs Strategy IC&I and C&D ... building owners and managers