CAPITAL REGION WASTE MINIMIZATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
A PARTNERSHIP OF PLANS
PHASE 1 REPORT – INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
APRIL 2013
ISSUED FOR USE
EBA FILE: C22501183
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company 14940 - 123 Avenue
Edmonton, AB T5V 1B4 CANADA
p. 780.451.2121 f. 780.454.5688
LIMITATIONS OF REPORT
This report and its contents are intended for the sole use of the Capital Region Waste Minimization Advisory Committee and
their agents. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company (EBA) does not accept any
responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis, or the recommendations contained or referenced in the report
when the report is used or relied upon by any Party other than the Capital Region Waste Minimization Advisory Committee.
Any such unauthorized use of this report is at the sole risk of the user. Use of this report is subject to the terms and conditions
stated in EBA’s Services Agreement. EBA’s General Conditions are provided in Appendix A of this report.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Acknowledgements
This report is the product of the Capital Regional Waste Management Waste Minimization Committee’s (CRWMAC) many contributions. The Committee is made up of urban and rural municipal representatives from the region, and has non-voting representation from the Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development and the Recycling Council of Alberta. Input was also provided by recycling and waste management professionals. Their hard work and commitment to the Alberta Capital Region planning process has made this report possible.
CRWMAC: Voting Members
Councillor Louise White-Gibbs Jarret Esslinger
Town of Beaumont
Ed Melesko Town of Calmar
Mayor Anita Fisher (Chair) Rod Fraser
Town of Devon
Alderman Ben Henderson Bud Latta
City of Edmonton
Grant Schaffer City of Fort Saskatchewan
Alderman Terry Lazowski Kerra Chomlak
City of Leduc
Councillor Ruth Harris Darcy Bryant
Leduc County
Councillor Dianne Allen Parkland County
Councillor Cathy Heron Christian Benson
City of St. Albert
Councillor Jason Gariepy Leah Seabrook
Strathcona County
Alderman Bill Kesanko Amber Nicol
City of Spruce Grove
Councillor Judy Bennett Tony Lew
Town of Stony Plain
Susan Berry Sturgeon County
CRWMAC: Non-Voting Members
Christine Della Costa Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
Don Hughes Christina Seidel
Recycling Council of Alberta Recycling Council of Alberta
Prepared by:
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
i
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Approach
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company (EBA) was retained by the
Capital Region Waste Minimization Advisory Committee (CRWMAC; the Committee) to prepare an
Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) for the Alberta Capital Region (ACR) as outlined in the
Committee’s Request for Proposals.
The CRWMAC includes representatives from urban and rural municipalities in the ACR as well as non-
voting members from Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) and the
Recycling Council of Alberta. The urban municipalities are Beaumont, Calmar, Devon, Edmonton, Fort
Saskatchewan, Leduc, Legal, Spruce Grove, St. Albert and Stony Plain, and the rural municipalities are Leduc
County, Parkland County, Strathcona County and Sturgeon County.
The general approach used to complete the proposed scope is defined in the below Figure whereby Phase 1
was to define the current system through the collection of existing system baseline logistical information
and best management practices. This enabled an assessment which included a gap analysis (to determine if
the current system of policies and programs can meet the established targets and if not, what needs to be
done) and a SWOT analysis to assess the current system’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats. The factual information from the gap/SWOT analyses enabled the consulting team to use its solid
waste management experience and conduct an assessment of key issues surrounding the establishment of
a regional system through the ACR (Phase 1). Based on a review and assessment of the current system
together with stakeholder input, suitable policies and programs were identified to supplement the existing
system. These programs and policies will enable the region to meet Provincial and ACR waste reduction
targets of 80% diversion by 2032 and be defined and assessed in more detail through Phase 2 of this
project.
General Approach
Alberta Capital Region
The ACR is comprised of 19 urban and five rural municipalities. They are the Town of Beaumont, Town of
Bon Accord, Town of Bruderheim, Town of Calmar, Town of Devon, City of Edmonton, City of Fort
Saskatchewan, Town of Gibbons, Town of Lamont, Lamont County, City of Leduc, Leduc County, Town of
Legal, Town of Morinville, Parkland County, Town of Redwater, City of St. Albert, City of Spruce Grove,
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
ii
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Town of Stony Plain, Strathcona County, Sturgeon County, Village of Thorsby, Village of Wabamun and
Village of Warburg.
The ACR covers approximately 11,500 square kilometres with a total population of about 1,161,000
(Statistics Canada, 2011 Census). The municipalities range in size from the City of Edmonton with a
population density of 1,187 persons per square kilometre (persons/km2) to Lamont County with a
population density of 1.6 persons/km2.
Currently the ACR is a voluntary organization without any formal governance structure or authority to
implement legislation.
Rationale for Waste Diversion
Waste diversion can be driven by three sets of objectives – environmental, economic and social. Diverting
certain materials from landfills can, for example, reduce the potential for leachate generation that can
contaminate surface and ground water. Landfills are also estimated to generate significant quantities of
methane and other gases, commonly referred to a greenhouse gases because of their effect on climate
change. They are also the source of more aesthetic problems such as odours and litter.
From an economic point of view, landfills built to current standards are expensive. For example, EBA
estimated in 2009 that the capital cost to replace the existing landfill operated by the Leduc and District
Waste Management Authority would be approximately $4.2 million which doesn’t include other costs
related to other land use opportunities that are lost, reclamation of the landfill, and remediation of the
property (i.e. not the true cost of landfilling). Reclamation itself can cost anywhere from $0.65/m3 to
$7.85/m3 of landfill material (soil and garbage) as well as Opportunity Costs for alternate uses of the land
(Guerriero, 1996). Capital costs to be considered include site testing, land purchase, facility design and cell
construction. Operational costs also need to be considered and must include closure and post-closure care
costs. Alberta’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) requires a minimum post-closure
care period of 25 years; so even after a landfill has been successfully closed and capped it still carries an
operating cost for maintenance. For older facilities without adequate leachate management systems, this
cost can be significant.
Diverting various waste streams from landfills has the potential to reduce environmental impacts, extend
the life of existing facilities and reduce landfill capital and operating costs.
The driving force behind solid waste minimization is to reduce the impacts of the human population on our
planet. Generated waste includes the discharge of pollutants to land, water, and air, and the discharge of
greenhouse gases which contribute to global climate change. Waste reduction measures include the
reduction of these discharges, the use of renewable resources, and the conservation of non-renewable
resources. In summary, waste minimization helps to maintain the standard of living for us and future
generations we all now enjoy.
Overall ACR MSW Projections
The Figure below summarizes the effects of achieving the MSW minimization targets suggested in this
study . The average diversion rate calculated by averaging the diversion rates between the years 1996 and
2008 from the Statistics Canada studies was subtracted from the MSW generation rates projected into the
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
iii
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
future based on population trends. From 2013 until the 2032, maintaining the 2008 MSW generation rates
and average diversion rate each year will result in a continued growth of MSW being disposed within the
ACR (approximately 1,800,000 tonnes in 2032). If the target MSW diversion rate is achieved in 2032 at an
equal rate of change during 2013 to 2032 over the same years, the MSW disposal rate will have declined
from 2013 (approximately 500,000 tonnes in 2032) despite the population increases.
Total Waste Generation
Assessment of the Existing Solid Waste Management System
Having completed SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats), gap and best practices
analyses, committee member and private company interviews, and the input from the consulting team
based on their experience in regional solid waste systems, the key drivers that were determined to be
needed to be addressed in the new system have been identified in the following:
Current diversion rate trends will not achieve the Provincial waste minimization targets;
Much more attention, and effort, need to be put toward developing waste minimization and regulatory
programs in the ICI and C&D waste sectors as they are the source of highest amount of MSW going to
disposal;
The ICI and C&D sectors are significant in size and will require any changes to be implemented
consistently and equitably amongst businesses, while being engaged directly by the ACR to gain both
an understanding and consensus prior to the development of any major initiatives going forward;
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
iv
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Harmonization of service levels, programs, acceptable materials, contract language, and promotion
and education programs will increase the overall economies of scale and benefit residents with greater
efficiency in service delivery;
The low disposal tipping fee and lack of disposal bans are major barriers to providing a financial
incentive for increasing waste diversion;
Programming in the ACR should focus on those that are strategic, universal and/or transferable to
benefit all member municipalities and ensure customized programs of a particular municipality are the
responsibility of that host municipality;
A consistent decision process is needed to maintain ACR values to ensure new programs and Plan
amendments in the future are consistent with the values, programs and targets of this current Plan;
The existing infrastructure capacity is insufficient in meeting the diversion targets within this Plan;
municipalities are open to either municipal or privately constructed and operated facilities being
constructed/developed to meet expected demand;
Organics and fibre are the primary sources for achieving waste diversion targets;
There is currently insufficient legislation to encourage, enable and empower Alberta municipalities in
their efforts to minimize waste and achieve targets;
Current Provincial stewardship programs do not meet the principles of CCME’s Canada-Wide
Principles for Extended Producer Responsibility.
Development of Assessment Criteria
A triple bottom line assessment (TBL) of high priority programs planned for Phase 2 will help to detail all
the advantages and disadvantages of particular programs consistent with widely accepted values amongst
ACR member municipalities. Prioritizing these programs based on a scoring system is a useful tool for
decision-making and will also help to improve implementation.
After a review of member municipality strategic plans, the evaluation criteria needed to conduct a later TBL
assessment has been provided in this report for use in Phase 2.
Long List of Policies and Programs
Developed by the consulting team after the existing system assessment, a long list list of recommended
policies and programs to provide municipal staff members alternatives to directly address sytem
deficiencies and achieve waste minimization targets. The policies and programs are organized into the four
groupings at the center of the following Figure (defined in following paragraphs) and are prioritized from
top to bottom based on the 6 Rs categories. The outer rings follow best practices and provide clear
implementing each program and policy.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
v
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Organizational Structure of Long-Listed Policies and Programs
Vision and Strategic Policies
ACR municipalities express their ideals through policies and guiding principles that spell out a vision, goals
and principles on which to base future decision-making. To ensure these policies are fully considered in the
context of ISWMP, these leading policies have been partly assessed from the standpoint of achieving
continual improvement through four steps: plan, do, check and act. Ensuring that these leading policies are
reflected in the day to day decision-making at the operational and programming level will contribute to
ACR achieving its solid waste management goals.
Management Systems and Tools
There are a variety of initiatives already in-place in some of the municipalities in the ACR aimed at
expanding the current solid waste system and increasing diversion. These policies and programs have been
assessed to determine if they fully reflect the ideals of participating municipalities and whether or not they
are the most efficient ways to achieve ACR goals in future.
Operational Infrastructure and Services
Operating equipment and services in an efficient manner not only increases output and maintains basic
health and safety objectives, but also reduces funds spent on inefficiencies. For this reason the project team
reviewed policies and programs directly related to ACR’s waste management infrastructure and operations
are suggested programs for improvement.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
vi
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Promotion and Education
Fostering behaviour change to create new cultural norms for waste minimization is vital to ensuring
system users rethink waste, innovate to reduce and reuse, and utilize recycling systems efficiently. Best
management practices including the use of social marketing, social media, and other methods of reinforcing
behaviour change to establish new norms were incorporated into recommendations. It is suggested that all
of these programs and policies be retained as a reference list from which to draw at the discretion of the
ACR in the short term, but also to be reviewed in 5 years to ensure they are considered in the longer term.
Recommended Short List
Drawn from the short-list, the following recommendations are provided to the ACR as the selected priority
policies and programs to be implemented within the next five years. Once endorsed by the ACR, these
short-listed policies and programs will undergo a preliminary feasibility analysis in Phase 2 through a
triple bottom line assessment to guide selection and priority, program design, and an estimation of needed
resources.
General Residential Recycling Programs
Provide a Working Group to guide a Waste Diversion Coordinator and to review collection contracts
involving a cross-section of municipalities particularly as it relates to term, service levels and contract
clauses;
Begin the process of determining what a standardized curbside collection program would involve,
focusing on collection frequency and materials collected;
Establish consistency in materials collected at drop-off depots across the region to harmonize drop-off
systems; and
Institute common promotion and education programs throughout the ACR and focus on standardizing
messaging, colours used, system types, etc. to ensure residents are not confused between systems as
they move within the ACR. This will also reduce the duplication of effort between municipal staff
members at the individual municipal level and provide opportunities of bulk buying of related
published materials and consulting service contracts.
Organics Waste Reduction Strategy
Develop a comprehensive Organics Diversion Strategy that engages this sector and develops clear
programs to address its needs and wants in a regional sense, building on existing organics collection
and processing systems currently in place;
Begin the process of standardizing these services in a regional approach to collection and processing
which includes food waste;
Current system resiliency and capacity is a major concern in this regard and needs to be analyzed to
provide long term assured composting facilities in place either in the private or the public sector; and
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
vii
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Where applicable, increase organics collection to weekly and provide bi-weekly garbage collection
(can also collect organics weekly and collected garbage & recyclables bi-weekly and alternating –
therefore each week only need two collection trucks or one truck if truck has a split load).
ICI Waste Reduction Short Term Strategy
Engage the ICI sector in a meanful, constructive dialogue to identify opportunities for understanding
and collaboration to address waste diversion issues;
Develop a comprehensive ICI Waste Management Strategy that:
Addresses the long term capacity issues involved with current development trends and harmonizes
materials collected;
Considers existing models such as the Abbotsford Environmental Pledge Program to provide a
reward and encouragement system that rewards the continual improvement of activities within
businesses. This program could be tailored specifically for MSW or could be maintained as is for a
‘one stop shop’ for environmental issues; and
Uses an education, facilitation and legislation approach in that order to motivate change towards
these desired activities. This approach would use Community-Based Social Marketing Techniques.
Lobby provincial government to increase the Designated Materials List and expand Product
Stewardship to clearly put the responsibility for increasing diversion in this sector on the shoulders of
the waste generators;
Ban certain materials from disposal as diversion services expand and ban designated materials from
regular diversion programs entirely; and
Immediately develop a ‘ICI Waste Diversion toolkit’ and establish an award system that annual
recognizes “Environmental Champions” in this sector.
C&D Waste Reduction Short Term Strategy
Develop a comprehensive C &D Waste Management Strategy that:
Addresses the long term capacity issues involved with current development trends and harmonizes
materials collected;
Build on current C&D waste diversion initiatives and include the Edmonton R&D facility as a key
part of this strategy;
Lobby the provincial government to expand the number of materials legislated under the Designated
Material Recycling and Management Regulation; and
Ban certain materials from disposal as diversion services expand and ban designated materials from
regular diversion programs entirely when programs become available (e.g. Extended Producer
Responsibility - EPR).
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
viii
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Immediately expand or add areas to existing landfills to focus on areas to sort and separate recyclable
C&D materials while other materials are stockpiled to be used for Alternate Daily Cover at the landfill
or are shipped as feedstock to co-gen facilities;
Immediately develop a Contractors ‘Construction Site Diversion Toolkit’ to be provided through the
Building Permit system to inform Contractors on choices they can make to source separate materials
to increase diversion;
After initial education and promotion of better C&D material in the first couple of years, set up a
consistent system in cooperation of all municipalities to require both proper disposal and materials
diversion plans from Contractors along with a system of enforcement by making proof of their
commitments as a requirement of gaining an Occupancy Permit; and
Review the recommendations of the C&D Waste Management Strategy and implement accordingly.
Infrastructure
Periodic review of disposal, recycling and organics system capacity.
Waste Collection
Standardize the terms and conditions of collection and processing contracts for use in municipal
contracts.
Waste Management Policy
Encourage ESRD to review waste management policies developed in 2004.
Despite the specific recommended policies and programs a group of additional ones are specified
separately below as mandatory to meet best management practices for implementation.
Implementation
Annual Reporting
Prepare annual reports summarizing the actions carried out in a particular year and review individual
programs to determine if they are effective and if not, can be adjusted or dropped. Review all compiled data
between municipalities and consider systems and how to continually improve. Build excitement and
urgency within the Plan as a tool to both promote and educate the public going forward.
o Divide CR up into areas that reflect geographic areas and organize the annual report
according to those areas as follows: North, Northwest, West, South, East, and Central
An example of how a public annual report could be promoted to the public is provided in the following
Figure.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
ix
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Measure Program Performance
Decision-Making Process and Plan Amendment Procedure
To ensure the key community values and best management practices are being followed during both
implementation of policies and programs, and during any amendments of the IWMP as it is adapted to
future needs, the following decision-making process has been designed to be used by committee members
at their discretion.
The following Figure provides a summary graphic of this recommended decision process.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
x
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Decision-Making Steps
When decisions affecting the partnership are made through these steps, it is recommended that and
amendment process be developed to ensure agreements are made and the IWMP is updated to reflect the
current reality. This would flow out of the governance structure discussed in Section 11.4
Community-Based Social Marketing
As defined by Doug McKenzie-Mohr, an environmental psychologist, CBSM draws upon research in the
social sciences. Most initiatives to foster sustainable behaviour rely upon large-scale information
campaigns that utilize education and/or advertising to encourage behaviour change. While these strategies
can be effective in creating public awareness and changing attitudes, numerous studies show that
behaviour change rarely occurs as a result of simply providing information. It is recommended that CBSM
techniques be employed by the ACR at a level commensurate with the task at hand to implement new
initiatives and improve upon others. CBSM involves five primary steps:
1. Selecting behaviours;
2. Identifying the barriers and benefits to an activity;
3. Developing strategies that utilize “tools” that have been shown to be effective in changing behaviour;
4. Piloting the strategy; and
5. Broad scale implementation and evaluation.
Funding
EBA recognizes that the municipalities each have their own set of internal issues and priorities regarding
candidate project for funding applications and that waste management may not always be high on
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
xi
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
everyone’s priority lists. Therefore, there will be variations in the degree of commitment to participating in
the plan and its implementation. Municipalities will need to prioritize waste management when
establishing funding priorities to implement policies and programs required to meet waste minimization
targets.
Municipalities interested in working together on regional waste management initiatives should pursue
grant funding under RCP for costs associated with formalizing roles, responsibilities and commitments.
Funding from GMF can also be pursued if the initiative involves private sector participation. Once decisions
have been made with respect to developing capital works, participating municipalities can use MSI funds to
fund engineering, construction and other related costs.
The Provincial government should be encouraged to include funding requirements as a component of any
review of its provincial waste reduction strategy. Restoration of dedicated programs such as the Waste
Management Assistance Program that supported the development of regional waste management systems
would be a significant step in the right direction.
Governance
At the outset of the project, the scope of what “governance structure” was described as the following basis
for the requirements of the IWMP. The following definitions were proposed:
Governance - the process by which decisions are taken within or among organizations, including: who
is involved, the assignment of responsibility, the prioritization of goals, and the rendering of
accountability; and
Governance Structure - the informal and formal ways in which different institutions interact within
particular political and administrative settings to develop policy goals, select among means, cope with
uncertainty and controversy, and foster legitimacy and support for policies.
The implication from the above is that the governance entity will need to be the crucial link between ACR
members and the implementer(s) and operator(s) or service provider(s) of the approved waste
minimization initiatives described previously within this document. The governance entity will need to
give the ownership the controlling authority or power for accountability to ensure its successful
implementation and subsequent ongoing operations.
The governance structure also should integrate synergistic approaches of both the National Quality
Developing Governance Structure
To develop a recommended governance structure, a highly collaborative process is required to engage all
pertinent ACR members. Ideally, it would proceed according to the following process:
Define the Solution Goal:
Describe what success of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan looks like.
Establish Solution Evaluation Criteria:
Identify from impacted, pertinent stakeholders (i.e., members of the CRWMAC) the prioritized
attributes of the desired solution.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
xii
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Define a Continuum of Alternatives
Based on the solution goal and evaluation criteria, a short list of viable governance structure
alternatives can be identified which can be considered by the CRWMAC.
Evaluate the Alternatives
The CRWMAC will evaluate the alternatives based on how well they satisfy the prioritized evaluation
criteria and implementation feasibility / viability.
At this Phase 1 juncture of this project, initial regional waste minimization strategies and initiatives have
been identified and proposed in order to obtain the vision of 80/20 waste diversion goal within the ACR.
Upon ACR’s approval of the recommended initiatives, a next step would be to focus its representatives on
what the governance attributes or basis for evaluating alternative governance structure alternatives should
be. From there, a range of viable governance alternatives can be identified, considered and evaluated.
Next Steps
Following endorsement of the recommended policies and programs along with the assessment criteria, the
consulting team will:
Prepare preliminary program designs for planning purposes to allow the estimation of the resources
required for implementation;
Conduct a triple bottom line assessment to score each program for the purpose of prioritizing the
program choices in the first 5 years of implementation; and
Prepare a recommended implementation schedule to achieve the waste minimization targets;
Define governace structure; and
Prepare a final Integrated Waste Minimization Plan for the ACR.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
xiii
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... i
Approach ........................................................................................................................................................... i
Alberta Capital Region ...................................................................................................................................... i
Rationale for Waste Diversion .......................................................................................................................... ii
Overall ACR MSW Projections .............................................................................................................. ii
Assessment of the Existing Solid Waste Management System ........................................................... iii
Development of Assessment Criteria ................................................................................................... iv
Long List of Policies and Programs................................................................................................................. iv
Recommended Short List ................................................................................................................................ vi
Implementation .............................................................................................................................................. viii
Next Steps ...................................................................................................................................................... xii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Scope......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 General Approach .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Consultation ........................................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Rationale for Waste Diversion ............................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Waste Minimization at a Glance ............................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Opportunities for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction .............................................................. 6
2.2 Alberta Capital Region Setting ............................................................................................................... 7
3.0 WASTE COMPOSITION, QUANTITIES AND PROJECTIONS ............................................... 9
3.1 Waste Composition and Quantities ....................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Residential Waste Quantities ............................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Residential Waste Projections ............................................................................................................. 14
3.4 Overall ACR MSW Projections ............................................................................................................ 16
4.0 EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ......................................................................... 16
4.1 Vision and Strategic Policies ............................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Management Systems and Tools ........................................................................................................ 18
4.3 Operational Infrastructure and Services .............................................................................................. 20
4.3.1 Collection ................................................................................................................................ 20
4.3.1.1 Residential ................................................................................................................. 20
4.3.1.2 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional ..................................................................... 24
4.3.2 Processing .............................................................................................................................. 25
4.3.2.1 Waste Disposal .......................................................................................................... 25
4.3.2.2 Recycling ................................................................................................................... 26
4.3.2.3 Organics..................................................................................................................... 27
4.3.2.4 Construction and Demolition ..................................................................................... 27
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
xiv
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
4.4 Promotion and Education .................................................................................................................... 28
4.5 Provincial Policy Framework ................................................................................................................ 29
4.6 Material Markets .................................................................................................................................. 30
4.6.1 Paper ...................................................................................................................................... 30
4.6.2 Plastics .................................................................................................................................... 31
4.6.3 Glass ....................................................................................................................................... 31
4.6.4 Organics .................................................................................................................................. 32
4.6.5 Material Processing Options ................................................................................................... 32
Composting ............................................................................................................................. 32
Anaerobic Digestion ................................................................................................................ 33
4.6.5.1 Material Recovery Facilities ....................................................................................... 33
Refuse-Derived Fuel ............................................................................................................... 34
Bio-Fuel Production ................................................................................................................ 34
Construction and Demolition................................................................................................... 35
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING SYSTEM ..................................................................................... 35
5.1 SWOT Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 35
5.2 Gap Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 36
5.3 Best Approaches to Waste Diversion .................................................................................................. 38
5.3.1 Waste Minimization Targets ................................................................................................... 38
5.3.2 Advanced Programming ......................................................................................................... 38
5.3.3 Best Management Practices ................................................................................................... 42
5.4 Results of Existing System Assessment ............................................................................................. 43
6.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ........................................................................ 45
6.2.1 Assessment Criteria - Descriptions ........................................................................................ 46
6.2.2 Weighting of Criteria ............................................................................................................... 47
7.0 LONG LIST OF POLICIES AND PROGRAMS .......................................................................... 48
8.0 RECOMMENDED SHORT LIST .................................................................................................. 50
8.1 Implementation of the ACR Waste Minimization Plan ......................................................................... 50
8.2 Performance Measurement ................................................................................................................. 51
8.3 General Residential Recycling Programs ............................................................................................ 51
8.4 Organics Waste Reduction Strategy.................................................................................................... 51
8.5 ICI Waste Reduction Short Term Strategy .......................................................................................... 52
8.6 C&D Waste Reduction Short Term Strategy ....................................................................................... 53
8.7 Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................................ 54
8.8 Waste Collection .................................................................................................................................. 55
8.9 Waste Management Policy .................................................................................................................. 55
9.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ......................................... 55
9.1 Performance Measurement ................................................................................................................. 55
9.2 Decision-Making Process and Plan Amendment Procedure ............................................................... 58
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
xv
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
9.3 Community-Based Social Marketing ................................................................................................... 59
9.4 Funding ................................................................................................................................................ 61
9.4.1 Funding Sources ..................................................................................................................... 61
9.4.2 Funding Recommendations .................................................................................................... 61
9.5 Governance ......................................................................................................................................... 62
9.5.1 Defining Governance .............................................................................................................. 62
9.5.2 Developing Governance Structure ......................................................................................... 63
10.0 NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................................. 63
11.0 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................................... 64
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 66
TABLES
Table 1a 2001 Summary of Residential Tonnes Collected for Municipalities with Readily Available Data
Table 1b 2011 Summary of Estimated Residential Tonnes Collected for Municipalities
Table 1c 2011 Summary of All Municipalities
Table 2 Projected Curbside Waste Management Needs
Table 3 Vision and Strategic Policies Summary
Table 4 Management Systems and Tools Summary
Table 5a Municipal Solid Waste Collection Systems – 2011
Table 5b Recyclable Materials Collection – 2011
Table 5c Organics Collection Systems – 2011
Table 6 Summary of Class II Landfills
Table 7 Summary of Class III Landfills
Table 8 Summary of Material Recovery Facilities
Table 9 Summary of Organics Processing Facilities
Table 10 Supporting Policies
Table 11 Gap Analysis Summary
Table 12 Best Practices Reports Informing the Study
Table 13 Assessment Criteria Weighting
In “Tables” Section
Table 1.4-1 CRWMAC Consultation Contacts
Table 1.4-2 Private Sector Survey Questions
Table 4.4-1 Education and Promotion Summary
Table 5.0-1 Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
Table 5.3.3-1 IC&I Economic Waste Diversion Best Management Practices
Table 5.3.3-2 IC&I Regulatory Waste Diversion Best Management Practices
Table 5.3.3-3 IC&I Voluntary Waste Diversion Best Management Practices
Table 7.0-1 Vision and Strategic Policies
Table 7.0-2 Management Systems and Tools
Table 7.0-3 Operational Infrastructure and Services
Table 7.0-4 Promotion and Education
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
xvi
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
FIGURES
Figure 1 General Approach
Figure 2 Waste Management at a Glance
Figure 3 GHG Savings per Tonne by Recyclable Material
Figure 4 Population Distribution – Alberta Capital Region
Figure 5 Waste Generation by Sector
Figure 6 ICI Waste Generation
Figure 7 C&D Waste Generation
Figure 8 Residential Waste Generation
Figure 9 Policy and Program Organization
Figure 10 Measure Program Performance
Figure 11 Decision-Making Steps
In “Figures” Section
Figure A Solid Waste Management Facility Locations
Figure B Recyclables Processing
Figure C Organics Processing
Figure D Waste Disposal
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
EBA’s General Conditions
Municipal Summaries
Detailed Summaries of Municipal Waste Quantities
Capital Region Processing Facilities
Continuum of Regional Governance Options
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
xvii
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
ACR Alberta Capital Region
AD Anaerobic Digestion
CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
C&D Construction and Demolition
CRWMAC Capital Region Waste Minimization Advisory Committee
eCO2 Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
EPEA Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act
EPR Extended Producer Responsibility
ESRD Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
FCM Federation of Canadian Municipalities
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GMF Green Municipal Fund
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
ICI Institutional, Commercial and Light Industrial
ISO International Organization for Standardization
IWMP Integrated Waste Management Plan
Kg Kilograms
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Km Kilometre
LLDPE Linear Low Density Polyethylene
MGA Municipal Government Act
MRF Material Recovery Facility
MF Multi-Family
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NQI National Quality Institute
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
PPP Packaging and Printer Paper
RCA Recycling Council of Alberta
RCBC Recycling Council of British Columbia
RFP Request for Proposals
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
TOR Terms of Reference
t Tonnes
WM Waste Management
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
1
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
1.0 INTRODUCTION
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company (EBA) was retained by the
Capital Region Waste Minimization Advisory Committee (CRWMAC; the Committee) to prepare an
Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) for the Alberta Capital Region (ACR) as outlined in the
Committee’s Request for Proposals (RFP).
The CRWMAC includes representatives from urban and rural municipalities in the ACR as well as non-
voting members from Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) and the
Recycling Council of Alberta. The urban municipalities are Beaumont, Calmar, Devon, Edmonton, Fort
Saskatchewan, Leduc, Legal, Spruce Grove, St. Albert and Stony Plain, and the rural municipalities are Leduc
County, Parkland County, Strathcona County and Sturgeon County.
1.1 Project Scope
The project scope is divided into two phases. The progression of the project to Phase 2 will be determined
by the Committee on the outcome of the first phase of the project.
Phase 1: IWMP Development
Phase 1 is the development of the IWMP to provide a framework and roadmap to guide regional waste
management over the short, medium and long term that will enable the ACR to achieve a goal of 80%
diversion/recovery and 20% landfill disposal and the Provincial goal of 500 kg/per capita per year of
municipal solid waste (MSW). The IWMP evaluates the feasibility of these goals and provides a strong
business case for implementation. As presented in the RFP, the IWMP will need to include policy,program,
funding and governance recommendations for the following components:
Residential, Institutional, Commercial and (light) Industrial (ICI), and Construction and Demolition
(C&D) waste sectors;
Opportunities to reduce waste generation;
Efficient options for reuse of waste materials;
Greater emphasis on recycling;
Opportunities for education;
Innovative recovery and disposal options;
Most efficient use of present and future regional infrastructure; and
Consistent measurement and reporting framework.
A major outcome of this evaluation will be the prediction of dates for achievement of targets.
Phase 2: IWMP Implementation Strategy
Phase 2 will proceed immediately after review and approval of the IWMP by the Committee. The
Committee anticipates a need to validate the overall strategy and objectives of the plan among
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
2
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
stakeholders. The results of the stakeholder consultations will inform the development of the more
detailed implementation plan, which may include, but may not be limited to, the following:
A workable timeline identifying key activities and milestones, including sub projects;
A process to put in place the proposed governance structure;
Cost for each component in the plan with a financing plan including potential funding sources from
government; and
Other specific actions/decisions that may be required to enable the achievement of the goals and
objectives for solid waste management.
1.2 General Approach
The general approach used to complete the proposed scope is defined in the below Figure 1 below whereby
Phase 1 was to define the current system through the collection of existing system baseline logistical
information and best management practices. This enabled an assessment which included a gap analysis (to
determine if the current system of policies and programs can meet the established targets and if not, what
needs to be done) and a SWOT analysis to assess the current system’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats. The factual information from the gap/SWOT analyses enabled the consulting team to use its
solid waste management experience and conduct an assessment of key issues surrounding the
establishment of a regional system. Based on this assessment of the current system together with
stakeholder input, suitable policies and programs were identified to supplement the existing system. These
programs and policies were will enable the region to meet Provincial and ACR waste reduction targets and
be defined and assessed in more detail through Phase 2 of this report.
These policies and programs were compiled into a long list for consideration at any time during the term of
the Plan. Based on a variety of concerns relating to the implementation of a regional system in the ACR, a
shortlist of priority policies and programs were recommended for short-term implementation. This
shortlist was divided into two categories: 1) programs to be individually assessed through a triple bottom
line process and ranked to create a guideline for implementation and; 2) programsconsidered mandatory
for the successful implementation of a regional waste management system. These recommendations are
presented in Section 11 of this report.
Based on recommendations in this report and Committee feedback, an endorsed shortlist of policies and
programs will be finalized. This will be implemented within the next five years, during Phase 2 of the Plan.
The shortlist will be evaluated through a triple bottom line process with established criteria and weighting
reflecting the common values of member municipalities. Through this Phase, planning level resource needs
are to be determined for successful execution of these programs as well as the mandatory governance,
performance measurement, and data tracking recommendations.
Throughout the IWMP, the waste management system is grouped into four categories:
Vision and Strategic Policies;
Management Systems and Tools;
Operational Infrastructure and Services; and
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
3
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Promotion and Education.
Figure 1: General Approach
1.3 Consultation
In preparing this report, EBA obtained information and input from a variety of sources. Principal among
these was the information gathered through interviews and discussions with representatives of
municipalities participating in the Committee and from other municipalities in the ACR. A summary of
municipal contacts is provided in Table 1.4-1 in the Tables Section. EBA was able to make contact with
representatives of 22 of the 24 municipalities in the ACR and was able to interview 16 individuals. EBA also
interviewed representatives for ESRD and the Recycling Council of Alberta. Information about waste
management programs was also obtained from individual municipal websites. Follow-up interviews were
undertaken to attempt to fill-in information gaps with respect to waste and diverted material quantities.
EBA also solicited information from a cross-section of private sector companies involved in waste
management activities for the ICI and C&D sectors. Six companies were selected to provide additional
feedback through an email survey. One company was interviewed directly and two others responded to the
survey. The survey questions are presented in Table 1.4-2 and the companies consulted are listed below:
Ever Green Ecological Services Inc.
Waste Management of Canada
BFI Canada
Standstone Enviro-Waste Services Ltd.
Klondike Disposal and Recycling
A&A Disposal
2.0 BACKGROUND
The ACR is comprised of 19 urban and five rural municipalities. They are the Town of Beaumont, Town of
Bon Accord, Town of Bruderheim, Town of Calmar, Town of Devon, City of Edmonton, City of Fort
Saskatchewan, Town of Gibbons, Town of Lamont, Lamont County, City of Leduc, Leduc County, Town of
Legal, Town of Morinville, Parkland County, Town of Redwater, City of St. Albert, City of Spruce Grove,
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
4
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Town of Stony Plain, Strathcona County, Sturgeon County, Village of Thorsby, Village of Wabamun and
Village of Warburg.
The ACR covers approximately 11,500 square kilometres with a total population of about 1,161,000
(Statistics Canada, 2011 Census). The municipalities range in size from the City of Edmonton with a
population density of 1,187 persons per square kilometre (persons/km2) to Lamont County with a
population density of 1.6 persons/km2.
Outside the City of Edmonton, 12 of the 23 municipalities have organized regional systems to manage their
solid waste disposal. They are the Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Authority, the Roseridge
Waste Services Commission and the Lamont County Regional Solid Waste Commission. These management
structures are reviewed further in Section 4.2 Management Systems and Tools.
Within the ACR, there are a large number of private service companies who provide waste collection
services to the member municipalities. These include large international waste hauling companies, such as
Waste Management of Canada and BFI Canada that provide multiple types of collection services through to
smaller family-based businesses, such as Ever Green Ecological Services Inc. that service a particular niche
within the ACR. Also included in this group of service providers are the many re-use, drop-off, reprocessing,
recycling and landfill operators that, together with haulers, form an integral part of the Alberta solid waste
management infrastructure.
2.1 Rationale for Waste Diversion
Waste diversion can be driven by three sets of objectives – environmental, economic and social. Diverting
certain materials from landfills can, for example, reduce the potential for leachate generation that can
contaminate surface and ground water. Landfills are also estimated to generate significant quantities of
methane and other gases, commonly referred to a greenhouse gases because of their effect on climate
change. They are also the source of more aesthetic problems such as odours and litter.
From an economic point of view, landfills built to current standards are expensive. For example, EBA
estimated in 2009 that the capital cost to replace the existing landfill operated by the Leduc and District
Waste Management Authority would be approximately $4.2 million which doesn’t include other costs
related to other land use opportunities that are lost, reclamation of the landfill, and remediation of the
property (i.e. not the true cost of landfilling). Reclamation itself can cost anywhere from $0.65 /m3 to $7.85
/m3 of landfill material (soil and garbage) as well as Opportunity Costs for alternate uses of the land
(Guerriero, 1996). Capital costs to be considered include site testing, land purchase, facility design and cell
construction. Operational costs also need to be considered and must include closure and post-closure care
costs. Alberta’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) requires a minimum post-closure
care period of 25 years; so even after a landfill has been successfully closed and capped it still carries an
operating cost for maintenance. For older facilities without adequate leachate management systems, this
cost can be significant.
Diverting various waste streams from landfills has the potential to reduce environmental impacts, extend
the life of existing facilities and reduce landfill capital and operating costs.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
5
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
2.1.1 Waste Minimization at a Glance
The driving force behind solid waste minimization is to reduce the impacts of the human population on our
planet. Generated waste includes the discharge of pollutants to land, water, and air, and the discharge of
greenhouse gases. Waste reduction measures include the reduction of these discharges, the use of
renewable resources, and the conservation of non-renewable resources. In summary, waste minimization
helps to maintain the standard of living for us and future generations we all now enjoy.
The life cycle and management of MSW with its associated greenhouse gas emissions is presented in Figure
2a. The four general stages of product life cycles (raw materials acquisition, manufacturing, recycling, and
waste management) are highlighted in the second column. MSW – the subject of this plan – is generated by
three sectors: residential, ICI and C&D. With the implimentation of MSW reduction, reuse, and recycling
systems, the amount of materials being sent to landfills is reduced; this MSW management system is
illustrated in Figure 2b.
Figure 2a: MSW Lifecycle, Management and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (US EPA Website, 2012)
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
6
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Figure 2b: Community MSW Management System (Advanced Disposal Website, 2013)
2.1.2 Opportunities for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction
In addition to GHG savings from transportation, research shows that GHG savings can be achieved by
recycling and composting rather than disposing of waste in garbage. The June 14, 2012 City of Edmonton
Report entitled “City Operations Greenhouse Gas Management Plan” states that by “diverting waste from
landfill (through composting operations) the City avoids the production of more potent greenhouse gas
emissions such as methane. The carbon credits from this effort are certified for trading [under the
Provincial cap-and-trade system].” Additionally, a 2011 study done in the Metro Vancouver region
determined that the average carbon dioxide equivalent (eCO2) for combined MSW recycling and
composting saved 1,837 kg per tonne (Sound Resources Management Group Ltd., 2009). Figure 3 below
shows the range of GHG savings gained by recycling various materials, which ranges from 9,827 kg eCO2
per tonne savings for aluminum cans diverted for feedstock for. new cans, to a low of 14 eCO2 per tonne
savings for glass used as construction aggregate. While aluminum has more recovery-related cost savings
than glass, from a material-use perspective, glass recovery actually has a much lower carbon footprint.
In contrast, landfilling has minimal GHG reduction value. For a landfill with a 75% methane recovery rate
and an efficient energy recovery system, GHG savings per tonne is approximately 270 kg eCO2 (Sound
Resources Management Group Ltd., 2009). The metrics clearly indicate that recycling and composting
actively contribute to GHG savings as compared to disposal.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
7
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Figure 3: GHG Savings per Tonne by Recyclable Material as Compared to Disposal
(Source: Sound Resources Management Group Ltd., 2009)
2.2 Alberta Capital Region Setting
Increases in population result in direct increases in the quantities of waste generated. In addition, per
capita waste generation rates are also directly related to the strength of the economy. Therefore,
population growth along with economic growth increases the amount of waste at different rates across the
municipalities in the ACR, as determined by a number of socio-economic factors. Figure 4 shows the
distribution of population in the ACR. The City of Edmonton represents about 70% of the population in the
region. The rest of the population is almost equally divided between urban and rural municipalities.
A figure showing a detailed population breakdown is presented in Appendix B.
Population growth in the ACR has prompted policy makers to initiate and implement programs on land use
planning. According to the information provided in the RFP, it has been estimated that the ACR population
will increase by over 600,000 people and reach 1.7 million people in the next 35 years. To plan for this level
of growth, the ACR municipalities have committed to more intensified development in the form of density
targets in designated priority growth areas. These types of development strategies and initiatives will
impact the waste management setting in the region and will need to be considered. The differences in the
municipalities create separate and distinct community wastesheds (like watersheds), each of which require
specific strategies within a Regional IWMP. As communities grow and as populations increase, the plan will
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
8
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
be able to provide continuous improvement through the following approach: monitor, respond, improve
and update. This approach allows for ongoing response to changes.
Increases in waste generation could exert stress on the budgets of municipalities, which are already
stretched to provide other services to the public. Additionally, lack of available land for traditional waste
disposal in the vicinity of some municipalities has forced them to spend a large portion of their waste
management budget on hauling solid waste longer distances. This problem will be best addressed through
implementation of an Environmentally Sustainable, Economically Viable and Locally Socially Acceptable
(Triple Bottom Line) Integrated Waste Management System.
Several initiatives, frameworks, plans and strategy documents have been published by the Albert
government and the ACR on sustainable use of resources. Many of these documents are focused on
development, land use and reducing human footprint on land (e.g. the Provincial Land Use Framework and
the Capital Region Growth Plan). The province has also provided guidance on solid waste initiatives in the
province through its Too Good to Waste Provincial Waste Strategy and the Provincial Waste Action Plan.
These policy and planning documents are described in more detail in Section 4.1. The IWMP for the ACR
will need to align with and complement the policy direction identified in these background documents. A
sustainable solid waste management system will contribute to reducing the human footprint on land and is
an essential component of sustainability planning.
70%
16%
14%
Figure 4: Population Distribution - Alberta Capital Region (Source: Statistics Canada, 2011 Census)
City of Edmonton Others Urban Municipalities Rural Municipalities
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
9
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
3.0 WASTE COMPOSITION, QUANTITIES AND PROJECTIONS
A determination of accurate MSW composition and quanities throughout the ACR would require a
consistent annual measurement system that includes private and public facilities; this does not currently
exist. This report recommends such a system be implemented as soon as possible; however, for the
purposes of providing a reasonable start to an estimation of composition and quantities in the ACR other
less accurate or dated sources were used and compared to Canadian trends.
3.1 Waste Composition and Quantities
Waste monitoring has been done at the Provincial level to determine waste generation by sector as well as
to determine the composition as it relates to each sector. The graphs below depict Alberta’s waste
composition by generation sector. The IC&I and C&D sectors (the private sector) typically produce the
greatest portion of the MSW stream (67%) and this is where municipalities have the least control. The ACR
MSW waste stream is expected to be similar to this Provincial average. Achieving MSW reduction targets
will require that these sectors are the primary focus of waste reduction efforts within the ACR.
Figure 5a: Waste Generation by Sector
(Source: Alberta Environment, 2005)
The available ACR data on waste quantities was sketchy and did not fully account for the IC&I and C&D
sectors primarily due to a number of private facilities being operated where detailed data has not been
collected by the ACR. To overcome this deficiency, surveys from 1996 to 2008 were conducted by Statistics
Canada to determine the total annual MSW quantity for the ACR. The IC&I and C&D sectors were grouped
as non-residential MSW. Figure 5b compares three streams, residential, non-residential and organics which
comes from both streams. The purpose of this Figure is to demonstrate the larger overall quantity and high
rate of growth of MSW disposed from non-residential sources as compared to the smaller and more
moderate growth in the residential sector. This further confirms the need to address these sectors to
achieve waste diversion targets.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
10
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Figure 5b: Total Waste Generation by Sector
(Source: Statistics Canada, 1996-2008)
The surveys were conducted by Statistics Canada across Canada and thus we were able to compare the
more meaningful per capita disposal rates during those years in Alberta to the rest of Canada. Figure 5c
demonstrates that the per capita waste disposal rates in Alberta are higher than the National average while
the per capita diversion rates are below the National average.
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
4000000
4500000
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Ma
ss (
ton
ne
s)
Year
Organics
Non-Residential WasteDiverted
Residential Waste Diverted
Non-Residential WasteDisposed
Residential Waste Disposed
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
11
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Figure 5c: Per Capita Waste Generation by Sector
(Source: Statistics Canada, 1996-2008)
From Provincial waste composition studies the composition of the IC&I and C&D streams is made up of a
variety of materials, but paper and organics (which include wood) are the major contributers similar to the
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
To
ns
Pe
r C
ap
ita
Year
Waste Disposed - Canada
Waste Diverted - Canada
Organics Diverted - Canada
Waste Disposed - Alberta
Waste Diverted - Alberta
Organics Diverted - Alberta
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
12
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
residential stream and should be a primary focus of the waste minimization efforts in the ACR.
Figure 6: ICI Waste Generation
(Source: Provincial Waste Characterization Framework, 2005)
Figure 7: C&D Waste Generation (Source: Provincial Waste Characterization Framework, 2005)
3.2 Residential Waste Quantities
The quantity of municipal/residential waste generated in the ACR was determined using a combination of
measured quantities from those municipalities where information was readily available and an estimation
of waste quantities for the other municipalities based on data from other similar municipalities. In some
cases, partial information was available and that has been included in the review. A detailed summary of
the waste quantities is provided in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c with additional supporting information provided in
Appendix B.
3% 2% 1% 4%
25%
33%
10%
10%
12%
C&D
Glass
Industrial Waste
Metal
Organics
Paper
Other
Plastics
Wood and Soil
1% 1%
10%
13%
6%
26%
10%
33%
AsphaltBrick/StoneConcreteDrywallMetalOtherRoofingWood
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
13
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Figure 8: Residential Waste Generation
(Source: Alberta Environment, 2010)
It was estimated that in 2011, approximately 406,944 tonnes (t) of residential waste was managed via the
curbside collection program by the municipalities in the ACR; specifically recyclables, organics and waste.
Edmonton, at 281,274 t, was the source of about 69% of the residential waste generated in the ACR. The
next two largest sources were Strathcona County at 29,602 t and St. Albert at 19,923 t. These three
municipalities accounted for over 80% of the residential waste in the ACR in 2011.
Edmonton, Strathcona and St. Albert also led the way in terms of the diversion of residential material from
disposal. The three municipalities diverted approximately 180,351 t through recycling and composting
programs. This was 90% of the estimated 200,351 t of residential waste diversion in the ACR. Overall,
approximately 49% of the residential waste generated in the ACR was diverted from landfills in 2011. Of
this, 75,645 t (19% of residential waste) was recyclable materials collected through blue bag, blue bin and
depot programs, and 124,707 t (30%) was organics diverted to composting or similar facilities. The
organics data does not include local yard and garden waste composting operations undertaken by
individual municipalities.
Note that the per capita waste generation in the tables below reflects only residential generation, and does
not factor in ICI and C&D tonnage for each jurisdiction. This information was not readily available for the
ACR by municipality, nor by disposal facility. Combined tonnage for all sectors divided by population is
needed to accurately determine the ACR’s progress towards the Provincial target of 500 kg/capita/year.
That said, in 2005 the regional generation of residential MSW was estimated to be 1146.1 kg/capita/year
based on mathematical modelling (ISL and EBA, 2007).
Table 1a: 2011 Summary of Residential Tonnes Collected for Municipalities with Readily Available Data
Municipality Population Recyclables Organics Waste Total Total Kg/
Capita/Year
Diversion
Rate
Beaumont 13,287 898 372 4,448 5,718 430 22.2%
35%
5%
7% 3%
25%
25%
Organics
Metals
Plastic
Glass
Paper
Waste
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
14
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Bon Accord 1,488 56 123 601 780 524 22.9%
Calmar 1,970 0 106 653 759 385 13.9%
Devon 6,510 632 230 2,264 3,126 480 27.6%
Edmonton1 812,201 51,063 98,856 131,355 281,274 346 53.3%
Fort
Saskatchewan 19,051 1,190 1,000 4,225 6,415 337 34.1%
Leduc (City) 24,279 1,697 1,052 7,883 10,633 438 25.9%
Leduc
(County) 13,260 17 13 2,179 2,209 163 1.4%
Parkland 30.568 1,462 266 7,283 9,012 295 19.2%
St. Albert 61,466 5,113 7,929 6,881 19,923 324 65.5%
Spruce Grove 26,171 1,844 1,844 5,531 9,218 352 40.0%
Stony Plain 14,177 1,222 1,662 3,213 6,097 405 47.3%
Strathcona 92,490 6,755 10,635 12,212 29,602 320 58.7%
Thorsby 797 0 1 202 203 254 0.4%
Note: 1. Edmonton compost tonnage based on estimated quantity diverted to co-composter at Edmonton Waste Management Centre.
Table 1b: 2011 Summary of Estimated Residential Tonnes Collected for Municipalities (Data Estimated)
Municipality Population Recyclables Organics Waste Total Est. Kg/
Capita/Year
Diversion
Rate
Bruderheim 1,155 142 0 476 618 535 22.2%
Gibbons 3,030 148 0 915 1,063 351 22.9%
Lamont
(County) 3,872 204 0 1,031 1,118 319 7.7%
Lamont (Town) 1,753 195 0 652 846 483 22.9%
Legal 1,225 139 0 467 606 495 22.9%
Morinville 8,560 561 561 2,947 4,068 475 27.6%
Redwater 1,915 57 57 704 818 427 13.9%
Sturgeon 19,578 2,250 0 10,193 12,443 636 18.1%
Wabamun 661 0 0 135 136 205 0.4%
Warburg 789 0 0 142 142 180 0.0%
Table 1c: 2011 Summary of All Municipalities Residential Only
Municipality Population Recyclables Organics Waste Total
(tonnes)
Kg / Capita /
Year
Diversion
Rate
All 1,161,418 75,645 1214,707 206,592 406,944 350 49.2%
3.3 Residential Waste Projections
The projections for the quantity of municipal/residential waste in the ACR was determined using the
typical residential waste composition (refer to Section 3.1 above), the population projections as noted in
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
15
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
the Capital Region Growth Plan, December 2009 and target residential material type capture rate by
municipality type (Waste Diversion Ontario Guidebook, March 2010).
With respect to the target capture rates, municipalities of different sizes tend to have different degrees of
resources available. Typically, larger and more urban municipalities tend to achieve higher capture rates
in-part from greater consumption rates than smaller, rural municipalities with less per capita consumption.
For example, the City of Edmonton would be considered a large urban municipality whereas Lamont
County would be considered a rural municipality. Edmonton, with its higher population and greater
population density as well as having access to greater human and financial resources as compared to
Lamont County, would likely be able to achieve a higher capture rate of materials. In order to project the
potential recovery of material for a given municipality over time, each municipality’s specific
characteristics are typically taken into account to calculate their respective and individual targets.
However, for the purposes of this Plan, the future projections of the material available to be recovered
across the ACR was grouped so as to present the information in aggregate. For the purposes of the
projections, an aggregate target capture rate for recyclables of 78% (i.e. 78% of what is available for
collection would be realistically collected in the recycling stream) was calculated to be reasonable as was
an aggregate target capture rate for organics of 40%.
Assuming the current waste generation rates (expressed in kilograms per capita per year, kg/capita/yr)
remains consistent over time, the following table projects the anticipated residential waste management
needs of the ACR over time.
Table 2: Projected Residential Curbside Waste Management Needs
Item 2011 2014 2019 2029 2044
Population 1,126,147 1,213,598 1,305,640 1,475,276 1,728,182
Waste (disposal tonnes) 183,020 197,233 212,191 239,760 280,862
Divertible tonnes (i.e.
recyclables and organics) 171,156 187,274 201,478 227,655 266,682
Additional supporting information provided in Appendix C.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
16
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
3.4 Overall ACR MSW Projections
Figure 9 below summarizes the effects of achieving the MSW minimization targets suggested in this study .
The average diversion rate calculated by averaging the diversion rates between the years 1996 and 2008
from the Statistics Canada studies was subtracted from the MSW generation rates projected into the future
based on population trends. From 2013 until the 2032, maintaining the 2008 MSW generation rates and
average diversion rate each year will result in a continued growth of MSW being disposed within the ACR
(approximately 1,800,000 tonnes in 2032). If the target MSW diversion target is achieved in 2032 at an
equal rate of change during 2013 until 2032 over the same years, the MSW disposal rate will have declined
from 2013 (approximately 500,000 tonnes in 2032) despite the population increases.
Figure 9: Total Waste Generation
4.0 EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
4.1 Vision and Strategic Policies
Several initiatives, frameworks, plans and strategy documents have been published by the provincial
government and the ACR on sustainable use of resources. Many of these documents are focused on
development, land use and reducing human footprint on land (e.g., the Provincial Land Use Framework and
the Capital Region Growth Plan). The province has also provided guidance on solid waste initiatives in the
province through its Too Good to Waste Provincial Waste Strategy and the Provincial Waste Action Plan.
Various municipalities have developed independent solid waste management plans, some examples are
listed in Table 3 below.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
17
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Table 3: Vision and Strategic Policies Summary
Policy Summary
National
Canada-Wide Action Plan for Extended
Producer Responsibility
CCME - The Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR) would seek the adoption by producers of full life-
cycle cost accounting for their products.
A Canada-Wide Strategy for Sustainable
Packaging
CCME - The purpose of the Canada-wide Strategy for Sustainable
Packaging is to build on the Canada-wide Action Plan for EPR to help
create a more consistent Canada-wide approach to EPR for
packaging and to support a shift by all packaging actors towards
greater packaging sustainability.
Provincial
Alberta Land Use Frame Work, 2008
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development –
Designed to develop regional accountability and responsibility for an
integrated approach to land use planning.
Too Good to Waste: Making Conservation a
Priority, 2008
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development –
Alberta’s road map for waste reduction and management. It identifies
the issues and opportunities, and outlines the outcomes, strategies
and priority actions to help Alberta advance innovative waste
management programs
Alberta Municipal Waste Action Plan 2004-2006,
August 2004
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development –
Objective of plan is to strengthen Alberta’s policy and legislative
framework, in consultation with stakeholders, to develop a long-term
approach to managing municipal, industrial and hazardous waste in
the province.
Regional
Capital Region Growth Plan – Growing
Forward, 2009
-Capital Region Board- Growth Plan addresses a regional approach
for growth projections, core and social infrastructure needs, alternative
approaches to governance, and potential models for sharing regional
costs.
ISL Engineering and Land Services and EBA - Waste management
section provides an overview of waste generation and diversion for the
ACR and provides a series of system improvement options.
Municipalities
Town of Beaumont Environmental Baseline
Report, 2012
Maintains an environment that enhances human health and fosters a
transition towards sustainability, preserving carbon sinks, reducing
GHGs.
Environmental Management Plan in preparation.
City of Edmonton Environmental Strategic
Plan: The Way We Green, 2011 Prioritizes waste reduction and sets zero waste goals.
City of Edmonton Waste Management Policy,
2007
City’s commitment to leading technology and sustainable waste
management services. Supports initiative to move into non-residential
waste services area.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
18
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Table 3: Vision and Strategic Policies Summary
Policy Summary
City of Leduc Environmental Plan – Phase 1,
2012
Presents the City’s commitment to protect and enhance the local
natural environment. Waste is one of the key action areas.
Parkland County Solid Waste Management
Plan, 2010
The County has affirmed the residents long term desire to increase the
local waste diversion rates and level of service beyond the current
drop off program.
City of St. Albert Environmental Master Plan,
2008 Lists specific goals and measures of success.
City of St. Albert Solid Waste Program Review,
2008 Guidance document for recent waste management program changes
City of Spruce Grove Environmental
Sustainability Plan, 2011
Identifies five strategic areas and outlines policy goals, objectives and
action items.
Town of Stony Plain Environmental
Stewardship Strategy, 2007
Prioritizes waste reduction and proposes limits on the amount of waste
placed at the curb and a partnership with Spruce Grove to seek
funding for a compost facility
Town of Stony Plain Policies and Procedures
Manual, 2010 Informs Town’s Recycling Program; including procurement practices.
4.2 Management Systems and Tools
Management system and tools, ranging from various regulatory levers—including bylaws, contracts and
financial drivers such as tipping fees—to data tracking and performance measures, are summarized in the
table below.
Table 4: Management Systems and Tools Summary
Type Summary
Regulatory Levers for Waste Minimization Municipal Government Act gives municipalities the ability to regulate
waste management without limitation
Bylaws - SW
A majority of municipalities in the ACR have bylaws that set standards
for what materials are collected in their communities and how
collection and/or drop off takes place
Bylaws – Fire and Nuisance Some bylaws exist to restrict open burning of MSW in urban areas;
some open burning exists in rural areas
Composition Audits (Regional) Material composition is derived from Provincial estimates
Contracts
Contracts are in place for hauling and terms are clearly defined so
adjustments can be adjusted for continual improvement
Collection and processing costs are not publically accessible
Data Tracking
Communities generally have residential data but minimal tonnage
numbers were available for ICI and C&D sectors
Mathematical modeling was used to estimate tonnage by sector in the
ACR (ISL and EBA, 2007)
Financial
Several municipalities have adopted a user pay system to promote
diversion
Grant funding through the Province or other is available to support
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
19
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Table 4: Management Systems and Tools Summary
Type Summary
WM capital funding projects
Governance
Minimal governance over waste and limited ability to control flow of
materials, build efficiencies, track performance and provide continual
improvement
Partnerships
Both formal and informal partnership exist with municipalities
throughout the region, and three commissions/authorities exist to
oversee waste management activities
Performance Measures
Some WM data is collected periodically throughout the region,
especially for the residential sector
Product stewardship programs provide some annual reporting
Personnel Most communities have a designated waste manager or some staff
time allocated for waste management
Outside the City of Edmonton, 12 of the 23 municipalities have organized regional systems to manage their
solid wastes. They are the Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Authority, the Roseridge Waste
Services Commission and the Lamont County Regional Solid Waste Commission.
Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Authority
The Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Authority (Authority) represents Leduc County, City of
Leduc, Town of Beaumont, Town of Devon and Town of Calmar. The municipalities signed an agreement in
the 1970s to establish a waste management authority to provide waste management services for the
member municipalities. The Authority is essentially a committee acting on behalf of its members. Each
municipality appoints a member to the Board that oversees the Authority’s business. The Board members
elect one of their group to be Chairman, usually for one year. Authority management and administration is
contracted to one of the member municipalities. The City of Leduc currently provides this service.
The Authority is not a legal entity and does not have any Provincially delegated authority. Therefore, it
does not have the ability to own property or borrow money. All fiscal responsibility rests with the councils
of the member municipalities. Each member municipality is required to approve the Authority’s capital and
operating budgets. Any major expenditure in excess of the Authority’s approved budget requires approval
of the respective municipal councils. Generally the Authority operates off of revenue generated by
materials that cross the facility’s weigh scale. This includes waste delivered from the member
municipalities and other municipal and commercial clients.
The Authority operates a regional landfill located east of the City of Leduc. The original landfill developed
by the Authority is on Public Land held under a Crown lease by Leduc County on behalf of the Authority. A
recent expansion of landfill operations is on land purchased by Leduc County for the Authority. Operation
of the landfill and associated waste management activities is contracted to MCL Waste Services. (ESRD has
issued an approval to the Authority for the landfill.)
Initially established to provide waste disposal services, activities have evolved over time to the point that
more emphasis is being placed on waste diversion including providing a consolidation area for organics
from member municipalities.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
20
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Roseridge Regional Waste Management Services Commission
The Roseridge Regional Waste Services Commission (Roseridge) was established in 2001 by an Order-in-
Council under Part 15 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA). It was preceded by a waste management
authority representing the same municipalities. Its members are Sturgeon County, Town of Redwater,
Town of Morinville, Town of Legal, Town of Gibbons and Town of Bon Accord. Each municipality appoints a
councillor to be member to the Board of Directors. The Directors are responsible for managing Roseridge.
While the Directors are municipal councillors, they report to the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect
to fiscal matters.
As a regional services commission, Roseridge has real person powers and can own property, borrow
money and operate at a deficit within limits established by provincial regulations. Therefore, Roseridge has
ownership of its land either through clear title or a Crown lease. ESRD has issued an approval for the
landfill and associated facilities, and Roseridge is wholly responsible for compliance.
Roseridge’s waste management facilities include a landfill, recycling areas for metals, batteries, tires, and
other similar material. It also includes composting facilities that were expanded and upgraded in 2012 to
provide a capability to process food waste in addition to the usual yard and garden waste composted in the
past. Operation of the facilities is contracted to MCL Waste Services. Sturgeon County provides
administration and management services for the Commission.
Lamont County Regional Solid Waste Commission
The Lamont County Regional Solid Waste Commission (Lamont) was created by an Order-in-Council under
the MGA in 1999. Its members include Lamont County, Town of Lamont, Town of Bruderheim, Town of
Mundare, Village of Andrew and Village of Chipman. (The last three municipalities are not part of the ACR.)
As a regional service commission, it has real person powers and can own property, borrow money, etc. Its
assets at the time it was established included office and service buildings, a weigh scale, a tracked loader
and sundry other related equipment. It is possible therefore that Lamont operates its own landfill.
The Lamont’s landfill is classified as a small Class II landfill and as such it is registered with ESRD under
EPEA. It must operate in compliance with the Code of Practice for Landfills.
4.3 Operational Infrastructure and Services
4.3.1 Collection
4.3.1.1 Residential
Appendix B provides a detailed overview of the information gathered on municipalities in the ACR. Most of
the municipalities provide curbside collection of waste from their residents and a few provide only a depot
/ drop-off location. For those that provide curbside collection, the majority provide the service on a weekly
basis (four provide collection on a bi-weekly schedule).
Many municipalities have a curbside collection system which includes garbage, recycling, organics, spring
and fall cleanups, etc. Some smaller communities, on the other hand, have drop-off facilities for collection of
waste and recyclable materials. The IWMP must, therefore, consider the capabilities, infrastructure and
different community objectives that exist in the ACR, while still achieving overall regional objectives.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
21
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Waste management services provided by municipalities in the ACR are summarized in Tables 5a, 5b, and
5c. Information was gathered for 19 urban and 5 rural municipalities. A more detailed summary of the
waste collection programs, including materials collected by waste stream, and by community can be found
in Appendix B. For the purposes of this report, residential waste refers to waste from single- and multi-
family units that are collected by or on behalf of the respective municipalities.
Fourteen of the urban municipalities have, or will have in 2013, automated collection for their mixed waste
which limits the amount of waste that can be placed at the curb for collection. Three urban centres also
operate transfer stations that accept mixed waste, and 11 have access to regional landfills for the direct
disposal of mixed waste and miscellaneous large objects such as furniture. Two of the rural municipalities
provide no direct waste management services to their residents although both provide administrative
services for their respective regional waste management facilities. For the most part, this is a function of
the dispersed populations found in largely rural areas. Two other rural municipalities provide residents
with waste management services through combinations of transfer stations and recycling centres. The
other rural municipality, Strathcona County, is unique in that most of its residents live in the Hamlet of
Sherwood Park and receive full curb-side service for mixed waste, organics and recyclables. Rural residents
also have the option of subscribing to these services..
With respect to organic material, 13 urban municipalities have programs for the collection of yard waste.
Of these, 10 use automated collection systems while the others use manual collection and/or drop-off
locations. Seven urban municipalities collect food wastes co-mingled with their yard waste. Three only
collect food waste between April/May and October/November in conjunction with their yard waste
programs.
Most of the materials included in municipal recycling programs were very similar. The predominant
materials were clean paper, plastics and metals. Twelve of the 22 municipalities with recycling programs
also accepted clean, clear glass jars and bottles although there were indications that some or all of this
particular material was destined for landfill disposal. The types of paper generally accepted include
newsprint, office paper, magazines, boxboard and cardboard. Plastics accepted are usually limited to “rigid”
numbered plastics such as low and high density polyethylene (L/HDPE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET),
polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polypropylene, and polystyrene. Plastic bags and plastic film, which are
commonly made of linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE), are often not included. Only one municipality
accepts Styrofoam. Metals are restricted to aluminum and steel food or beverage cans. Some programs,
however, also accept aluminum containers commonly used for “take-out” foods. The emphasis in all
recycling programs is that the material must be clean and dry. Any co-mingling with other wastes usually
results in the material not being collected.
Table C-1 in Appendix C provides a detailed listing, by municipality, of the materials accepted in the
recycling and organics stream. As shown in that table, there is limited uniformity between municipalities;
in particular, there is little uniformity even among those municipalities that utilize the same collection
contractor.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
22
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Table 5a: Residential Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Collection Systems – 2011
Municipality Population1
Total # of
Households
Serviced
Waste Collection
Frequency
Curbside
Collection
Technique
Waste
Collection
Contractor
Beaumont 13,287 4,369 Weekly Automated Ever Green
Bon Accord 1,488 541 Weekly Automated Standstone
Bruderheim 1,155 489 Weekly Automated Standstone
Calmar 1,970 735 Weekly Automated Ever Green
Devon 6,510 2,112 Weekly Automated Ever Green
Edmonton 812,201 341,000 Weekly Manual City and
Contractor
Fort Saskatchewan 19,051 8,398 Weekly Automated BFI
Gibbons 3,030 1,075 Weekly Automated Standstone
Lamont (County) 3,872 1,581 Weekly N/A Standstone
Lamont (Town) 1,783 645 Weekly Manual Town
Leduc (City) 24,279 9,290 Biweekly Automated Ever Green
Leduc (County) 13,541 6,333 Weekly N/A Ever Green
Legal 1,225 440 Weekly Manual Town
Morinville 8,569 2,746 Weekly Automated Standstone
Parkland 30.568 10,931 None Depot None
Redwater 1,915 776 Weekly Automated Standstone
Spruce Grove 26,171 9,619 Weekly Automated Standstone
St. Albert 61,466 19,052 Biweekly Automated City
Stony Plain 15,051 4,417 Biweekly Automated Ever Green
Strathcona 92,490 32,579 Biweekly Automated Ever Green
Sturgeon 19,578 6,546 None
Private collection
in rural
subdivisions
Standstone,
Calahoo, Waste
Management
Thorsby 797 334 Weekly Automated Ever Green
Wabamun 662 265 Weekly Automated Ever Green
Warburg 789 308 Weekly Manual Ever Green
Notes:
1. Population figures for 2011 Census, Statistics Canada.
Table 5b: Recyclable Materials Collection – 2011
Municipality Population
Total # of
Households
Serviced
Program Style
(cart, bag, box)
Curbside
Collection
Technique
Contractor
Beaumont 13,287 4,369 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green
Bon Accord 1,488 541 Blue Bag Manual Sandstone
Bruderheim 1,155 489 Bag & Cart Automated Sandstone
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
23
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Municipality Population
Total # of
Households
Serviced
Program Style
(cart, bag, box)
Curbside
Collection
Technique
Contractor
Calmar 1,970 735 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green
Devon 6,510 2,112 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green
Edmonton 812,201 341,000 Blue Bag Manual City & Contractor
Fort Saskatchewan 19051 8,398 Blue Bag Manual BFI
Gibbons 3,030 1,075 Blue Bag at Depot N/A Sandstone
Lamont (County) 3,872 1,581 None N/A N/A
Lamont (Town) 1,783 645 Box Manual N/A
Leduc (City) 24,279 9,290 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green
Leduc (County) 13,541 6,333 Cart & Depot N/A Ever Green
Legal 1,225 440 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green
Morinville 8,569 2,746 Blue Bag Manual Sandstone
Parkland 30,568 10,931 Depot N/A None
Redwater 1,915 776 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green
Spruce Grove 26,171 9,619 Blue Bag Manual Sandstone
St. Albert 60,466 19,052 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green
Stony Plain 15,051 4,417 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green
Strathcona 92,490 32,579 Bag & Box Manual Ever Green
Sturgeon 19,578 6,546 Depot N/A Standstone
Thorsby 797 334 N/A Manual Ever Green
Wabamun 662 265 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green
Warburg 789 308 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
24
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Table 5c: Organics Collection Systems – 2011
Municipality
Total # of
Households
Serviced
Program
Type
Curbside
Collection
Technique
Organics
Contractor Organics Collection Frequency
Beaumont 4,369 Cart Automated Ever Green Weekly
Bon Accord 541 Cart Automated Standstone Weekly, May-Oct only
Bruderheim 489 Drop-off N/A None None
Calmar 735 Bag Manual Ever Green Weekly, May-Oct only
Devon 2,212 Bag Manual Ever Green Weekly, May-Oct only
Edmonton 341,000 Bag/Can
Manual,
Comingled
waste
None Weekly, collected with and sorted
from mixed waste at EWMC
Fort
Saskatchewan 8,398 Depot None None None
Gibbons 1,075 None None Standstone None
Lamont (County) 1,581 None None None None
Lamont (Town) 645 None None N/A None
Leduc (City) 9,290 Cart Automated Ever Green Weekly Apr-Nov; biweekly Nov-Apr
Leduc (County) 6,333 Drop-off N/A None None
Legal 440 None None None None
Morinville 2,746 Cart Automated Standstone Biweekly, Apr-Nov
Parkland 10,931 Drop-off N/A None None
Redwater 776 Cart Automated Standstone Weekly
Spruce Grove 9,619 Cart Automated Standstone Weekly Apr-Nov only
St. Albert 19,052 Cart Drop-
off Automated Standstone Weekly May-Nov; biweekly Dec-Apr
Stony Plain 4,417 Cart Automated Ever Green Weekly, Apr-Oct Biweekly Nov-Mar
Strathcona 32,579 Cart Automated Ever Green Weekly urban, biweekly rural
Sturgeon 6,546 None None None None
Thorsby 334 None None None None
Wabamun 265 Cart Automated Ever Green Weekly, May-Oct only
Warburg 308 None None None None
4.3.1.2 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional
Addressing waste management issues in the ICI sector may require a broader approach than dealing with
the residential sector. The main difference is one of “control”. Municipalities have control of residential
waste and, for the most part, have allowed the private sector to manage itself. While business may
generally want to “do the right thing”, it is driven by financial issues.
There is reluctance on the part of haulers to divulge any information on the specifics of their business for
fear of creating an economic advantage for their competitors. There is general consensus of support for
diversion within the ICI sector where there is an opportunity to increase profitability for the hauler. While
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
25
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
responses from the private sector were limited, they were unanimous in their objection to any move
toward introducing franchise systems. In order to provide a more substantive response we reviewed
responses highlighted within similar reports within the Province. The concerns raised were consistent with
the local service providers.
4.3.2 Processing
The municipalities in the ACR utilize a variety of processing locations for recyclables and organics as well
as a variety of landfills for the disposal of waste. Maps 1 to 4 (in the Figures Section) outline the locations of
each facility and the respective flow of material to them.
The following sections summarize which processing facility for each of the respective curbside collected
materials are used by each of the municipalities in the ACR. With the exception of the landfills, the available
processing capacities of the MRFs and composting facilities are unknown. This information gap would need
to be closed in order to ensure that that the processing needs of the ACR can be met in future years.
Disposal capacity, on the other hand, appears to be sufficient for the long term. Materials from the ICI
sector are also processed at these facilities.
4.3.2.1 Waste Disposal
Table 6: Summary of Class II Landfills
# Location Municipalities Currently
Using
Annual Quantity
(tonnes / year)
Remaining Airspace
(i.e. life expectancy)
1 Lamont County
Lamont (County) <10,000 75 years
Lamont (Town)
Bruderheim
2 Leduc County
Beaumont
100,000 +15 years
Leduc (City)
Leduc (County)
Calmar
Devon
Thorsby
3 Sturgeon County
Redwater
50,000 (est.) 50 years
Legal
Bon Accord
Gibbons
Morinville
Sturgeon County
St. Albert
Spruce Grove
Stony Plain
Strathcona County
4 Beaver County Edmonton
250,000 +50 years Parkland County (est. 1/3)
5 Brazeau County Parkland County (est. 1/3) Unknown +15 years
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
26
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Table 6: Summary of Class II Landfills
# Location Municipalities Currently
Using
Annual Quantity
(tonnes / year)
Remaining Airspace
(i.e. life expectancy)
Warburg
6 Lac Ste. Anne County Parkland County (est. 1/3)
<10,000 Unknown Wabamun
7 Paintearth County
(Coronation) Fort Saskatchewan Unknown +50 years
8
Camrose County
(West Dried Meat Lake
Regional Landfill)
“Ever Green”
(≈55,000t/yr from
Strathcona County)
386,000 50 years
Table 7: Summary of Class III Landfills
# Location Users Capacity (tonnes / year) Permit
1 Parkland County (Cholla) Private haulers (dry waste) Unknown <5 yrs
2 Parkland County
(Northland) Private haulers (dry waste) Unknown <5 yrs
4.3.2.2 Recycling
Table 8: Summary of Material Recovery Facilities
# Location and
Operator Municipalities currently using
Capacity
(tonnes / year)
Typical Current Throughput
(tonnes / year)
1
Spruce Grove,
Standstone Enviro-
Waste Services
Spruce Grove
Unknown Unknown
Bon Accord
Bruderheim
Gibbons
Lamont (Town)
Morinville
2
Sherwood Park,
Ever Green
Ecological Services
Beaumont
Unknown Unknown
Leduc (City)
Leduc (County)
St. Albert
Strathcona
Calmar
Devon
Legal
Redwater
Stony Plain
Thorsby
Wabamun
Warburg
3 City of Edmonton Edmonton 70,000 51,000
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
27
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
4.3.2.3 Organics
Four destinations for organics containing food waste were identified – the new composting facility at the
Roseridge Regional Landfill, Cleanit-Greenit’s composting facility, an anaerobic digester operated by
Growing Power Hairy Hill at its facility in Two Hills County, Alberta,and the City of Edmonton’s co-
composting facility.
Table 9: Summary of Organics Processing Facilities
# Location and Operator Municipalities currently
using
Capacity
(tonnes / year)
Current Annual Through-Put
(tonnes / year)
1 Edmonton, City of
Edmonton Edmonton 125,000 ≈125,000
2 Morinville, Roseridge
Compost Facility St. Albert 12,600 6,975
3 Edmonton, Cleanit
Greenit Spruce Grove Unknown
Unknown
4 Two Hills, Growing
Power Hairy Hill
Strathcona
Unknown Unknown
Stony Plain Calmar
Calmar Leduc (City)
Leduc (City)
Leduc (County)
Devon
The City of Edmonton’s co-composting facility processes the organics-rich fraction of the collected MSW
after pre-processing to remove the bulk of non-organic materials. It also processes a significant amount of
biosolids (digested sewage sludge). The capacity does not include the biosolids. The facility operates at
capacity in summer months.
Information available from the municipalities of Fort Saskatchewan, Parkland, Bon Accord, Morinville, and
Redwater indicates that while some organics are collected for processing at centralized facilities, some yard
waste is processed at composting facilities operated by the municipalities.
Class 3 Landfills
Cholla Sand & Dry Waste Inc. and Northland Material Handling Inc. are Class 3 landfills located within the
ACR that accept dry waste as fill for sand pit reclamation.
4.3.2.4 Construction and Demolition
The City of Edmonton has C&D recycling capability. About 40,000 tonnes per year of source-separated
material has been recycled for several years. A new mixed material processing facility opened in March
2012 and is expected to recover nearly 70% of the material processed (City of Edmonton 2012). The
facility has a capacity to process up to 100,000 tonnes per year. The Leduc, Roseridge, and Beaver regional
landfills are currently accepting C&D waste as well for disposal. The City of Spruce Grove also accepts
concrete and asphalt rubble for recycling at its public works yard.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
28
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
There are other private facilities that provide C&D recycling in the ACR. These may be single stream
providers such as for asphalt and concrete or multi-stream facilities that will take mixed C&D and will
separate it. There is also a growing interest in the deconstruction business.
Based on the 2011 C&D tonnages from the Leduc, Roseridge and Beaver regional landfills and the City of
Edmonton’s C&D waste processing facilities, just over 79,500 tonnes of C&D waste was processed. The City
of Edmonton’s C&D recycling facility is predicted to be capable of handling the current C&D material from
the entire ACR. What is not known, however, is the quantity of C&D waste placed in the Cholla and
Northlands Class 3 landfills. The approvals for both landfills will expire by 2018 and it is unknown whether
they will be renewed. Additional capacity to process C&D waste may be required in the medium to long
term.
4.4 Promotion and Education
Some jurisdictions use additional education tools to educate residents, promote the collection system and
help to maximize diversion. Examples of these tools include the use of social media, such as phone
applications, Facebook, and Twitter. Some programs are branded with names such as: W.O.W. (Wipe Out
Waste) in Stony Plain, Waste Wise (St. Albert) and The Green Routine (Strathcona County). Edmonton has a
robust educational component to its waste reduction program. Some examples of Edmonton’s educational
programs are a Know Before You Throw campaign, offers Let’s Talk Trash sessions with business and
community groups to review waste minimization options, comprehensive information about materials
accepted at its Eco Stations, facility tours, and offers a Master Composter Recycler Program. The Eco Station
information provided on Edmonton’s website is referenced by many other municipalities in the area to
assist their residents in disposing of items that should not be landfilled. Municipalities that have converted
to automated collection have information to advise residents how to use and/or place their bins properly. A
few other communities also have backyard composting information and/or offer public workshops.
Trends identified included the following:
Jurisdictions with curbside pickup often had more user friendly information available about what
materials could be recycled;
There was minimal adoption of neighbouring education strategies or sharing of programs;
Information amount and location varied by website and often links were either not in a logical
progression or were not functioning; and,
For both online and brochure publicity overall, visuals were minimal and text was verbose.
Some ICI and C&D service providers have recycling and diversion information available on their websites
as promotion material in regard to their particular part of the industry. There is little information that is
cohesive or comprehensive and prepared for broad distribution within the ACR other than that prepared
by government, organizations such as the Recycling Council of Alberta, organizations that administer
stewardship programs within the province, and local government. A majority of local governments within
the ACR post online information and downloadable brochures to inform residents about what materials are
accepted either at curbside or at nearby collection depots. Municipalities with curbside pickup programs
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
29
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
generally post online collection schedules. Other online written information includes recycling fact sheets,
A-Z listings for how to recycle or dispose of materials appropriately, and other web links as appropriate.
4.5 Provincial Policy Framework
The Province of Alberta has established a variety of key policies that govern the management and
minimization of MSW through a number of documents to encourage municipalities to do the same on the
path to reducing Alberta’s MSW being disposed in landfills. Table 10 provides a summary of these
documents and key policy statements:
Table 10: Supporting Policies
Provincial Policy Sources
Alberta Environment, Too Good to Waste, 2008
Alberta Environment, Alberta Municipal Waste Action Plan 2004-2006, 2004
Alberta Environment, Alberta Land Use Framework, 2008
Vision and Strategic Policies
Respectful of Private Property Rights
Respectful of Constitutionally Rights of Aboriginal Communities
Government Wide Vision and Implementation
Management Systems and Tools
Supported by a Land Stewardship Ethic
Collaborative and Transparent
Integrated
Knowledge-Based
Responsive
Fair, equitable and timely
Respectful of Private Property Rights
Government Wide Vision and Implementation
Best Practices
Place-Based Approaches
Flexible Tools and Incentives
Shared Responsibility
Revise and update legislation to focus on the achievement of environmental
outcomes.
Continue to enhance standards for waste management.
Continue to minimize risk to environment and human health.
Accountable and Responsible
Operational Infrastructure and
Services
Establish and enhance stewardship programs for priority waste streams.
Continuous reduction of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) disposed of in
municipal landfills.
Promotion and Education
Collaborative and Transparent
Shared Responsibility
Revise and update legislation to focus on the achievement of environmental
outcomes.
Strengthen Alberta’s policy and legislative framework, in consultation with
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
30
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Table 10: Supporting Policies
Provincial Policy Sources
Alberta Environment, Too Good to Waste, 2008
Alberta Environment, Alberta Municipal Waste Action Plan 2004-2006, 2004
Alberta Environment, Alberta Land Use Framework, 2008
stakeholders that will strengthen and shape pollution prevention and waste
management and diversion systems to 2010.
Increase awareness and understanding of waste management and pollution
prevention issues and solutions.
Promote leadership in innovative research and development to further pollution
prevention and waste reduction goals.
4.6 Material Markets
Having markets for products is critical for the sustainability of waste diversion, for without markets or
alternative end-uses, diverted material will eventually end up back in landfills. Markets also play an
important role in determining the most effective methods for material processing. In 2012, EBA in
conjunction with Cascadia Consulting Group prepared a study of recycling markets for Metro Vancouver.
While the study looked at markets in a British Columbia context, much of the information presented is
applicable to this report and is discussed in the following sections.
4.6.1 Paper
The Metro Vancouver study focused on mixed waste paper, newspaper, cardboard and office paper. The
major market for recovered paper is China and the demand continues to grow. However, Burke and Moore
(WasteExpo, 2012) reported that the demand for paper has lessened to the point that, world-wide, no new
paper mills have been built or are planned. The newest mills built in China are designed solely for recycled
paper fibre. Domestic markets for paper have declined and that is expected to continue. The major decline
has been in the use of “knowledge grade” paper (e.g., newspaper, books, printing and writing paper).
Municipalities in the ACR have the infrastructure in place to collect paper and there are municipal and
private facilities processing the material that is collected. A significant increase in paper recovery would
probably induce the construction/expansion of such facilities.
Mixed waste paper has a strong export market with over 99% of material being sent off-shore. The average
price for this material in the Pacific Northwest was $140/tonne in 2011. Most office paper is also exported
although a decline in the newspaper supply may create a domestic demand for it as a fibre source.
Newspaper has the strongest domestic market but more sorting is required to maintain or increase value.
Cardboard is a highly-valued commodity with approximately 57% exported off-shore. Paper prices, like
most commodities, suffered a downturn with the economy in 2008, but have rebounded. Prices are
influenced by the quality of the material. “Cleaner” paper streams are more valuable because less effort is
required on the part of the end user.
There has been and will continue to be some volatility in the market place. Current demand is strong and is
expected to continue so for the next 10 to 15 years. Market experts are concerned about the long-term
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
31
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
viability of export markets. As mentioned previously, consumption of some types of paper is in decline
primarily due to the increase in the use of electronic devices and social media.
4.6.2 Plastics
The Metro Vancouver study examined all “numbered” rigid plastics, clean single-use plastic retail bags and
other plastic film. Generally the study found that while some materials had strong markets, prices were
highly volatile. The materials with the most promising outlook were HDPE and PET. Both have substantial,
long-term markets. Natural HDPE can be reprocessed into other non-food containers easily, and coloured
HDPE often is used for such things as irrigation pipe and oil containers. PET is most commonly processed
into textiles. PET and natural HDPE have similar values while coloured HDPE has about half the value.
Plastics numbered 3 through 7 have less value and weaker, less consistent markets. Plastic film, including
single-use retail bags, has moderate markets if material is clean and colour-sorted. Bales of mixed plastics
generally are difficult to market and often are shipped off-shore to China and other Asian markets.
Deposit-bearing beverage containers are a significant portion of the recovered plastics stream. PET and
HDPE (milk jugs) are the most common non-metallic beverage containers in the marketplace. Returning
beverage containers of all types provides a revenue source for municipalities and helps to offset collection
costs.
The average price for baled PET in the US in January 2012 was US$540/tonne and natural HDPE was
US$496/tonne. By contrast, the average price for mixed plastics was only US$22/tonne. Prices are higher
for all plastics sold as clean flakes or pellets, but further processing (i.e. more than just collection, sorting
and baling) is required to achieve the high prices.
The quantity of plastics available for recycling is misleading if only judged by weight. Plastics as a whole are
light-weight materials (that is one of their characteristics that make them attractive for packaging). On
average, the bulk density of un-compacted mixed plastics (WRAP, 2010) is about 34 kg/m3. By comparison,
newspapers and magazines have an un-compacted bulk density of about 290 kg/m3. Therefore, from a
volume perspective each tonne of plastics is equivalent to 8.5 tonnes of newspapers and magazines.
While the preference is always to reuse or recycle material, one should not overlook the caloric value of
plastics. At 31.96 MJ/kg, mixed plastics has at least 20% more heating value than coal and only 31% less
than natural gas. It also has the potential to be converted back to the petroleum feedstock from whence it
came through currently available technologies.
4.6.3 Glass
Markets for glass vary depending on the type of glass and the quality of the material. Glass is generally
divided into two types when considering recycling – refundable and non-refundable. The Metro Vancouver
study found that B.C.’s deposit-refund system for beverage containers drives their current high level of
recovery. The same situation exists in Alberta. Refillable containers, predominantly domestic beer bottles,
were returned to breweries for refilling. Non-refillable containers were sent to Vitreous Glass Inc. to be
eventually turned into fiberglass insulation. Non-refundable glass containers collected through curb-side
programs can be recycled the same way provided there is a demand for the material. There is also a smaller
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
32
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
niche market for clear or flint glass as glass beads for reflective paint. A new facility is under construction
by Greys Paper Recycling Ltd. at Edmonton’s Waste Management Centre that will process glass.
Two major problems affect glass marketing. The first is the quality of the product. Clean sorted glass,
regardless of colour can be marketed although MRF operators in the Vancouver area were paying
processors to take the material. High quality cullet can be remade into new glass containers. The Metro
Vancouver study reported that this may be a growing market as making containers from recycled glass
requires less energy than using virgin silica. The second problem is the weight of the material. This makes
shipping any distance costly. The Metro Vancouver study determined that if glass processors in the lower
mainland or Washington State were not available, it would be not be cost effective to ship glass to Vitreous
Glass Inc. in Alberta. One can assume that the reciprocal would also be the case.
The study also found that curbside collection contributes to some of the marketing problems for glass by
comingling different colours of glass. Once broken, glass becomes harder to sort. New technology may help
in this regard as optical sorters are becoming more available. Technology carries a price, however, which
adds to processing costs to achieve the high quality cullet required for sustainable markets.
4.6.4 Organics
The primary “market” for organics is facilities that can process this material aerobically or anaerobically
into other usable products such as compost and bio-fuels. The organics stream consists of yard and garden
waste such as grass clippings, tree trimmings, leaves and plant material, food waste, and soiled paper and
cardboard (pizza boxes). Outside of Edmonton, yard and garden materials the predominant material
collected and its goes almost exclusively to relatively small windrow composting operations. On the other
hand, the City of Edmonton composted about 125,000 t of material with a diversion rate of about 75
percent despite the facilities being shutdown for upgrading. The City of Edmonton sells or uses internally
all of its compost.
Another market destination for organics is anaerobic digestion (AD) facilities. Organics are processed
under anaerobic conditions to produce methane and other combustible gases that can be used to produce
energy or processed further into bio-fuels. The federal government has mandated that all diesel and
gasoline sold in Canada must have a minimum renewable content of 2 and 5% respectively.
4.6.5 Material Processing Options
Composting
Composting is the most common process used to convert organics into a usable product. By providing the
proper blend of nutrients, moisture and oxygen, natural biological processes convert wastes into a humus-
like material that can be used as a soil amendment applied directly to lawns and gardens or mixed with soil
to create a growth medium.
The most common composting methods are based on static piles or windrows. In the presence of water and
oxygen, naturally-occurring bacteria will flourish and break down the degradable components in the waste.
The aerobic biological process converts the waste to carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapour and an earthy
humus material and generates sufficient heat to raise the temperature inside the windrow to over 60˚C. If
sustained for sufficient time, this temperature will destroy pathogens and seeds in the compost. Aerobic
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
33
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
conditions are maintained by turning and mixing the material periodically during the composting process.
Once tests show that the compost has stabilized, it will be allowed to cure for a period of time which allows
the biological processes to slow down and the compost cools off. The composted material is then screened
to remove any foreign material such as glass and plastics and any bulking agents such as wood chips that
may have been added to allow air flow through the composting material.
Because the natural biological processes occur relatively slowly, static pile and windrow composting can
required large land areas for both the primary composting operation and for curing. The typical time
period for windrow composting is four to six months followed by a curing period. This timeframe works
well for yard and garden waste as the composting process that starts in summer is usually completed by
the next spring. This coincides with the growing season in the ACR.
Other composting technologies exist that require less land and can complete the process in a much shorter
time. These are commonly referred to as in-vessel processes. Construction and operating costs are higher
than windrows, but they have the benefit of not being affected by weather and can function consistently all
year round. They also can process feedstock quicker than windrow processes.
Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion (AD) as a technology has been around for many years. It has been used extensively to
process animal manure and waste from the food processing industry. More recently, anaerobic digester
feedstocks have expanded to include organic waste from municipal sources.
Wastes are mixed in a closed vessel in the absence of oxygen. Anaerobic bacteria extract oxygen for the
feedstock and/or added inorganic oxides. The digestion process to optimize methane production is
complex requiring control of temperature and pH. The higher the temperature, the faster the bacteria
produce methane. Mesophiles (mesophilic bacteria) operate in an ambient temperature range between
20°C and 45°C while thermophiles (thermophilic bacteria) operate in a temperature range between
49°C and 70°C. While mesophiles don’t produce methane as efficiently, they are more stable and less
affected by changes in the operating process. Thermophiles produce methane more efficiently but the
process is harder to control and requires more energy input.
AD processes can operate on a batch or continuous basis. In continuous processing more material is added
and processed material or digestate is removed. AD can be done as a single stage or as a multi-stage
process. AD systems are considered “wet” or “dry” depending on the solids content in the digester.
Large-scale AD systems can be expensive depending on the type of process and equipment required.
Continuous processes require tankage constructed of concrete and/or steel and include pumping facilities.
Feedstock contamination can be a significant problem requiring additional feedstock processing to protect
equipment and ensure continuous operation.
AD processes are more complex than the aerobic processes involved in composting and require greater
control. However, waste can be processed much faster than some composting processes.
4.6.5.1 Material Recovery Facilities
Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) are facilities used to sort a variety of recyclable materials and from a
variety of sources. Curbside collected recyclables can be set to MRFs either co-mingled (i.e., single stream),
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
34
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
dual stream (i.e., separate collection of fibre and containers) and multi-stream (i.e., separate collection for
plastics, metals, glass and fibre products).Material collected and transported to a MRF for processing from
the ICI and C&D sectors may be typical recyclables (i.e., containers and fibres) but may also include wood,
drywall, metals, shingles, and so on. The complexity of the MRF process depends on the materials being
sorted and the desired product quality. It can be as simple as a conveyor with workers hand-picking
materials off the belt or as complex as an automated systems using a combination optical and pneumatics
sorters and magnets to sort mixed material.
The most common form of a MRF uses conveyors and an elevated sort table. Waste material is dumped
onto the conveyor and as it passes a series of stations, workers remove either desired material or
contaminants. Selected material drops into bins below the sort table and then is usually baled or
compacted for shipping to specific material processors.
The City of Edmonton operates a MRF at the Edmonton Waste Management Centre dedicated to processing
the recyclables collected through the City’s blue bag and blue bin programs. Edmonton’s Integrated
Processing and Transfer Facility at the waste management centre performs a similar task by processing
mixed waste to sort out feedstock for the co-composter from feed stock for other waste processes such as
the biofuel project currently under construction.
Refuse-Derived Fuel
Processing waste to produce what is called Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) has also been around for some time.
In the past, it referred to the processing undertaken to produce a product that could be burned to produce
heat for steam and/or electricity generation. Waste is shredded and blended. Various sorting techniques
are used to remove non-combustible materials such as metals and glass. The feedstock may or may not
contain food wastes and other similar materials. The resulting product can be baled, compressed or left as
loose “fluff” depending on the intended market.
The heating value, moisture content and ash content vary with the feedstock. One of the new units at
Edmonton’s Waste Management Centre is an RDF plant to produce feedstock for Enerkem’s bio-fuel plant.
When Enerkem’s plant is fully operational, it will consume about 100,000 tonnes per year of feedstock
from the RDF unit in Edmonton’s Integrated Processing and Transfer Facility.
Bio-Fuel Production
Waste can be used as feedstock for biofuel production. The basic principle behind biofuel production is the
conversion of carbon-rich material into synthetic gas such as carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2) or
methane (CH4) in the presence or absence of oxygen. First generation biofuel processes use sugar and/or
oils derived from plants while second generation processes can use more complex feedstocks including
carbon-rich components of your typical solid waste. Two biofuel projects in the Edmonton area are in
development.
Growing Power Hairy Hill (GPHH) is an integrated bio-refinery in Two Hills County, Alberta based on
Himark bioGas’ IMUS technology to convert agricultural and municipal waste and wheat into fuel ethanol.
The wastes are processed in an anaerobic digester to produce methane which is used to drive the rest of
the process. Capacity information on the GPHH plant is available.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
35
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Enerkem Inc. is building a biofuels plant at Edmonton’s Waste Management Centre. When in full production
the plant will convert 100,000 t of RDF in methanol and ethanol. Enerkem will use a proprietary
thermochemical process to convert carbon-rich residuals into synthetic gas (“syngas”, CO and H2). Syngas
then undergoes a reaction in the presence of a catalyst to produce alcohols (methanol and ethanol) and
other chemicals.
Construction and Demolition
C&D services are provided by a variety of techniques such as commercial blue bin recycling programs
which services that include providing bins for all types of construction waste, delivery, pick-up and
tracking of all the waste streams from the site. Waste is converted into recycled products. There are other
service providers within ACR who specifically deal with metal recycling. These services cover the pick-up,
processing, brokering and shipping of a vast array of metals. There are also facilities that recycle wood
waste and produce wood fiber for landscaping, compost and “hog fuel” for energy production. There are a
number of plants that produce aggregate from used concrete within the ACR. There are also reuse
companies for asphalt which turn a number of components such as roadbed and asphalt shingles into new
roadbed.
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING SYSTEM
A variety of methods were employed to aid the solid waste management team to assess the existing system
including: SWOT analysis, gap analysis, and a review of best practices. The results of these methods and the
assessment of the existing system is contained in the following subsections.
5.1 SWOT Analysis
There are currently various sustainable solid waste initiatives in place across the municipalities in the ACR.
Implementation of many of these relied on initiatives from individual municipalities, often without a
regional outlook.
The experiences and successes in many municipalities and communities are localised and their efforts have
not transferred to regional success at all levels. Lessons learned from the unique experiences in individual
municipalities are compiled; so potential benefits can be applied across the region. Compilation of these
programs and initiatives will be key to the development of a comprehensive IWMP that will contribute to
long-term regional sustainability.
Table 5.0-1 in the Tables section following the report provides a summary of the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats (SWOT) within the existing ACR waste management system. This information
was assembled based on various methods of discourse with each stakeholder and consulting team
members familier with the ACR system. The aim of the discourse was to identify programs to take
advantage of opportunities and strengths and build from successful programs currently in place while
protecting against weaknesses and threats.
The SWOT matrix is split by the waste management groupings below. This analysis was used to produce a
gap analysis that, along with best practices, informs the development of the policy and program options.
Vision and Strategic Policies;
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
36
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Management Systems and Tools;
Operational Infrastructure and Services; and
Promotion and Education.
5.2 Gap Analysis
A growth in understanding and a system to monitor performance from the time a program is implemented
to both determine its advantages or to respond to itsdisadvantages are key aspects in a programs’
continuous improvement. Policies are required to monitor performance and respond to change.
Mechanisms for adequate review of consulting reports, strategy development to implement initiatives, and
administration of contracts by solid waste service providers are all key elements of this system approach.
These studies, once completed, may not be reviewed or lack proper mechanisms for future monitoring and
improvements due to lack of human resources, lack of funding or technical expertise. Therefore, these
studies could bring short-term benefits, but their recommendtions may not be able to be implemented
within a long-term sustainable system.
Waste disposal issues have been a concern for many municipalities due to lack of accessible disposal
capacity and longer hauling distances. One way to reduce this burden is to work together, through a
cooperative approach.
Implementing certain elements of the Provincial Waste Strategy may be possible in some municipalities,
but not feasible in others. Therefore, a target, with flexibility, could help to minimize stress to local
governments, stresses which could result in solid waste system failures. As such, programs should be
implemented in a systematic way, with continuous monitoring of overall progress.
Table 10 identifies gaps within the current system preventing the ACR from reaching the Provincial target
of 80% reduction by 2020 as compared to current baseline generation rates.
Table 11: Gap Analysis Summary
Item Gaps
Vision and Strategic Policies
Waste and Land Use Plans
Provincial policies set ambitious goals but are not clearly defined and are
minimally backed by regulation
No regional land use plan
Waste management is not considered a high priority as per the Capital
Region Growth Plan, which addresses population and economic growth
Waste Management Plans by Jurisdiction Inconsistency in waste management and sustainability planning across
region; where plan is available the policies and programs are different
Management Systems and Tools
Regulatory Levers for Waste Minimization Provincial policies and strategies are not supported by regulations.
Bylaws – Solid Waste Municipalities don’t use bylaws to direct waste management policies.
Bylaws – Fire and Nuisance Open burning is permitted in rural areas
Composition Audits (Regional) Unknown composition by material stream
Unknown percentage material, by stream, by sector available for collection
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
37
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Table 11: Gap Analysis Summary
Item Gaps
Unknown potential recovery by material type within each material stream
Contracts Term (particularly end date) of collection and processing unknown
Collection and processing costs are not known
Data Tracking
Not all municipalities have reported collected tonnages (thus, tonnages
estimated for approximately half of the municipalities)
Unknown if historical tracking of tonnages (by month) is performed
Minimal records available by ICI and C&D sectors, especially as
disaggregated by jurisdiction
Tonnage should be tracked based on post-processed material vs. collected
Financial
Waste management initiatives have to compete with other needs for
funding
General perception by the public and decision-makers that diversion costs
more requires addressing as this is not always the case
Governance
Minimal governance over waste and limited ability to control flow of
materials, build efficiencies, track performance and provide continual
improvement
No regional governance structure to manage measurement and tracking.
Partnerships Partnerships between municipalities are primarily informal and not as well
leveraged as they could be
Performance Measures No regional performance measures with respect to diversion or processing
Personnel Some staff are in place to support waste management and waste reduction
initiatives, but resources are limited overall
Operational Infrastructure and Services
Collection
Unknown what Lamont and Sturgeon Counties accept in the recycling
stream
A number of jurisdictions were not collecting glass as part of their curbside
collection or recycling depot systems, including deposit glass.
Processing Facilities
Unknown annual capacity and current throughput of the MRFs and
composting facilities in use.
Unknown processing efficiency (i.e., residue rates and end product quality)
of the MRFs and composting facilities
Life span of CleanIt-GreenIt composting facility is unknown.
Some population segments don’t have access to processing facilities
Material Exchange Few jurisdictions provide opportunities for material exchange; no regional
exchange system
Promotion and Education
General
No regional branding or regional campaigns (e.g., promote holiday waste
minimization or organics diversion)
Minimal sharing of more developed branding, programming or other
diversion-oriented initiatives
Less information was available for residents accessing depot and land fill
drop off sites, as compared to those receiving pickup service
Minimal government supported educational efforts for C&D and ICI waste
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
38
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Table 11: Gap Analysis Summary
Item Gaps
diversion efforts, through consistent signage, campaigns or other
coordination with haulers
Online Sites Some information is difficult to find on site; minimal shared branding
Minimal visuals of what is and isn’t accepted
Innovative Programs
Minimal behaviour change incentives/programming to promote diversion,
especially as it pertains to community-based social marketing and other
hands on programming; programs exist but aren’t distributed across ACR
5.3 Best Approaches to Waste Diversion
5.3.1 Waste Minimization Targets
In the waste management goals in Alberta’s strategy document, Too Good to Waste, it is recommended that
the ACR adopt more stringent waste reduction targets and feedback mechanisms over a longer period. The
first target sets an 80% diversion (and energy recovery) goal by 2020. The second sets a 500 kilogram
(kg)/capita/year target based on waste generated across all sectors.
The targets need to be set against a baseline established using data from 2011, and can be adjusted
regularly as waste composition by sector shifts and new programs are adopted. As specific programs are
implemented, interim targets can be developed to focus on recyclable and compostable materials in the
existing waste stream by sector. GHG savings can also be quantified based on the lower carbon footprint for
processing recyclables and compostables rather than disposing of them as garbage. Updated population
projections can be used to map out per capita targets to align with future ACR goals and move towards
meeting the Provincial target of 500 kg/capita/year.
For the process to be meaningful, the municipalities need to establish strong, long-term goals. Once these
are established, interim goals can be crafted and the policies, programs and infrastructure can be selected
to achieve the interim and long-term targets. This is a collaborative exercise that needs to be undertaken as
part of Phase 2 of the project.
5.3.2 Advanced Programming
There are many growing trends in waste management program delivery as it pertains to waste diversion
programs. According to SERA (2008), an American Consulting company, waste diversion programs range
from having an impact of 1-25% diversion on residents in municipalities. Curbside yard waste collection
varies on the season and cost of the program but has a typical impact of 15-25% on waste reduction.
Additionally, User Pay/ Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) programs generally have an impact of 6-17% and
increased education has an impact of 1-3%. The examples below provide an overview of programmatic
options popular in provincial, federal and international juridictions.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
39
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Product Stewardship – This has recently evolved into Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), having
the definition of “a policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility, physical and/or financial, for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle” (CCME, 2009). The responsibility is shifted upstream in the product life cycle from the consumer and municipalities to the producer. Incentives are provided to producers to incorporate environmental considerations in their products’ designs. This policy shift to EPR is extremely popular in Europe and is gaining traction across Canada, especially in British Columbia and Ontario.
C&D Programs – Several C&D waste diversion programs are currently being practised in North America
that either aim to recycle the used products or encourage waste diversion up front in the construction process.
The City of Calgary, Alberta has increased tipping fees for loads containing materials on a “Designated
Materials List”. Common C&D materials such as concrete, brick and masonry block, asphalt, and scrap
metals are currently included on the Designated Materials List. As of July 2, 2013, recyclable wood and
drywall will also be included on the list.
The City of Calgary currently accepts clean, source-separated loads of C&D material at one of its
landfills for diversion. Starting July 2, 2013 a second City landfill will also accept C&D material and a
third such landfill is to open in 2014. The materials that are currently accepted are recyclable wood,
drywall, asphalt shingles, and cardboard.
Aquatera Utilities Inc., the City of Grand Prairie’s solid waste service provider, offers a cardboard
recyclng program for commercial customers. Cardboard recycling are located at strategic locations
throughout the city. The program is funded by a $12.88 per month cardboard recycling fee on
commercial customer utility bills. To encourage participation, the landfill tipping fee for loads
containing large amounts of cardboard is double the normal $89 per tonne.
The City of Oakland, California requires all new construction, demolition, and addition/alteration
projects exceeding $50,000, to submit a Material Recovery Plan as a part of the permit application
process. The Plan requires diversion of 50% or more by weight of all the excess or wasted C&D
materials used on the project site.
ICI Diversion – There are various programs being utilised across the continent that target the waste from
the ICI industry ranging from economic and regulatory options to voluntary options.
The Town of Jasper, Alberta has collection sites around town for businesses to take their recyclables,
organics, and waste. Additional individual organics bins are available for all businesses that wish to
participate in the program. The Town collects the materials from the community collection sites and
participating businesses and hauls it to the transfer station.
The City of Red Deer, Alberta has a Franchise Waste System which requires the City’s waste haulers to
report waste quantities on an annual basis. Having annual waste data provides the City with a baseline
for measuring waste diversion progress.
The Regional District of Nanaimo, British Columbia has a mandatory food waste diversion program for
the ICI sector and has banned food waste from their landfill.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
40
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
The City of San Francisco, California has implemented a commercial organics source separated
program. The collection of the food waste is provided by the City’s two franchised waste haulers.
Organics – Because the MSW stream usually contains mostly organics by weight , many municipalities
have made organics diversion programs a primary focus to achieve desired targets.
The City of Calgary has conducted an organics curbside green cart pilot project in four of its
communities. Acceptable material for the green cart includes all food scraps, compostable paper,
animal waste and litter, grass clippings, and yard and garden debris. The City hopes to bring the
project full scale once a suitable organics facility has been developed.
The City of Edmonton processes its residential waste stream through a co-composter. The acceptable
material is composted and the end-product is sold or used internally by the City.
The City of Toronto, Ontario offers complimentary organics collection to its customers that participate
in the Yellow Bag program (recycling program for the commercial sector).
Curbside Recycling – Several municipalities in North America provide curbside recycling to its residents
in order to encourage recycling and waste diversion in the household.
Biweekly Garbage Collection – The reduction of garbage collection to biweekly, alternating with
recyclables and/or organics has become a common practice in many areas in order to help encourage residents to recycle and divert more organic material.
The Town of Olds, Alberta has biweekly garbage collection in black carts (360 L/ 96 gal) that
alternates with organics collection.
Strathcona County, Alberta has had biweekly automated garbage collection in black carts (240 L/ 65
gal) that alternates with organic green cart (240 L/ 65 gal) collection. This program has been in effect
since July of 2008.
The City of Calgary included biweekly garbage as a part of its organics green cart pilot program. The
garbage black carts (360 L/ 96 gal) were collected biweekly and the organic green carts (120 L/ 32
gal) were collected weekly.
Several jurisdictions in Ontario and Nova Scotia have biweekly garbage collection. It is alsoa growing
trend on the West Coast in municipalities such as Nanaimo and in several Metro Vancouver cities
including Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and West Vancouver.
User Pay or Pay As You Throw (PAYT) – Encourages residents to take advantage of opportunities to
reduce their waste, as well as take advantage of waste diversion opportunities. It is implemented by limiting container size, or offering a few choices of disposal carts with a price differential that promotes the smaller size.
Over the past decade, PAYT programs have become the standard approach adopted by small and large
communities to promote effective waste diversion among the residential sector. Communities in Western
Canada have fully embraced PAYT, which is now considered the norm for managing and financing MSW
systems. Some PAYT programs are more flexible and provide greater options to residents while others are
very simple in their approach.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
41
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
The City of St. Albert initiated PAYT in 1996 and has evidenced a 25% drop in waste generation
(Sonnevera International Corp., 2008).
The City of Victoria, British Columbia allows residents to put only one can of garbage on the curb,
which is covered by an annual fee. Otherwise, residents must purchase tags for additional garbage.
The City of Prince George, British Columbia implemented an automated variable cart collection system
in order to permit the homeowners a choice of the size of their garbage bin. The resident has a choice
between three bins: a large 360 L (95 gal), a medium 250 L (65 gal) and a small 135 L (35 gal), with the
smallest bin size having the lowest annual fee.
Promotion and Education – Promotion of waste diversion in the commercial sector. Promotion and
education can encourage waste diversion awareness and increased participation in existing programs. Community-based social marketing (CBSM) is a common approach to fostering behaviour change in residents and businesses. CBSM first identifies the barriers and benefits to an activity, such as recycling, and utilizes “tools” that have been demonstrated to be effective in changing behaviour. For example, in order to increase recycling participation rates, first the barriers and benefits to recycling must be identified. Lack of convenience and understanding are examples of barriers for recycling. Strategies are then developed to increase the recycling behaviour among individuals. Curbside recycling is a result of CBSM since it solves the convenience problem for most residents. Additionally, seeing your neighbour put out their recycling bin, encourages you to do so as well, making it the norm and placing guilt on non- participants with no recycling bin placed on the curb.
Monitoring – Measurement is a critical component of any good waste management system.
Comprehensive and accurate measurement provides the foundation for decision making through
monitoring system performance. Measurement also provides the basis for benchmarking, based on
baseline program information, as well as comparative analysis between jurisdictions.
Disposal bans from landfill – Materials, such as recyclables or yard waste, can be prohibited from
disposal to require residents to participate in reduction and diversion programs. The diversion delivered can be significant but depends on the extent of the bans, and the level of education and enforcement.
The Regional District of Nanaimo, British Columbia banned ICI food waste from entering its regional
landfill in 2005. On average the district now process about 3,500 tonnes of organics in its organics
facility. Their regional landfill lifespan has also been significantly increased.
Differential Tipping Fees – Increased fees for loads containing specified/ designated materials. Readily
recyclable materials are generally placed on a “Designated Materials List” and if loads coming into the landfill contain any materials on the list, the load is charged a higher tipping fee than general MSW.
Disposal Surcharges – Levy or surcharge placed on waste entering city landfills. This surcharge serves the
dual purpose of creating a financial disincentive, while also providing a funding mechanism for diversion programming. This program can work in concert with the ban of recyclables in garbage.
All of these waste diversion programs help increase the participation of waste diversion amongst residents
and/ or businesses. With the increase of waste diversion programs across North America, municipalities
are experiencing higher waste diversion rates, extending the life of their landfills, reducing the emission of
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
42
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
greenhouse gases, and improving economic performance with the many spin-off businesses involved in the
recycling industry.
5.3.3 Best Management Practices
Established best practices have been identified to guide the development of new programs within the ACR.
In addition to policies and plans reviewed from Alberta and the ACR, several best practices documents
were reviewed as part of this study from across Canada, and are noted in the Table 11. More specifics on
best practices can be found in Figures 5.5.3-1, 5.5.3-2 and 5.3.3-3 in the Figures Section following the
report.
Table 12: Best Practice Reports Informing the Study
Report Description
Sustainable Community Planning in
Canada: Status and Best Practices, 2009
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) – Purpose was to undertake
research on current best practices in sustainable community planning in
Canadian municipalities to develop an integrated approach towards the
implementation of sustainability goals using a long-term perspective in an
adaptive framework.
Waste Diversion Success Stories from
Canadian Municipalities, 2009
FCM – Summary of Keys to Success, Leading Edge Trends and Lessons
Learned from communities across Canada.
Solid Waste as a Resource Guide for
Sustainable Communities, 2004
FCM – Developed to assist municipal governments in developing
management systems that minimize waste and maximize the use of
resources.
A Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended
Producer Responsibility, 2009
CCME – Objective is to achieve common and coordinated policies and
commitments for government action.
A Canada-wide Strategy for Sustainable
Packaging, 2009
CCME – Objective is to develop a strategy to reduce packaging waste and
promote sustainable choices across the supply chain.
Blue Box Program Enhancement and Best
Practices Assessment Project, 2007
Prepared for Stewardship Ontario, this report involved a significant analytical
exercise and consensus building process, using a fact-based approach –
rooted in site visit evidence, expert contributions and statistical analysis – to
finalize a set of Best Practices for municipal recycling programs.
Policy Statement on Waste Management
Planning: Best Practices for Waste
Managers, 2007
Ontario Ministry of Environment - Articulates and outlines a framework and
principles for decision making by all waste managers and provides specific
direction to guide the development of long-term municipal waste
management plans. The intension is to achieve consistent and timely waste
management planning and to make the decision making process
transparent.
Report Description
Guide to the Preparation of Regional
Solid Waste Management Plans, 1994
British Columbia Ministry of Environment – Intended to assist municipalities
in preparing or amending waste management plans and to provide a
blueprint for reducing waste generation and waste disposal to achieve a
(minimum of) 50% diversion from landfill.
Solid Waste Resource Management
Strategy, 1995
Nova Scotia Environment – Developed with extensive input and consultation,
the document outlines how achieving maximum environmental and economic
benefits while minimizing cost in the management of solid waste.
Best Practices for Multi-Family Food
Scraps Collection, 2011
Recycling Council of BC (RCBC) – Developed by the RCBC Organics
Working Group to establish best practices through a review of literature and
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
43
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
direct interviews with a variety of leading municipalities.
The City of Edmonton, through the Edmonton Waste Management Centre of Excellence, contributes to the
development and implementation of best management practices in solid waste management. Activities
focus on three areas – technology development, applied research, and education and training.
Fundamental best practices that apply to all communities—regardless of size or location in Canada—
include:
6. Develop and implement an up-to-date solid waste management plan (e.g., this Plan)
7. Develop a multi-municipal planning approach to collection and processing
8. Establish defined performance measures, including diversion targets, monitoring and a continuous
improvement program
9. Optimize operations in collection and processing
10. Train key program staff in core competencies
11. Follow generally accepted principles for effective procurement and contract management
12. Adopt an appropriately planned, designed and funded promotion and education program and
13. Establish and enforce polices that induce waste diversion.
Once designed, each policy or program needs to apply these fundamental best practices and be
implemented, measured, monitored and continuously improved to ensure the respective goals and targets
are met, as discussed further in Section 9.
5.4 Results of Existing System Assessment
Many members of the ACR have undertaken various initiatives to address solid waste management within
their respective jurisdictions; as well as providing many strategic policies to guide decisions, while solid
waste infrastructure and programming is well developed. To achieve the Provincial 80/20 goal by the year
2020, the ACR will need to expand waste diversion programs and regionalize systems to improve efficiency
and consistency.
Having completed SWOT, gap and best practices analyses, committee member and private company
interviews, and the input of the experienced consulting team, the key elements that need to be addressed in
the new system have been identified :
1. Current diversion rate trends will not achieve the Provincial waste minimization targets
2. The ACR will need a clear waste minimization target on which to base the selection and design of
related programs
3. Waste disposal rates per capita should be used to measure the success of waste minimization within
municipalities to ensure that rural municipalities (that typically generate less MSW, but do not have
the waste minimization infrastructure typical of urban municipalities) are compared equitably
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
44
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
4. Programs should encourage and build from several examples of cooperation between ACR
municipalities (i.e. waste authorities/commissions)
5. Much more attention, and effort, need to be put toward developing waste minimization and regulation
programs in the IC&I and C&D waste sectors as they are the source of highest amount of MSW going to
disposal
6. The IC&I and C&D sectors are significant in size and will require any changes to be implemented
consistently and equitably amongst businesses, while being engaged directly by the ACR to gain both
an understanding and consensus prior to the development of any major initiatives going forward
7. Harmonization of service levels, programs, acceptable materials, contract language, and promotion
and education programs will increase the overall economies of scale and benefit residents with greater
efficiency in service delivery
8. An annual detailed performance measurement program is needed to improve the understanding of
waste stream compositions and quantities including regional and seasonal variability in order to track
improvement and design suitable waste minimization programs to target areas needing more
attention
9. Municipal program information and performance data should be distributed and shared by all ACR
member municipalities
10. The low disposal tipping fee and lack of disposal bans are major barriers to providing a financial
incentive for increasing waste diversion
11. Programming in the ACR should focus on those that are strategic, universal and/or transferable to
benefit all member municipalities and ensure customized programs of a particular municipality are the
responsibility of that host municipality
12. A consistent decision process is needed to maintain ACR values to ensure new programs and Plan
amendments in the future are consistent with the values, programs and targets of this current Plan
13. The existing infrastructure capacity is insufficient in meeting the diversion targets within this Plan;
municipalities are open to either government or privately constructed and operated facilities being
constructed/developed to meet expected demand
14. Plastics diversion and management are a major concern to members of the ACR
15. Organics and fibre are the primary sources of waste diversion
16. Relationships with adjacent jurisdictions should be fostered to the extent where the benefits are
mutually beneficial. Additionally, the Calgary Regional Partnership since together with the ACR the
majority of Alberta’s population is represented providing a strong ability to guide Provincial policy in
this regard
17. There is currently insufficient legislation to encourage, enable and empower Alberta municipalities in
their efforts to minimize waste
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
45
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
18. The ACR does not currently have the governance system, authority and resources to manage and
implement a regional waste management system
19. Because of the many differences in the many communities residing within the ACR, regional long range
strategies are needed to ensure all member municipality concerns are addressed; to that end programs
that can be universally applied and implemented quickly will be needed to demonstrate progress and
develop confidence in such a regional system
20. Best practices, Provincial and Recycling Council of Alberta initiatives should always be considered
prior to the development of new programs
21. Current Provincial stewardship programs do not meet the principles of CCME’s Canada-Wide
Principles for Extended Producer Responsibility
6.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
A triple bottom line assessment (TBL) of high priority programs planned for Phase 2 will help to detail all
the advantages and disadvantages of particular programs consistent with widely accepted values amongst
ACR member municipalities. Prioritizing these programs based on a scoring system is a useful tool for
decision-making and will also help to improve implementation.
After a review of member municipality strategic plans, the evaluation criteria needed to conduct a later TBL
assessment of the recommended short list in Phase 2 have been provided for this report .
The TBL assessment will not include detailed economic analyses, but rather high-level considerations
quantified at the planning level. This information will allow the ACR to identify and focus on the key values
needed to assess each major policy, or program, and will form the basis of the Integrated Waste
Management Implementation Plan (Phase 2). The following sections discuss the approach and the criteria
used for the assessment and comparison.
6.1 Category Selection
Specific criteria were grouped into three different areas typical of a TBL process as follows:
Economic Effect Potential;
Environmental Effect Potential; and
Social Effect Potential.
6.2 Development of Criteria
The criteria to be used to assess the options were based primarily on key values and priorities most
important to the Province of Alberta and the participating municipalities. These criteria were developed
following reviews of select municipal/Provincial literature, and interviews and meetings with members of
the ACR and private industry. Policies were identified and considered from the various sources noted
above providing an understanding of what was relevant to a regional system, the policies that were most
common, and as such, were weighted accordingly to provide a draft set of criteria for the ACR to consider
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
46
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
and amend if necessary. The following local strategic environmental reports were reviewed in addition to
Provincial literature identified in Section 4.5:
Town of Beaumont, Environmental Baseline Report, Urban Systems, July 2012;
Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Authority, Announcement, December, 2010;
St. Albert Proposed Corporate Business Plan, 2012;
Town of Stony Plain Policies and Procedures Manual, Recycling Program, July 12, 2012;
Town of Stony Plain Environmental Stewardship Policy, 2007;
Strathcona County Website, Sustainability, September, 2012; and
City of Edmonton, “The Way We Green”, The City of Edmonton’s Environmental Strategic Plan, July,
2011.
6.2.1 Assessment Criteria - Descriptions
The following sections provide a list of the developed criteria and their descriptions for the purpose of
assessing each select policy, and/or program specified in the recommended short list during Phase 2 of this
study:
Economic Effect Potential
Potential to increase business performance and economic opportunities - Increased business
performance and economic opportunities are being realized as a result of smart materials
management. Pertains to both material recovery businesses as well as other commercial sector
businesses seeking waste prevention and reduction measures.
Potential to be financially sustainable over the long-term – Because some programs may receive
up-front funding, the purpose of this criterion is to provide weighting on how affordable a program is
over the long term.
Potential to receive Provincial grant funding for start-up - Some programs are better candidates
for receiving Provincial funding and as such have little reason to be delayed. It is expected that most of
the recommended programs will be good candidates; however, if there are those with a much higher
probability of receiving grants, then they should receive a higher priority status.
Environmental Effect Potential
Potential to Reduce Solid Waste – ACR will strive to be close to meeting its 80/20 Goal by 2020 and
move progressively toward zero solid waste in a cost-effective, efficient and environmentally sound
manner. The food system is managed to minimize waste. Develop, expand and promote programs and
infrastructure that increase local recycling diversion rates, especially for food scraps.
Potential to reduce current GHG emissions – Substantially reduce GHG emissions associated with
solid waste management as it relates to landfill methane emissions, transportation and the upstream
impact of material management (i.e., manufacturing and transportation of products and packaging).
Factor in GHG savings achieved by recycling and composting as compared to disposal.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
47
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Potential to Reduce Toxics discharged into the environment – Substances and chemicals that are
potentially harmful to human, animal, and environmental health are being eliminated, replaced, or
managed in a way so that they are not discharged into the natural environment.
Social Effect Potential
Potential to improve convenient diversion opportunities to ACR residents and visitors – The
community is ‘closing the loop’ by providing appropriate and convenient opportunities for reducing,
reusing, composting, repairing and recycling materials. Since convenience diversion opportunities are
essential to a successful waste minimization program, convenience should be a factor in the
assessment.
Potential to develop or enhance partnerships to achieve positive outcomes – Partnerships are
developed such that collective procurement choices favour companies and suppliers that are
consistent with our identified materials and solid waste values (i.e., partnering for success).
Potential to be transferrable to all member municipalities - The ACR contains many municipalities
all with various solid waste disposal and minimization plans. Because cooperation is dependent upon
how useful a program is for a member municipality, then the ease of which a program can be adjusted
to suite each member municipality is an important consideration.
Potential for local government to successfully manage the program – Some programs have clear
goals consistent with policy; however, they may be very difficult to manage and control which can
undermine a municipality’s success during implementation.
6.2.2 Weighting of Criteria
Following the development of the criteria to be used for scoring purposes, it is necessary to develop
weights to reflect the importance of each criterion in the context of municipal policy. After a program is
scored according to a criterion, its score is multiplied by the weighting factor to reflect the comparative
importance in comparison to other criteria. The following factors (Table 17) have been recommended by
the consulting team to weight the various criteria for later assessment purposes.
In general, because of the ACR’s role and the need to work with numerous separate and distinct
municipalities with varying objectives and needs, the social effect potential relating to transferability and
partnering was scored highest in relation to other groupings. Under environmental effect potential there is
a level of interdependency between criteria; however, waste minimization was weighted highest with GHG
reduction a close second. This weighting was based on these two criteria being the most talked about
environmental goals in current strategic plans. Economic Effect Potential (as a total in column 3) was
weighted equally overall to Environmental Potential Effect due to the seeming equal need or importance
attached to affordable programming.
Table 13: Assessment Criteria Weighting
Assessment Criterion Weighting Best Possible1
Social Effect Potential 30 300
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
48
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Table 13: Assessment Criteria Weighting
Assessment Criterion Weighting Best Possible1
Potential to improve convenient diversion opportunities to ACR residents and visitors 5 50
Potential to develop or enhance partnerships to achieve positive outcomes 10 100
Potential to be transferrable to all member municipalities 15 150
Environmental Effect Potential 30 150
Potential to Reduce Solid Waste 15 75
Potential to Reduce Current GHG Emissions 10 50
Potential to Reduce Toxics discharged into the environment 5 25
Economic Effect Potential 30 150
Potential to increase business performance and economic opportunities 10 50
Potential to be financially sustainable over the long-term 10 50
Potential to receive a Provincial grant funding for start-up 10 50
Total marks 90 600
1 – The relative weights of social, environmental, and economic effect potential are 10, 5, and 5, respectively and were the multipliers used in column 3.
7.0 LONG LIST OF POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
Developed by the consulting team after the existing system assessment, a long list list of recommended
policies and programs to provide municipal staff members alternatives to directly address sytem
deficiencies and achieve waste minimization targets. Tables 7.0-1, to 7.0-4 in the Tables Section provide a
variety of waste management policies and programs assembled to address system deficiencies identified in
the assessment, gap and SWOT analysis, along with best management practices. The policies and programs
are organized into the four groupings at the center of the following Figure 9 (defined in following
paragraphs) and are prioritized from top to bottom based on the 6 Rs categories. The outer rings follow
best practices and provide clear implementing each program and policy
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
49
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Figure 9: Organizational Structure of Long-Listed Policies and Programs
Vision and Strategic Policies (Table 13)
ACR expresses its ideals through policies and guiding principles that spell out a vision, goals and principles
on which to base future decision-making. To ensure these policies are fully considered in the context of
ISWMP, these Table 13 leading policies have been partly assessed from the standpoint of achieving
continual improvement through four steps: plan, do, check and act. Ensuring that these leading policies are
reflected in the day to day decision-making at the operational and programming level will contribute to
ACR achieving its solid waste management goals.
Management Systems and Tools (Table 14)
There are a variety of initiatives already in-place in some of the municipalities in the ACR aimed at
expanding the current solid waste system and increasing diversion. These Table 14 policies and programs
have been assessed to determine if they fully reflect ACR’s ideals and whether or not they are the most
efficient ways to achieve ACR goals in future.
Operational Infrastructure and Services (Table 15)
Operating equipment and services in an efficient manner not only increases output and maintains basic
health and safety objectives, but also reduces funds spent on inefficiencies. For this reason the project team
reviewed policies and programs directly related to ACR’s waste management infrastructure and operations
and summarized in Table 15 are suggested programs for improvement.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
50
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Promotion and Education (Table 16)
Fostering behaviour change to create new cultural norms for waste minimization is vital to ensuring
system users rethink waste, innovate to reduce and reuse, and utilize recycling systems efficiently. Best
management practices including the use of social marketing, social media, and other methods of reinforcing
behaviour change to establish new norms were incorporated into the Table 16 recommendations.
Programs and policies have been related to the Section 5.4 assessment terms and have a suggested
timeframe in which to be implemented; however, because they are at a lower priority to those shortlisted
(in next section), it is suggested that they be retained as a reference list from which to draw at the
discretion of the ACR in the short term, but also to be reviewed in 5 years to ensure they are considered in
the longer term. A short list of recommended priorities for implementation within the next five years was
identified from this long list. The objectives, milestones, resource needs (staff, capital, operational), and
implementation schedule of the highest priority policies and programs will be defined to a higher level of
detail in Phase 2.
This Phase 1 report focuses more on the system as a whole and the goals specified in Section 1.2.
Stakeholder input from the consultation process (Section 1.4) was incorporated through the assessment
and final short list recommendations with the intention of building upon existing successful programs.
8.0 RECOMMENDED SHORT LIST
The following recommendations are provided to the ACR as the selected policies and programs to be
implemented within the next 5 years. These short-listed policies and programs will undergo a preliminary
feasibility analysis through a triple bottom line assessment to guide selection and priority, program design,
and an estimation of needed resources.
8.1 Implementation of the ACR Waste Minimization Plan
To institute the programs being considered in the following strategies, the ACR would need both a
governance structure and ability to draw on staff resources from member municipalities to complete these
activities. It is our experience due to the very nature of the differing goals and objectives throughout the
ACR that would likely be ineffective. It is for this reason that the following recommendations to put in place
a system to empower and enable the IWMP to be implemented:
Ensure the paradigm of being a Partnership of Plans is maintained and that all individual
municipalities, or smaller partnership waste diversion efforts and plans, are acknowledged and fully
considered through all activities,
Establish, through the governance exercise, a greater level of autonomy than is currently the case for
the CRWMAC or its successor with a focus on regional thinking to provide a forum to encourage and
support partnership development on MSW initiatives between participating municipalities,
Hire a “Waste Diversion Coordinator” to establish a resource that immediately focuses on this issue to
support implementation and assistance to member municipalities.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
51
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
8.2 Performance Measurement
EBA recommends that a comprehensive reporting structure be developed and implemented that will
enable municipalities to not only track waste and diversion quantities, but also provide information on
material processing. More detail on this is provided in Section 9.1.
8.3 General Residential Recycling Programs
The review undertaken by EBA of existing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) found
that one strength that the municipalities have at this point is that the basic infrastructure required to
increase waste diversion is either in place or under development. Despite the varying material types being
collected through the residential recycling system across the ACR, municipalities are using mostly the same
contractors. There is, however, a disparity between what is “acceptable material” as collected by some
municipalities and what the respective MRFs accept. Similarly, collection frequencies vary between
municipalities from weekly, biweekly to monthly. Opportunities exist to expand the acceptable material list
and follow Best Management Practices for collection (i.e. recycling collection equal to or greater than waste
collection frequency).
Because of the significant efforts already in place in most municipalities in the ACR, the focus of a regional
approach is on partnering opportunities and the harmonization of programs including promotion and
education. On this basis, the following is recommended:
Provide a Working Group to guide Waste Diversion Coordinator and to review collection contracts
involving a cross-section of municipalities particularly as it relates to term, service levels and contract
clauses;
Begin the process of determining what a standardized curbside collection program would involve,
focusing on collection frequency and materials collected;
Establish consistency in materials collected at drop-off depots across the region to harmonize drop-off
systems; and
Institute common promotion and education programs throughout the ACR and focus on standardizing
messaging, colours used, system types, etc. to ensure residents are not confused between systems as
they move within the ACR. This will also reduce the duplication of effort between municipal staff
members at the individual municipal level and provide opportunities of bulk buying of related
published materials and consulting service contracts.
8.4 Organics Waste Reduction Strategy
Organics is a specific focus in this strategy due in-part to its unique nature and difficulties associated with
the compost industry, but also because it is a primary material to be diverted in any successful waste
diversion strategy during this time.
Organic wastes generated by the residents are typically relatively easy to divert based on the type of
collection systems and municipal controls/responsibilities in place. Organic wastes from ICI sources is
more difficult to capture as each generator is responsible for themselves, and collection programs are often
handled by many different private contractors with differing equipment and systems. Despite this, ICI
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
52
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
organic wastes present a significant opportunity for diversion while the organic material from this sector
makes excellent feedstocks for composting or dry anaerobic digestion facilities outside the City of
Edmonton where a co-composting process is employed.
Since providing processing facilities for ICI organic waste is outside ACR’s direct mandate, it is
recommended that they instead encourage the private sector to develop the necessary processing
infrastructure. This should be done through non-monetary measures to ensure there is a level playing field
amongst all potential developments.
In the residential sector, currently not all participating municipalities collect food scraps. As such, they are
missing a primary opportunity to meet diversion goals. Collection services vary considerably between
weekly, bi-weekly, or no service at all from one municipality to another. As collection evolves in
municipalities across Canada, there are many examples the shift to a greater level of service for organics
collection to either be equal or greater than the frequency for garbage collection. Following best practices
research, there are significant opportunities in the ACR to expand the acceptable material list and follow
best practices for collection to achieve these service goals. Based on the current state, the following is
recommended for both the ICI and Residential sectors in the short term:
Develop a comprehensive Organics Diversion Strategy that engages this sector and develops clear
programs to address its needs and wants in a regional sense, building on existing organics collection
and processing systems currently in place;
Begin the process of standardizing these services in a regional approach to collection and processing
which includes food waste;
Current system resiliency and capacity is a major concern in this regard and needs to be analyzed to
provide long term assured composting facilities in place either in the private or the public sector and
Where applicable, increase organics collection to weekly and provide bi-weekly garbage collection
(can also collect organics weekly and collected garbage & recyclables bi-weekly and alternating –
therefore each week only need two collection trucks or one truck if truck has a split load).
8.5 ICI Waste Reduction Short Term Strategy
Solid waste services for the ICI sector are typically managed by private sector waste haulers. In most cases,
cost for solid waste services is a governing factor for retaining ICI customers. To provide the lowest costs,
waste haulers are driven to minimize the frequency of waste pick-ups and the duration for collection at
each stop. These are two factors that can it make difficult to encourage the ICI sector to implement
voluntarily waste diversion programs.
Comprehensive ICI waste diversion programs require a mandate and an enforcement structure. A list of
potential waste diversion programs that could be implemented in the ICI sector are provided in Section 7.4
Most communities in across Canada apply voluntary measures as a “first step” in order to provide some
guidance, and garner support and participation from the ICI sector. If waste diversion targets are not met
using voluntary measures, the communities would move to introducing regulatory and economic measures
to stimulate behaviour changes.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
53
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
The complexity of addressing the ICI community waste diversion issues demands an on-going, intensive
engagement of this sector through focus groups, surveys, etc. to building on existing programs and expand
a harmonized approach throughout the Capital Region. As a result the following recommendations have
been made:
Engage the ICI sector in a meanful, constructive dialogue to identify opportunities for understanding
and collaboration to address waste diversion issues;
Develop a comprehensive ICI Waste Management Strategy that:
Addresses the long term capacity issues involved with current development trends and harmonizes
materials collected;
Considers existing models such as the Abbotsford Environmental Pledge Program to provide a
reward and encouragement system that rewards the continual improvement of activities within
businesses. This program could be tailored specifically for MSW or could be maintained as is for a
‘one stop shop’ for environmental issues; and
Uses an education, facilitation and legislation approach in that order to motivate change towards
these desired activities. This approach would use Community-Based Social Marketing Techniques.
Lobby provincial government to expand existing Product Stewardship programs increase the number
of regulated Designated Materials and to clearly put the responsibility for increasing diversion in this
sector on the shoulders of the waste generators;
Ban certain materials from disposal as diversion services expand and ban designated materials from
regular diversion programs entirely; and
Immediately develop a ‘ICI Waste Diversion toolkit’ and establish an award system that annual
recognizes “Environmental Champions” in this sector.
8.6 C&D Waste Reduction Short Term Strategy
C&D waste can make up 30 to 40% of the disposal stream. By weight, 70 to 90% of the C&D waste stream is
divertible. The waste categories that can be diverted from landfill include concrete, asphalt, soil, wood
waste, metal, gypsum/drywall, cardboard/paper and plastic.
Communities such as Metro Vancouver divert approximately 70% of the C&D waste stream from disposal.
High disposal costs/tipping fees and lower cost recycling/diversion options prompted the C&D industry to
divert its waste stream rather than dispose of it through landfill.
There is ample opportunity to develop a “source separated C&D collection program” to encourage C&D
waste diversion in the region. Having collection areas for C&D waste at the regional landfills would be
convenient locations for haulers and individuals. Additionally, the introduction of a “designated materials
list” would further encourage haulers to promote source separation with their customers. Haulers would
be charged increased tipping fees for loads containing materials on the designated materials list. Examples
of materials included on such a list are cardboard, wood, concrete, drywall, and asphalt. Alongside the
implementation of these C&D waste diversion programs, education and awareness programs would need
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
54
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
to be developed. Industry and citizens need to be properly educated for the programs to be successful and
advancement made towards the region’s waste diversion goals.
Expand or having collection areas for C&D waste at regional landfills would provide waste haulers and
individuals a convenient location for dropping off C&D waste. Additionally, the expansion of the designated
materials list would further encourage haulers to promote source separation of divertible materials.
Haulers would be charged increased tipping fees for loads containing materials on the designated materials
list. . Alongside the implementation of these C&D waste diversion programs, education and awareness
programs would need to be developed. Industry and citizens would need to be properly educated for the
programs to be successful and advancement made towards the region’s waste diversion goals.
The following programs have been recommended as priority issues:
Develop a comprehensive C &D Waste Management Strategy that:
Addresses the long term capacity issues involved with current development trends and harmonizes
materials collected;
Build on current C&D waste diversion initiatives and include the Edmonton R&D facility as a key
part of this strategy;
Lobby the provincial government to expand the number of materials legislated under the Designated
Material Recycling and Management Regulation; and
Ban certain materials from disposal as diversion services expand and ban designated materials from
regular diversion programs entirely when programs become available (e.g. EPR).
Immediately expand or add areas to existing landfills to focus on areas to sort and separate recyclable
C&D materials while other materials are stockpiled to be used for Alternate Daily Cover at the landfill
or are shipped as feedstock to co-gen facilities;
Immediately develop a Contractors ‘Construction Site Diversion Toolkit’ to be provided through the
Building Permit system to inform Contractors on choices they can make to source separate materials
to increase diversion;
After initial education and promotion of better C&D material in the first couple of years, set up a
consistent system in cooperation of all municipalities to require both proper disposal and materials
diversion plans from Contractors along with a system of enforcement by making proof of their
commitments as a requirement of gaining an Occupancy Permit; and
Review the recommendations of the C&D Waste Management Strategy and implement accordingly.
8.7 Infrastructure
Develop additional processing capacity to support increases in materials as the population in the ACR
increases and diversion rates improve. Additional capacity in the western part of the ACR would reduce
hauling distances and provide an alternative to existing processing facilities. The proposed initiative
between Parkland County, Spruce Grove and Stony Plain to study the development of an joint organics
processing facility is an example of the type of activity that should be supported in the ACR.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
55
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Periodic review of disposal, recycling and organics system capacity.
8.8 Waste Collection
EBA recommends the development of standardized contracts for waste collection. This should be
considered a priority item as a number of municipalities have contracts expiring in 2013 and 2014. The
objective of standardizing contracts is to ensure consistency in the way materials are collected and
processed and to ensure consistency in the reporting of material quantities collected, processed and
disposed.
Standardize the terms and conditions of collection and processing contracts for use in municipal
contracts.
8.9 Waste Management Policy
Alberta’s primary policy document on waste reduction entitled Too Good To Waste was published in 2004.
It has been nine years since that policy document was released and much has changed in that period from
an economic and environmental stand-point. EBA recommends that ACR, in collaboration with
municipalities in the Calgary Regional Partnership, encourage ESRD to revisit the policy and determine
what if any changes are needed to support its goal of achieving 80/20. A key consideration in developing
future waste management policies should be a requirement for stakeholders to report on waste generation
and diversion activities.
Encourage ESRD to review waste management policies developed in 2004.
To support the specifically recommended policies and programs identified in this section, a group of
policies and programs are specified in Seciton 9.0 to provide an overview of best management practices for
the implementation of these programs.
9.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Many strategic plans are completed with the best of intentions. However, they lack the necessary robust
tools to ensure that a strong performance measurement system is in place. This dynamic, all-encompassing
decision process is one that reflects the needs of all partners as the system changes, an amendment process
to ensure the plan is always current through committee-approved amendments, a clear understanding of
existing funding mechanisms and programs, and a governance structure that reflects the paradigm that this
is a Partnership of already existing plans and as such, requires the consensus of the committee members on
decisions affecting their communities.
9.1 Performance Measurement
The ACR has few systems in place to track performance for waste generation and waste composition in the
existing waste stream. Thus, there are additional measures that can be taken—or further honed—to utilize
best practices and tools for performance measurement, which are outlined below. Recommendations are
based on review of data as captured in Section 3.0 Waste Composition, Quantities and Projections.
Data Collection
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
56
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Conduct waste composition studies for the existing waste stream, either via curbside audits or at
transfer stations, on a regular basis. Perform the studies in a way that provides disaggregated data,
especially to break out commercial streams from residential streams. To reflect the shift to EPR and
improve tracking, use product categories as being developed by ESRD in conjunction with the ACR;
Use scale tracking to confirm material or product in the ACR, especially as it pertains to bulking
materials for the composter;
Expand regulatory tools and relationships to acquire additional material generation data by product
and sector from haulers and businesses as relevant, to best gauge diversion progress over time; and
Implement a well- defined monitoring and measurement program that:
Requires receiving collected and/or processed tonnes by material or product type;
Requires recording and tracking the tonnes by day, week and/or month;
Requires regular review and analysis of the data; and
Data review should also include cost, recovery rates, contamination rates, residue rates.
Data Compilation
Separate materials, by product where viable, to reflect designated material collection, then
potentially use this later for understanding the costs and benefits associated with EPR programs
from the ACR perspective. For some products it will also be useful to understand if the source is
residential or ICI;
Break out organics streams to be able to more closely monitor diversion progress for residential and
commercial food scraps collection and also differentiates consumables from yard and garden waste
that have less upstream impact as it relates to GHG emissions;
Keep categories consistent between source and compiled data (recycling history) to ensure accuracy
and avoid confusion;
Document descriptions by each material category in a separate worksheet within the data compiled
to add clarity in reporting. Note any changes in material name or shifts to using product categories
so across year comparisons are possible; and
Include goal tracking in compiled data (e.g. per capita garbage reduction and material generation).
Target Tracking
Use waste disposed per capita, tonnage by material and overall tonnages as the primary tracking
methods. This will ensure that areas that generate less MSW, but can have lower diversion rates and
compared fairly understanding the reduction in total waste generated is the most desirous activity.
Assess results regularly (for example, annually) and adjust targets to achieve highest and best
results over time. This review can include by sector assessment to target specific materials for
reduction and diversion; and
Avoid use of a diversion rate to assess progress and focus on per capita disposal rates to be able to
compare equitably the performance of different communities and to reflect accurately waste
generation. Typically, waste generation rates in rural communities are considerably lower than
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
57
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
those in urban communities, despite that diversion rate with more sophisticated diversion systems
can be higher in urban centres.
Annual Reporting
Prepare annual reports summarizing the actions carried out in a particular year and review
individual programs to determine if they are effective and if not, can be adjusted or dropped. Review
all compiled data between municipalities and consider systems and how to continually improve.
Build excitement and urgency within the Plan as a tool to both promote and educate the public going
forward.
Divide CR up into areas that reflect geographic areas and organize the annual report according to
those areas as follows:
o North
o Northwest
o West
o South
o East
o Central
An example of how a public annual report could be promoted to the public in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Measure Program Performance
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
58
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
9.2 Decision-Making Process and Plan Amendment Procedure
To ensure the key community values and best management practices are being followed during both
implementation of policies and programs, and during any amendments of the IWMP as it is adapted to
future needs, the following decision-making process has been designed to be used by committee members
at their discretion. The process will strive to ensure the following:
That both ACR policies and local community visions are being considered;
That the long- and short-term impacts, both globally and locally, are being taken into account;
That implementers consider environmental, social and financial impacts; and
That key “windows of opportunity” are used to more suitably implement policies and programs
knowing the schedule of the Implementation Plan.
Step 1 – Reflect that the IWMP is a Plan of Partnerships
When thinking through decisions, implementers should be mindful that the
IWMP is considered a Partnership of Plans (e.g., Authorities, Commissions,
etc.). Partnerships will be fostered or enhanced with the Province, other
ACR member municipalities, and ACR unincorporated communities,
Product Stewards, First Nations, industry, small business and community
organizations.
Step 2 – Identify ACR Commitments to Implement Policy and Programs
The ACR should consider “windows of opportunity” and triggers for the implementation and management
of programs within the ACR and member municipality system of governance.
Step 3 – Use Community -Based Social Marketing (CBSM) Techniques
The most successful programs are ones that have fully considered community impacts and have
compassionately adjusted programs to reduce any negative local impacts. CBSM is detailed in Section 9.3.
Step 4 – Waste Minimization Plan Advisory Committee Involvement
When facing issues regarding the application or implementation of an IWMP policy, the ACR should be
consulted to offer multi-stakeholder advice.
Step 5 –The IWMP is a Living and Learning Document
The IWMP will adapt to both changes in policy and service with updates, as needed.
Step 6 – Fit into the 6R Waste Hierarchy
Within the context of the IWMP, and to abide by the hierarchy of rethink, reduce, reuse, recycle, recover,
and residual management, ACR staff should carefully consider how decisions can further encourage a
movement of diversion up the waste hierarchy chain.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
59
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Step 7 – Consider Pay As You Throw (PAYT) Approaches to Financing a Decision
PAYT is an ongoing process of shifting the monetary costs directly to the waste generator. When
implementing policies, careful consideration should be given to shifting this responsibility to the generator
in current and future cost recovery systems. Having a direct financial benefit for waste diversion will
encourage generators to reduce their wastes.
Step 8 – Consider the Big Picture
Considering the direct impacts upon a community with respect to social, economic, and environmental
issues within a triple bottom line (TBL) decision-making process will lead to a more successful program
design and implementation.
The following Figure 11 provides a summary graphic of this recommended decision process.
Figure 11: Decision-Making Steps
When decisions affecting the partnership are made through these steps, it is recommended that and
amendment process be developed to ensure agreements are made and the IWMP is updated to reflect the
current reality. This would flow out of the governance structure discussed in Section 11.4
9.3 Community-Based Social Marketing
As defined by Doug McKenzie-Mohr, an environmental psychologist, CBSM draws upon research in the
social sciences. Most initiatives to foster sustainable behaviour rely upon large-scale information
campaigns that utilize education and/or advertising to encourage behaviour change. While these strategies
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
60
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
can be effective in creating public awareness and changing attitudes, numerous studies show that
behaviour change rarely occurs as a result of simply providing information. It is recommended that CBSM
techniques be employed by the ACR at a level commensurate with the task at hand to implement new
initiatives and improve upon others. CBSM involves five primary steps:
1. Selecting behaviours;
2. Identifying the barriers and benefits to an activity;
3. Developing strategies that utilize “tools” that have been shown to be effective in changing behaviour;
4. Piloting the strategy; and
5. Broad scale implementation and evaluation.
Examples of tools to promote behaviour change are identified below, and are best when used in
combination.
Commitment – By agreeing to a small request, people have subsequently been found to be far more
likely to agree to a larger request. As a result, many CBSM-based programs ask people for a verbal or
written pledge or agreement. When commitments are made public through a website or newspaper,
behaviour change is more likely. When commitments help people to view themselves as
environmentally concerned, they are also more likely to commit to other sustainable activities.
Prompts – Prompts can also be used to encourage people to engage in positive behaviour. By providing
visual or auditory aids, people are reminded to perform a particular action. Prompts often take the
form of a sticker or tag posted in close proximity to the action.
Norms – Norms guide how we behave and are largely influenced by the behaviour of those around us. If
members of our community, especially our immediate networks, are living sustainably, we are more
likely to do the same. When norms have a visible element, be it a blue recycling box or a sign that says
“We Compost,” they can have a more significant impact on behaviour change.
Communication – The more relevant messages are to a group, the more likely it is to captivate someone’s
attention. It is also important to make messages easy to remember and provide personal or
community goals and targets, then provide feedback on success to the community. By generating
opportunities for person-to-person, word-of-mouth contact, personalized messages spread through
diffusion in an influential way, which ultimately personalizes the message.
Incentives – Closely pairing an incentive, or reward, to specific positive behaviour can have a substantial
impact on encouraging sustainable activities. This strategy is particularly useful when motivation to
engage in action is low or people are not doing the activity as effectively as they could. It is
recommended to use non-monetary awards, such as award certificates and social approval. Programs
with monetary incentives and budgetary implications, such as discount programs for compost bins,
serve as valuable incentives as well, on a case-by-case basis.
Behaviour change using the above tools will not be successful without first removing perceived and real
barriers identified through initial research. For example, if accessing the site where composters are
distributed is a barrier, then it should be addressed in the design of the program with neighbourhood sales
or home delivery options. It is also prudent to recognize what benefits people associated with the activity,
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
61
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
and then highlight those in the messaging. For more information and case studies on CBSM, visit
www.cbsm.com.
9.4 Funding
9.4.1 Funding Sources
Financial support for municipal waste management activities may be available from two sources. Alberta
Municipal Affairs has two programs that municipalities can access for waste management-related projects.
The Regional Collaboration Program (RCP) provides funding to eligible municipalities and regional services
commissions for initiatives aimed at improving the viability and sustainability of municipalities through
regional collaboration and capacity building. This project is an example of the type of activity that would be
eligible for RCP funding. It can also be used to offset costs associated with setting up regional services
commissions (maximum $10,000), undertaking public consultation, preparing communication strategies to
advise stakeholders of regional initiatives, and preparing contracts and agreement to formalize
collaboration structures and activities (maximum $250,000).
AMA also provides grant funding to eligible municipalities for capital projects through its Municipal
Sustainability Initiative (MSI) several years in advance. The program has a set funding formula that
determines the total MSI grant available to individual municipalities. The types of projects which may be
funded by these grants is also outlined in the program guidelines. Municipalities are responsible for
determining how they will use the MSI funding available. Based on information provided in program
guidelines, it appears that joint funding of projects with other municipalities is permitted as is “sharing”
grant funds with regional services commissions and not-for-profit organizations. Public-private
partnership projects do not appear to be eligible. Further investigation of this option will be undertaken for
Phase 2 of the project.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) administers a federal endowment of $550 million
through its Green Municipal Fund (GMF). GMF funding is available for “brownfield”, transportation, energy,
waste and water initiatives. Support may be provided for three types of activities – plans, studies and
projects. Preparing plans and undertaking feasibility studies may be eligible for direct grant funding.
Projects are generally supported by low-cost loans. Grant funds may also be provided for a portion of
eligible costs. FCM funding can be used for projects that include collaboration with the private sector.
Determination of eligibility is determined by the GMF Council which recommends projects on their merit.
Funding, however, is limited and may not be sufficient for large-scale projects.
Another alternative is to seek out funding from the private sector in terms of joint ventures or public-
private partnerships. A municipality’s contribution to these kinds of enterprises does not always have to be
monetary.
9.4.2 Funding Recommendations
EBA recognizes that the municipalities each have their own set of internal issues and priorities regarding
candidate project for funding applications and that waste management may not always be high on
everyone’s priority lists. Therefore, there will be variations in the degree of commitment to participating in
the plan and its implementation. Municipalities will need to prioritize waste management when
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
62
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
establishing funding priorities to implement policies and programs required to meet waste minimization
targets.
Municipalities interested in working together on regional waste management initiatives should pursue
grant funding under RCP for costs associated with formalizing roles, responsibilities and commitments.
Funding from GMF can also be pursued if the initiative involves private sector participation. Once decisions
have been made with respect to developing capital works, participating municipalities can use MSI funds to
fund engineering, construction and other related costs.
Without adequate funding, the best laid plan will be difficult to implement and sustain. Therefore, the
Provincial government should be encouraged to include funding requirements as a component of any
review of its provincial waste reduction strategy. Restoration of dedicated programs such as the Waste
Management Assistance Program that supported the development of regional waste management systems
would be a significant step in the right direction.
9.5 Governance
9.5.1 Defining Governance
At the outset of the project, the scope of what “governance structure” was described as the following basis
for the requirements of the IWMP. The following definitions were proposed:
Governance - the process by which decisions are taken within or among organizations, including: who
is involved, the assignment of responsibility, the prioritization of goals, and the rendering of
accountability; and
Governance Structure - the informal and formal ways in which different institutions interact within
particular political and administrative settings to develop policy goals, select among means, cope with
uncertainty and controversy, and foster legitimacy and support for policies.
The implication from the above is that the governance entity will need to be the crucial link between ACR
members and the implementer(s) and operator(s) or service provider(s) of the approved waste
minimization initiatives described previously within this document. The governance entity will need to
give the ownership the controlling authority or power for accountability to ensure its successful
implementation and subsequent ongoing operations.
The governance structure also should integrate synergistic approaches of both the National Quality
Institute (NQI)’s Public Sector approach to quality management, and the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) management systems. Both provide specifications for PLANNING (say what you will
do), DOING (do it), CHECKING (monitor and track your performance along the way) and ACT/REVIEWING
(review, improve and act on new insights). The structure should guide specifications on:
Policy: governance and goals;
Planning: establishment of the strategic plan, its objectives, targets, measures of progress, and
programs;
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
63
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Implementation: establishment of structure, communications, training, operational requirements,
policy instruments, documentation, and implementation of the plan and its programs;
Checking/Monitoring: establishment of monitoring, measurement, auditing and reporting activities,
as well as process improvement guidelines; and
Review: establishment of key stakeholder review of the IWMP strategic plan, its implementation, and
continual improvement.
9.5.2 Developing Governance Structure
To develop a recommended governance structure, a highly collaborative process is required to engage all
pertinent ACR members. Ideally, it would proceed according to the following process:
Define the Solution Goal:
Describe what success of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan looks like.
Establish Solution Evaluation Criteria:
Identify from impacted, pertinent stakeholders (i.e., members of the CRWMAC) the prioritized
attributes of the desired solution.
Define a Continuum of Alternatives
Based on the solution goal and evaluation criteria, a short list of viable governance structure
alternatives can be identified which can be considered by the CRWMAC.
Evaluate the Alternatives
The CRWMAC will evaluate the alternatives based on how well they satisfy the prioritized evaluation
criteria and implementation feasibility / viability.
At this Phase 1 juncture of this project, initial regional waste minimization strategies and initiatives have
been identified and proposed in order to obtain the vision of 80/20 waste diversion goal within the ACR.
Upon ACR’s approval of the recommended initiatives, a next step would be to focus its representatives on
what the governance attributes or basis for evaluating alternative governance structure alternatives should
be. From there, a range of viable governance alternatives can be identified, considered and evaluated.
To set the stage for the full range of potential governance structure alternatives, a table was developed
which describes the different options which could be considered, including their respective descriptions,
governance characteristics, and potential advantages vs. disadvantages. This is included in Appendix D.
Note that this is largely based on the Alberta Municipal Affairs “Governance Options for Municipal Regional
Services in Alberta” document.
10.0 NEXT STEPS
Following endorsement of the recommended policies and programs along with the assessment criteria, the
consulting team will:
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
64
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Prepare preliminary program designs for planning purposes to allow the estimation of the resources
required for implementation;
Conduct a triple bottom line assessment to score each program for the purpose of prioritizing the
program choices in the first 5 years of implementation; and
Prepare a recommended implementation schedule to achieve the waste minimization targets; and
Prepare a final Integrated Waste Minimization Plan for the Alberta Capital Region.
11.0 CLOSURE
We trust this report meets your present requirements with respect to Phase 1 of the project. If you have
any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd.
Prepared by:
L. J. (Laury) North, P.Eng. Shaun Spalding, EP
Senior Environmental Engineer Team Leader, Solid Waste Management Planning
Environmental Practice, Prairie Region Environmental Practice
Direct Line: 780.451.2130 x514 Direct Line: 403.203.3305 x292
[email protected] [email protected]
Tamara Shulman, BA Lindsay Seidel-Wassenaar, E.I.T. Environmental Planning & Consultation Specialist Environmental Engineer Environmental Practice Environment Practice Direct Line: 604.685.0017 x300 Direct Line: 403.203.3305 x274 [email protected] [email protected]
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
65
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Reviewed by:
Paul Ruffell, P.Eng. Mark Rowlands, P.Eng.
Senior Engineer Team Leader, Waste Management
Environmental Practice Environmental Practice
Direct Line: 780.451.2130 x230 Direct Line: 604.685.0017 x355
[email protected] [email protected]
PERMIT TO PRACTICE EBA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD.
Signature ________________________________
Date ____________________________________
PERMIT NUMBER: P245 The Association of Professional Engineers
and Geoscientists of Alberta
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
66
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
REFERENCES
Alberta Beverage Container Recycling Corporation, 2012. Annual Report; Market Details.
Alberta Environment, August 2004. Alberta’s Municipal Waste Action Plan 2004-2006.
http://www.environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/6360.pdf
Alberta Environment, 2005. Waste Not: Alberta’s Approach to Waste Management.
http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/6204.pdf
Alberta Environment, 2008. Alberta Land Use Frame Work.
https://www.landuse.alberta.ca/LandUse%20Documents/Land-use%20Framework%20-
%202008-12.pdf
Alberta Environment, 2008. Too Good to Waste: Making Conservation a Priority
http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7822.pdf
Alberta Environment, April 2010. Saving the World Begins At Home
http://www.environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/6270.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of the Environment December 1994. Guide to the Preparation of Regional Solid
Waste Management Plans.
British Columbia Ministry of the Environment. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/mun-waste/waste-
solid/sw-mgmt-plan/guideplan/pdf/guide-swmplan.pdf
Burke, J. and Moore, B., 2012. Shredded and Baled, Now What: Paper Markets, WasteExpo 2012,
Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), October 2009. A Canada-wide Strategy for
Sustainable Packaging. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/sp_strategy.pdf
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), October 2009. A Canada-wide Action Plan for
Extended Producer Responsibility. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/epr_cap.pdf
Capital Regional Board, December 2009. The Capital Region Growth Plan.
http://capitalregionboard.ab.ca/-/reports/10%20december%202009%20addendum-
revisedsept2010.pdfCity of Edmonton. March 2012, New Recycling Facility Cuts Construction
Waste Going to Landfill. http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/news/2012/new-recycling-
facility-cuts-construction-waste.aspx
CH2M Hill, 2011. Technical Memorandum. The City of Calgary ICI Waste Diversion Policy Options.
September 14, 2011
City of Edmonton, 2011. Environmental Strategic Plan: The Way We Green.
City of Edmonton, June 14, 2012, City Operations Greenhouse Gas Management Plan.
City of Edmonton, 2007. Waste Management Policy.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
67
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
City of Leduc, 2012. Environmental Plan – Phase 1.
City of St. Albert, 2012. Albert Proposed Corporate Business Plan,
EBA Engineers Consultants Ltd. (EBA), 2012. Metro Vancouver Recycling Market Study. Prepared for Metro
Vancouver.
Edmonton Food Bank, 2013. Online at: http://www.edmontonsfoodbank.com/about/.
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). March 2004, Solid Waste as a Resource Guide for Sustainable
Communities. http://www.fcm.ca/Documents/tools/GMF/Solid_waste_as_a_resource_en.pdf
FCM Green Municipal Fund, 2009. Waste Diversion Success Stories from Canadian Municipalities.
http://www.fcm.ca/Documents/tools/GMF/Getting_to_50_percent_en.pdf
Genivar, 2009. Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan – Waste Plan Regina Report. June.
Green Manitoba. An Agency of the Manitoba Government. Available at: http://greenmanitoba.ca/wrars/.
2013.
Marbek Resource Consultants (for FCM), March 2009. Sustainable Community Planning in Canada: Status
and Best Practices.
http://www.fcm.ca/Documents/reports/GMF/2009/Research_Report_Sustainable_Community_Pla
nning_EN.pdf
Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Authority, 2010. Announcement.
Nova Scotia Environment, 1995. Not Going to Waste Solid Waste Resource Management Strategy.
http://www.gov.ns.ca/nse/waste/docs/SolidWasteStrategyFinalReport1995.pdf
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, June 2007. Policy Statement on Waste Management Planning: Best
Practices for Waste Managers.
Ontario’s 3Rs Regulations, 1994. Available at:
https://www.rco.on.ca/uploads/File/RC_Resources_Waste_3Rs-Regs.pdf
http://216.119.79.78/rkn/pdf/June122007-Policy.pdf Parkland County, 2010. Solid Waste Management
Plan.
Plumptre & Graham, 2000 and Karen Baker, 2003.
Province of Alberta, “Governance Options for Municipal Regional Services in Alberta”
http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/documents/msb/Governance_Options_Final.pdf
Provincial Waste Characterization Framework, A Joint Project of Alberta Environment, Government of
Canada, Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change and the Recycling Council of Alberta, October 2005
http://www.recycle.ab.ca/uploads/File/pdf/WasteCharFinalReport.pdf
Sonnevera, 2012. Best Practices.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
68
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
Sound Resources Management Group Inc. (2009). Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Waste
Management: Strategies with a Zero Waste Objective: Study of the Solid Waste Management System
in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia. http://www.belkorp.ca/Dr_Morris_Report.pdf
Statistics Canada, Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government Sectors, 1996-2008,
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=16F0023X&CHROPG=1&lang=eng
Town of Beaumont, 2012. Environmental Baseline Report.
Town of Stony Plain, 2007. Environmental Stewardship Strategy.
Town of Stony Plain 2010. Policies and Procedures Manual.
Waste Diversion Ontario Continuous Improvement Fund Guideline to Waste Recycling Strategy
http://cif.wdo.ca/resources/planning.html
Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP), 2010. Summary Report – Material Bulk Densities; Project
Code: ROT039.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Phase 1 Report - Capital Region Integrated Waste Management Plan
TABLES
Table 1.4-1 Consultation
Table 1.4-2 Private Sector Survey Questions
Table 5.3.3-1 IC&I Economic Waste Diversion Best Management Practices
Table 5.3.3-2 IC&I Regulatory Waste Diversion Best Management Practices
Table 5.3.3-3 IC&I Voluntary Waste Diversion Best Management Proctices
Table 7.0-1 Long List of ManageVision and Strategic Policies and Programs
Table 7.0-2 Long List of Management Systems and Tools Policies and Programs
Table 7.0-3 Long List of Operational Infrastructure and Services Policies and Programs
Table 7.0-4 Long List of Promotion and Education Policies and Programs
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 1.4-1: CRWMAC Consultation Contacts
Contacted Interviewed Jurisdiction Contact Title Email
Y Y Town of Beaumont Jarret Esslinger
Environmental
Sustainability
Coordinator
Y N Town of Bon Accord Vicki Zinyk CAO [email protected]
Y N Town of Bruderheim CAO
Y N Town of Calmar Ed Melesko Director, Planning &
Development [email protected]
Y Y Town of Devon Rod Fraser Director, Planning &
Infrastructure [email protected]
Y Y City of Edmonton Bud Latta [email protected]
Y Y City of Fort Saskatchewan Grant Schaffer Director, Public Works [email protected]
Y N Town of Gibbons Debbie Turner CAO [email protected]
Y N Town of Lamont Sandi Maschmeyer CAO [email protected]
Y Y Lamont County Allan Harvey CAO [email protected]
Y Y City of Leduc Kerra Chomlak Environmental
Coordinator [email protected]
Y Y Leduc County Darcy Bryant [email protected]
Y N Town of Legal Robert Proulx CAO [email protected]
Y Y Town of Morinville Donald Fairweather Operations Manager
Y Y Parkland County Pat Vincent CAO [email protected]
Y Y Town of Redwater Debbie Hamilton CAO [email protected]
Y Y City of Spruce Grove Amber Nicol Sustainability Planner [email protected]
Y Y City of St. Albert Christian Benson [email protected]
Y Y Town of Stony Plain Tony Lew [email protected]
Y Y Strathcona County Leah Seabrook
Mgr., Waste Mgt. &
Community Energy
Services Utilities
Y Y Sturgeon County Susan Berry Mgr., Administration
Services [email protected]
N N Village of Thorsby Bob Payette CAO [email protected]
N N Village of Wabamun Linda Hannah CAO [email protected]
Y Y Village of Warburg Christine Pankewitz CAO [email protected]
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 1.4-1: CRWMAC Consultation Contacts
Contacted Interviewed Jurisdiction Contact Title Email
Non-voting Members
Y Y
Alberta Environment and
Sustainable Resource
Development
Christine Della Costa [email protected]
Y Y Recycling Council of
Alberta
Don Hughes [email protected]
Y Y Christina Seidel
Notes:
Indicates on Committee
If there is not a regular administrative representative attending the meetings, the CAO is shown as the contact.
24 Capital Region jurisdictions – 22 contacted; 16 interviewed
14 Committee members – 14 contacted, 12 interviewed
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 1.4-2: Private Waste Services Providers Survey Questions
What suggestions do you have to improve the current system especially the collection of organics and recyclables?
What is currently working well?
The trend in waste collection is towards weighing materials and garbage and charging by amount accordingly for each
household. Do you think in the near future that this would be feasible and if not, what are the barriers?
For the IC&I sector, how do you think the government who has no control, would be able to influence waste haulers and
businesses to cooperate and provide enhanced waste diversion systems?
What are your thoughts regarding the implementation of a Franchise system?
Where do you see opportunities to improve collection services in the Capital Region?
What are the general challenges in providing service throughout the Capital Region?
How could we help your business expand understanding the trend towards waste diversion?
What are your top 5 issues that need to be addressed in the Waste Diversion Plan?
What services do you provide for organics diversion?
Any suggestions on how best to manage waste from the construction and demolition sector?
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 4.4-1: Education and Promotion Summary
Jurisdiction Description
Town of Beaumont
Online collection information in multiple separate links (i.e. blue bag
recycling, organics, e-waste, etc.); available from home page.to
maximize access
Town of Bon Accord Online collection information for what’s collected
PDF flyer for organics (grass clippings and leaves only)
Town of Bruderheim
Online collection information (i.e. recycling, community compost pile
[grass clippings and leaves only] available from home page
Link to Standstone Envirowaste Services guidelines for recycling and
waste pick-up
Town of Calmar
Online collection information (i.e. blue bag recycling, grass clippings,
organics, e-waste, etc…) via homepage
PDF flyer for organics recycling (grass clippings and leaves only), blue
bag, large items and hazardous materials
Town of Devon
Online collection information (i.e. waste, blue and brown bag
recycling) available via homepage
Multiple PDF flyers available (e.g. organics recycling (grass clippings
and leaves only), blue bag for drop-off at Recycle centre, etc.)
City of Edmonton
Online collection information, FAQs, (i.e. blue bag recycling, organics,
e-waste, etc…) available via home page
Multiple PDFs: map and schedule, What Goes Where? Recycling
Facts, Reuse and Recycling Directory, Reuse Centre Acceptable
Items, etc.
Other promotional efforts include Let’s talk trash sessions in the
community, a Know Before You Throw campaign and a Master
Composter Recycler Program, educational information at Eco Stations
(residents can take home free paint) and Reuse Centre
City of Fort Saskatchewan
Online collection waste, recycling information and static pile
composting available via homepage
PDF flyer on waste and recycling
Town of Gibbons Online collection schedule for recycling and garbage only
Lamont County Lamont County Landfill phone number, address, etc.; no link supplied
Town of Lamont
Online collection information (i.e. recycling, composting, drop-off for
clothing, anti-freeze and oil waste) available via homepage
PDF flyers available for recycling and home composting
City of Leduc
Online curbside cart collection (i.e. recycling, organics, waste)
available via home page
PDF recycling flyer
Leduc County
Online collection information in multiple separate links (i.e. blue bag
recycling, waste transfer stations) available via home page
PDF flyer with map, schedule and recyclable items list
Town of Legal Link to Ever Green recycling flyer via home page
PDF recycling flyer
Town of Morinville Online waste disposal information (i.e. blue bag recycling, organics, e-
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 4.4-1: Education and Promotion Summary
Jurisdiction Description
waste, etc…) available via home page
PDF waste collection flyer
Parkland County
Online waste disposal information (i.e. blue bag and mixed paper
recycling, grasscycling, backyard composting, community composting,
special waste, etc…) available via home page
PDF solid waste and recycling “Blue is the new green” flyers
Town of Redwater
Online blue bag recycling information available via home page.
Links to Ever Green Site and recycling flyer via home page
PDF list of recyclable materials
Town of Spruce Grove Online waste disposal information (i.e. household waste, blue bag
recycling, organics, etc…) available via links from home page
City of St. Albert
Online collection information for refuse, organics and recycling via link
on home page
PDF recycling flyer
Town of Stony Plain
Online information (i.e. kitchen scraps, yard waste, recyclables, etc...)
on Wipe Out Waste campaign site available via home page
Each household provided with a kitchen catcher for food scraps
Free MyWaste phone app
Strathcona County
Online collection information (i.e. kitchen food scraps, yard waste,
recyclables, etc...) the Green Routine available via home page
PDF A-Z waste stream sorting list (recyclables, organics and more)
Excellent image/diagram of the four waste streams
Free Green Routine phone app available.
Town of Sturgeon
Online information about hiring a collection company or the address of
the two waste disposal sides available via home page
Link to list of Roseridge landfill list of acceptable materials
Roseridge PDF of recyclable, waste reusable and other materials
Town of Thorsby No online information available
Town of Wabamun No online information available
Town of Warburg No online information available
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 5.0-1: Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
Item Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
Vision and Strategic Policies
Provincial Waste Policies Ambitious goals – 80% diversion by 2020 across all
sectors, 500 kg/capita/yr
No provincial mandate and enforcement for waste
reduction
Lack of reporting; localized reporting done based on
materials generated
Regulatory component doesn’t back up policies
Programs don’t map out how to reach goals as well as
they could
80% diversion is an undefined mix of material diversion
and energy recovery
Concern that goals are not reachable – across sectors;
discouraging
Encourage amendment of existing waste
management regulations to require regional waste
management (WM) reporting and promote product
stewardship
Lobbying senior government for continued
establishment of product stewardship programs, and
to stay aligned with CCME Canada-wide EPR Plan
(2009)
Work through New West Partnership to discuss waste
flow and harmonization in western Canada
Mandating source separation by sector
Regulatory
Use AUMA and AMDC as forums to advance issues
to lobby the Province for more authority (e.g. WM
Planning Function and OCs to private and public
facilities)
Consider establishment of landfill bans for priority
waste materials to stimulate further development of
diversion infrastructure
Unlimited landfill capacity
Un-level playing field which results in waste migration
Provincial Land Use Framework
Encourages regional thinking
Drives the regional planning process and harmonizes
the process while allowing site specific adaptation
Re-established only recently (2007)
There is no regional land use plan for the Capital
Region
The region can build on the principal plan and
establish a local land use plan
Facilities operating below standard impede installing
similar infrastructure for diversion elsewhere
Capital Region Growth Plan Waste management issues addressed to provide a
background document
Waste management was not determined to be a high
priority for the CR
One time occurrence to provide baseline conditions for
Capital Region Board
None at present No real or perceived crisis to push prioritization of WM
Management Systems and Tools
Regulatory levers to promote
diversion/waste reduction
Bylaws and acts exist for most jurisdictions
Province under EPEA can designate materials to be
controlled
Land use designations exist in most jurisdictions –
local determines how facility is implemented
Provincial regulation for all waste management
facilities
Facility and hauler licenses aren’t as strong as they
could be
Regulation process is not a full licensing process
Collection bylaws focused primarily on RES and are
exclusive
Not a history of development considering space
requirements for recycling/diversion space (e.g. space
for multiple bins)
Encourage planning process to include space for
recycling, green building, deconstruction etc. through
development permit process
Construction and demolition permitting to promote
diversion and proper disposal
LEED certification includes space for waste diversion
Bylaws - SW
Municipal Government Act gives municipalities the
ability to regulate waste management without
limitation.
Ability to build incentives for diversion into licensing
process (who has)
Most jurisdictions have bylaws
Bylaws aren't harmonized; not all build in diversion
strategies
Minimum set of solid waste policies for each
municipality in the CR for waste reduction for non-
residential and residential waste streams
Use by-law making authority to influence ICI waste
management practices
Some potential resistance to harmonizing bylaws
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 5.0-1: Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
Item Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
Bylaws – Fire and Nuisance Urban areas restrict open burning of MSW and leaves Open burning occurs in some rural jurisdictions
Fire Permit required in Sturgeon County
Ban burning in at least Country Residential
subdivisions to reduce nuisance and health issues Could be difficult to enforce.
Composition Audits
Some jurisdictions have done waste composition
studies (Edmonton and St. Albert )
Edmonton has ICI data
None previously done for whole region
Develop framework for quarterly audits by material
stream
Audit data will inform progress towards targets and
identify areas for improvement
Cost
Contracts
Contracts have limited terms and can be adjusted for
continual improvement – as relates to materials
collected, competitive pricing etc.
Municipalities have some certainties related to costs
Open bid process
Different acceptable materials for collection between
municipalities even though same contractor used
(recyclables and organics)
Waste collection customers pay a utility and
administrative fee for a contracted service
Joint tendering and/or harmonization of TOR to
improve service levels and create more uniform
pricing
Several contracts end in 2014
Difficult to change contract terms mid-contract and
may result in increased cost
Different term lengths (if applicable) would require
either extensions to some contracts or termination of
others to align end / start dates
Data Tracking
One municipality has an advanced fully functional
RFID system actively recording data for analysis and
operational uses to study waste with barcodes and
measurement
A number of municipalities have valid data for
organics, recyclables and garbage
Data measured differently, some missing, not collected
and aggregated in a consistent manner
Diversion measured via collected tonnes rather than
post processing
WM companies are not mandated to share data
No system or organization in place to gather , analyze
and report data from various sources
Develop framework for recording, trending and
tracking collected tonnes
Develop framework for reporting, trending and
tracking diversion based on post processing tonnages
Resource requirements
Contract language (i.e. current contract may not
require data management)
Financial
Province provides discretionary funding to support WM
capital funding; requested through an application
process
Municipalities have the ability to determine how they
want to use available grant funding within their
jurisdiction
Emerging user pay system to promote diversion
Mature brokerage (Allied) in the region
Disposal fee (and capacity) may be lower than
diversion fees (or capacity)
Municipalities use disposal (landfill) as a revenue
source
Charges don’t necessarily reflect the full cost of doing
business due to the lack of full cost accounting
Commercial disposal fees don’t embed diversion fees
in the overall collection cost
In some municipalties there is a high potential cost of
providing curbside service (e.g. the West is sparsely
populated while East is more dense)
Agree upon a rationalized set of tipping fees for the
region with a structure that could be effective in
achieving optimal flow of materials and optimal
reduction in landfill amounts (while not compromising
owner/operator net revenues and assuming flow
control can be managed)
Agree upon an approach to enhance the tipping fee
differential to promote diversion (i.e. clean wood,
drywall)
Use FCM grants for plans and feasibility studies; can
be leveraged in public/private partnerships
Leverage MSI grants from a number of municipalities
for joint projects
Landfilling is still cheaper
Choosing funding for MSW may preclude them from
other projects (competition for money and MSW many
not be the highest priority)
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 5.0-1: Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
Item Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
Governance
Three Waste Management Commissions/Authorities
exist in the ACR in Leduc, Sturgeon and Lamont
Counties
Committee 20 years old and has support from the ACR
CR Board makes decisions using equal parity and
double majority (no veto power)
Other utilities are managed through ACR commissions
to develop joint solutions
Commission/Authorities are landfill-oriented and don’t
have a mandate to influence diversion efforts and
overall waste management before it crosses the scale
Minimal governance over non-residential waste and
material flows
Limited ability to control flow of materials, build
efficiencies, track performance and provide continual
improvement
Regional approach is not mandated and left to
individual municipalities to determine priority
Opportunity to collaborate to determine the best
governance model
Learn from other regional utility infrastructure to
determine what can apply to CR WM
Build on partnerships to maximize diversion, cost
savings
Expand the mandate of existing Commissionsand
Authorities to have oversight of multiple material
streams and work towards waste reduction and
diversion
Establish working group for exploring ad hoc
partnerships and operational streamlining as interest
Establish regional cooperative framework
governance model
If there’s disagreement at the CR level about another
issue, it can negatively WM collaborative efforts
Un-level playing field can result in waste migration or
limited business opportunities
Partnerships
A variety of municipalities in the ACR are already
cooperating on waste management issues and have
signed agreements on issues of sustainability..
Partnerships exist through the three
Commissions/Authorities within the ACR
Different acceptable materials for collection between
municipalities even though same contractor used
(recyclables and organics)
No strong incentives or precedents for contractors to
partner
Grant money works against PPPs
Joint tendering and/or harmonization of Terms of
Reference (TOR) to improve service levels and create
more uniform pricing
GMF opportunity for PPP situation if applied for
correctly
Outside region opportunities like Beaver should be
explored (mostly facilities)
Technology providers are more willing to show case
and partner their technologies needing feedstock
certainty.
There is concern in the ACR about the potential to
standardize systems with a consistent program
throughout region in-part because some
municipalities may wish to remain independent.
Performance Measures
CR has some periodically collected WM data
Product stewardship programs provide annual
reporting for some provincially designated materials
Weak regulatory component to require and enforce
programs to support provincial performance
measures/goals
Not enough disaggregated data (by material, sector) to
determine if performance measures are being met
Develop framework for an effective and efficient
measurement and monitoring program
Set SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Realistic and Timely) goals
Difficult to apply to ICI and C&D sectors
Personnel
Some communities have a designated waste manager
and/or staff with some waste reduction coordination
capacity
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 5.0-1: Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
Item Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
Operational Infrastructure and Services
Collection
City of Edmonton provides a level of collection services
for the ICI and C&D sectors and there does not seem
to be any great concern about rates.
Only one municipality has a franchise system in the
ACR for residential and commercial sectors
Many jurisdictions are very actively involved in
diversion and improving their recycling programs
Most jurisdictions have transitioned to automated
collection services for recycling and garbage to reduce
costs.
Lots of depot types to provide convenience in many
CR urban areas
Some municipalities service multi-family developments
by either municipal service or private.
Muni provide round-up services but also permanent
facilities for Designated Materials
Have extra infrastructure capacity for blue bag, totes
for organics and mixed garbage
Some return to retail locations for DM
Existing an unintended consequence of existing
contracts is the leakage through BFI waste going to
Coronation
Some municipalities are limited in their ability to
automate due to urban design (e.g. narrow back
alleys)
Do not have full control of ICI and C&D
Some municipalities are considering adding organics
collection to their contracts.
The City of Edmonton is planning to increase ICI
collection. Looking for more feedstock for C&D plant
Opportunity to standardize collection type to increase
efficiency of collection
Introduce automated collection into newer
subdivisions
Opportunity to provide service outside Edmonton’s
boundaries in concentrated areas (e.g. Sturgeon River
Valley)
Encourage Franchise to deal with control.
Can expand depot system into rural areas.
The expansion of municipal mobile and stationary
waste systems may negatively effect private
companies
RES
Different collection set out methods
Different collection frequencies
Standardize collection setouts (cart, bag, box)
Standardize collection frequency (year round, weekly
diversion / biweekly waste)
Difficult to change contract terms mid-contract and
may result in increased cost
Different term lengths (if applicable) would require
either extensions to some contracts or termination of
others to align end / start dates
ICI
The concept of a level playing field for ICI and C&D
sectors is well understood by a number of
muncipalities
Most municipalities do not provide waste management
services to non-residential sources.
Processing
Several facilities exist – 3 MRFs, 4 organics
management processors
Some municipalities have their own MRF on-site to sort
recyclables.
Some smaller jurisdictions still manage yard and
garden debris locally
Option for CR to use the Edmonton facilities
Contamination problems with plastic in the organics is
a problem in some municipalities
There is a minimal ability to deal with poor feedstocks
at local organics facilities
Some municipalities are in the position to expand their
organics processing facility throughput to include food
scraps with existing infrastructure.
Technological advances to deal with quality
All participating municipalities can buy into Edmonton
system either up front or as a contingency to a failed
contract
Waste migration to a facility outside region and within
No interested with investing in organics facility
City of Edmonton MRF and organics facilities are
close to capacity
Contamination and poor compost quality is a problem
in some municipalities.
Union Agreements in place and should be considered
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 5.0-1: Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
Item Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
Facilities - general
Various municipalities own some facilities and/or
contracts for use of facilities
The City of Edmonton has a Waste Management R&D
facility "Edmonton WM Centre of Excellence"
Not distributed well across region: not all access
facilities that could contribute to their goals in efficiency
and waste reduction
Some municipalities would have difficulty hosting
facilities due to lack of space.
By planning new facilities and using/expanding
existing ones, regional access and efficiency could be
improved with potential for cost benefits to all
Create network of multi-use facilities (i.e. Eco-
Centres) for resident drop off for reuse/exchange;
HHW, e-waste and other product stewardship drop
off; other recycling and organics; pickup/buy finished
compost; education displays and material
Explore joint-ownership
Access grant funding
Opportunity to reduce cost as throughput goes up
Facilities - diversion
The City of Edmonton has readily available drop-off
facilities and 3 eco-depots (in the N, S and Central
areas) that used by residents across the CR
Primary recycling markets are fairly stable and more
mature overall
Some municipalities have an interest in developing
composting sites
Ownership of material unclear
Revenue from marketed material unknown
Some municipalities have little interest in diversion and
favour landfilling.
Co-mingled recyclables encourage poorer quality
products; higher cost to create high value products
Have an optimal number of WM facilities in the region
to support waste diversion goals
Pool resources to access/sell to larger markets
Ensure proper ownership / control of materials to
ensure supplied material results in revenue generation
for the municipal supplier
Keep material streams higher quality to ensure access
to markets
Difficult to change contract terms mid-contract and
may result in increased cost
Different term lengths (if applicable) would require
either extensions to some contracts or termination of
others to align end / start dates
Contractor acceptance of new terms and conditions
Appropriate contract management to measure and
monitor
Facilities - disposal One municipalities is interested in hosting a landfill to
have and independent disposal facility
Diversify to distribute to match generation across the
region and reduce hauling distance
Energy recovery
Facilities - C&D
Edmonton facility has capacity for 100k tonnes/year,
can accommodate much of region's materials; tipping
fee lower than MSW to add incentive to diversion
Private C&D disposal options exist. Cholla and
Northlands Sand & Gravel have a C&D component
Travel distance a disincentive for outliers
Increase capacity to address shortage of disposal
solutions and support province initiative to put in place
a regulatory framework to increase C&D diversion
Municipalities may have resistance to relying on
Edmonton infrastructure
Material Exchange and Reuse
Some municipalities have annual materials exchange
(e.g. St. Albert)
Some material exchanges exist (put and take) (Leduc,
Edmonton ReUse Store)
Connect generators of various materials with possible
user (i.e. industrial exchange model with inclusion of
municipal operators)
Organics Diversion
Several jurisdictions accept/collect yard and garden
debris and are in the process of expanding to include
food scraps
Some municipalities are promoting organics diversion
and haveextended organics collection to rural areas
Issues with contamination in organics stream increases
processing costs or results in rejection of material.
Develop organics diversion strategy to address all
aspects of the system - policy,
management/partnership, operations and
infrastructure and P&E.
Develop programs to monitor and control
contamination and provide certainty of feedstock
quality.
Too much contamination could result in loss of access
to processing facility
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 5.0-1: Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
Item Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
Promotion and Education
General
Environment Alberta has best practice guides for
industrialized waste diversion
Product stewardship programs have strong education
programs
City of Edmonton has taken on a leadership role for
waste management through promotion and education
programming (including CBSM) and an advance
infrastructure system. Elected officials have embraced
waste management innovation and diversion.
A number of municipalities have strong education
programs and can act as leaders in the ACR
RCA has a wealth of information and hotline
responsibility to service residents
Various degrees of information and amount of detail
The City of St, Albert has many more program
improvements planned.
Some municipalities may feel detached based on their
distance from other centers and doesn’t feel that much
of the planning here will affect them.
ICI and C&D sectors have less educational efforts,
although materials are available (less diversion
options)
Harmonize education efforts across the CR to add to
effectiveness, delivery efficiency and cost savings
Determine common denominator across region (i.e.
urban/rural)
Consistent branding – colour, pictoral images etc. to
use across sectors. Partner with haulers.
Possible perceived lack of unique brand / identity
Online sites All have some information online about what materials
are accepted and where (but not all municipalities)
Minimal shared branding and messaging
Most information on recyclables provided by contractor
Some cases, difficult to find information
Review BP for P&E and branding
Highlight results, communicate effective messages Cost and resources and time
Innovative programs
"The Way We Green" forward thinking report is the
key document to drive the waste reduction efforts for
the City of Edmonton
The City of Edmonton provides tours through the
"Edmonton WM Centre of Excellence"
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 5.3.3-1: Economic Waste Diversion Program Option Best Practices
Initiative Description Municipalities
Adopting Initiative
Success Examples
Disposal Surcharges – Dedicated Landfill Levy
Levy or surcharge placed on waste entering City landfills. This surcharge serves the dual purpose of creating a financial disincentive, while also providing a funding mechanism for diversion programming.
Ontario
Quebec
Manitoba
California
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
As of July 1, 2009, all solid waste entering Manitoba landfills is subject to a $10 per tonne Waste Reduction and Recycling Support (WRARS) levy. The levy applies to all residential, industrial, commercial and institutional waste, C&D waste and other solid waste materials. All funds collected from the WRARS levy are deposited in the WRARS fund established under The Waste Reduction and Prevention Act and are used to pay program administration costs, incentive payments to municipal recycling programs, the delivery of provincial electronic waste and household hazardous waste (HHW) collection programs and other Green Manitoba Programs.
Differential Tipping Fees
Increased fees for loads containing specified/ designated materials.
Calgary, AB
Kootenay Regional District, BC
Metro Vancouver, BC
Grande Prairie, AB
Orillia, ON
Ottawa, ON
Grand Prairie, AB, implemented a double the tipping rate fee for loads containing cardboard. Resulted in 1500 tonnes of cardboard being diverted
from landfill from 2002-2011. Kootenay Boundary Regional District, BC implemented a “five times” penalty in 2006 for loads containing over 10% of a banned material. This was an increase of the “double penalty” implemented before 2006. The City of Calgary charges increased fees for loads containing materials on the Designated Materials list (concrete, brick and masonry block, asphalt, scrap metals, recyclable wood, and drywall). Mixed loads of corrugated cardboard are charged double the tipping rate in Ottawa, ON along with mixed loads of waste and compostable brush and yard waste being charged double the tipping fee.
Reduced Disposal Fees for Establishing Recycling/ Composting
ICI generators that recycle and/ or compost in accordance to specific requirements receive lower disposal fees.
Owen Sound, ON
Grand Prairie, TX
San Francisco, CA
Calgary, AB
The City of San Francisco directed its contracted waste hauler to institute the Commercial Recycling Discount, giving businesses a break of up to 75% on their trash bill for recycling and composting. Over 220,000 tonnes of organics have
been diverted in The City. The City of Calgary has a reduced disposal fee for clean and source-separated construction and demolition materials. These materials include recyclable wood, drywall, asphalt, scrap metals, brick and masonry block, and concrete. The fee for these loads is half the cost for loads containing Designated Materials.
Funding for Establishment of Recycling Programs
Grants, loans, and other financial assistance to help offset the costs associated with starting a recycling and/or organics program.
Portland, OR The City of Portland, OR provides matching grant funds (50-75%) to businesses in support of innovative strategies.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 5.3.3-2: Regulatory Waste Diversion Program Option Best Practices Initiative Description Municipalities Adopting
Initiative Success Examples
ICI Mandatory Recycling/Source Separation Requirements
Businesses must participate in recycling and/or must divert designated materials through a recycling program. Mandatory recycling or source separation places a regulatory requirement on business to participate in diversion programs as part of their daily operations. This requirement may take the form of physical diversion infrastructure, including separate collection containers, or proof of material diversion.
Owen Sound, ON
St. John’s NL
Ontario
Austin, TX
Cambridge, MA
Chicago, IL
Honolulu, HI
Portland, OR
Sacramento, CA
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Connecticut
Pennsylvania
In 2006, the City of Owen Sound implemented a bylaw requiring all ICI businesses in the City to implement recycling programs and divert designated materials identified by the bylaw. The City distributes recycling carts to the companies and provides extensive support materials on its website including an on-line audit form, an audit guide, sample recycling policy, and sample sign designs. In Ontario there is a regulation (O. Reg. 103/94) that requires the source separation of recyclable materials for ICI sectors and multi-unit residential buildings. This regulation is part of Ontario’s efforts to encourage businesses to reduce the amount of waste being disposed. In St. John’s, NL all employees are required to participate in a office paper recycling program. Since 2006, all businesses have been required to set up source separation in the office for all paper types. All ICI generators requiring a business license in Chicago, IL, must have a recycling program that involves the onsite source separation of at least three recyclable materials, or only two if the business also has also implemented two waste reduction programs. The City of San Francisco passed an ordinance requiring every property in the city to recycle and compost. In 2011, the state of Connecticut enacted PA-11-217 which requires commercial food wholesalers or distributors, industrial food manufacturers or processors, supermarkets, resorts, and conference centers that generate an average of at least 100 tons of source separated organic (SSO) materials a year to separate such materials from other solid waste and ensure that such materials are recycled at a permitted SSO material composting facility that is not more than 20 miles from such generators. Pennsylvania Act 101 requires all municipalities with more than 5,000 people to create commercial recycling regulations.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Franchise Waste System
Franchising the waste system would see The City administering ICI waste collection service contracts. This would give The City control over how this waste stream is managed, allowing for establishment of targets and diversion mechanisms.
Red Deer, AB
Elk Grove, CA
Santa Clare, CA
San Jose, CA
Santa Clarita, CA
San Diego, CA
San Diego, CA, uses their franchise agreement to require waste haulers to report waste quantities on an annual basis. Santa Clarita, CA requires franchised waste haulers to divert a minimum of 50% of the waste collected. San Jose CA, divided its city into areas and franchised each area for the collection of waste. Franchised waste haulers are required to meet diversion and performance goals.
Landfill Bans Landfill bans prohibit the disposal of certain material streams at City landfills. The standard enforcement mechanism is rejection of loads containing banned material.
Regional District of Nanaimo, BC
Nova Scotia
Metro Vancouver Regional District, BC
Capital Regional District, BC
Ottawa, ON
Metro Vancouver has an increased tipping fee on loads that arrive at the landfill with more than 5% of a banned material. Banned materials include: cardboard, recyclable paper, organics, glass containers, metal containers, and plastic containers. The Regional District of Nanaimo implemented bylaw 1428 imposes a ban on all food and organic waste from commercial sources including food services, food and beverage stores, hospitals, educational institutions with food services, nursing and residential homes, community food services, etc. The Region has worked with waste haulers to provide alternative collection for organics. Businesses are required to pay for collection and processing of the organic food waste as well as the bins. The food waste ban affects approximately 800 businesses and institutions. Nova Scotia banned compostable and divertible materials from its landfills in 1996 in accordance to its 2005 Solid Waste resource Management Strategy. The City of Ottawa, ON restricts cardboard and white goods from landfill.
Private Sector Requirement to Supply Recycling Services
Waste Haulers must also provide recycling services. The private sector can be required through bylaw to provide recycling services to complement disposal services they offer.
Boston, MA
Chicago, IL
Boston, MA requires all commercial waste haulers to provide recycling services to their customers within the city limits. The haulers are also required to report recycling data from their customers to The City. Failure to comply results in fines. Waste haulers in Chicago, IL must provide proof of their recycling programs in order to obtain a business license.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Mandatory Waste Audits and Waste Diversion Plans
To encourage consideration of waste diversion options, businesses can be required through regulation to complete waste audits or management plans that set out plans and targets for diverting waste materials.
Austin, TX
Portland, OR
Philadelphia, PA
Ontario
Under Ontario’s 3Rs Regulations (Regulation 102) “designated organizations are required to conduct a waste audit which must be updated annually”. Additionally, larger businesses must establish a “Waste Reduction Plan”, a “Source Separation Program” and manufacturers or packagers are required to have “Packaging Audits and Reduction Work Plans”. In Austin, TX, businesses with over 100 employees must complete a recycling plan, provided by The City, identifying what materials are going to be recycled. The City requires quarterly reports and the business must divert at least two materials. Portland, OR businesses must complete a recycling plan showing at least 50% diversion. The plan must be submitted to the servicing waste hauler and The City only upon request. In Philadelphia, PA all commercial businesses are required to:
Prepare and submit a Recycling Plan. Publicly post the Recycling Plan and distribute it to all employees and
tenants. Establish an education program that maintains effective communication
with facility occupants about recycling program expectations, changes, impacts, etc.
Arrange for collection by a hauler or recycling company that is properly licensed by the City of Philadelphia.
Participate in source separation of waste materials.
Packaging Ban at ICI Establishments
Bans imposed on specific materials or packaging .
Toronto, ON
Fort McMurray, AB
San Francisco, CA
Oakland, CA
The City of Oakland implemented a ban on polystyrene food service packaging. In 2010, Fort McMurray banned all single-use shopping bags (certain retailers exempt).
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Mandatory Food Waste Diversion
Implementing by-laws that require the ICI sector to source separate food waste from the garbage stream for diversion.
Regional District of Nanaimo, BC
Portland, OR
San Francisco, CA
In order to support a private composting facility and make it mandatory to divert organics in the region, the Regional District of Nanaimo banned ICI organics from the landfill in 2005. On average, about 3500 tonnes of ICI organics is processed per year. San Francisco was the first large US city to implement a commercial organics source separated program. The City offers a variety of programs to divert food waste from the commercial sector including redistribution of food to food banks, recovering food processing waste by farmers as animal feed, collection of grease and meat for rendering, on-site composting pilots and food waste collection services provided by the City’s two franchised haulers.
Ban of Recyclables in the Garbage
Recyclables are banned from being placed in the garbage.
Seattle, WA Seattle, WA has banned recyclable materials from the garbage in the ICI sector. Enforcement occurs through random visual inspections of dumpsters.
Mandatory Recycling Targets
Implementation of by-laws that require source separation in order to divert designated materials from the waste stream to meet specific diversion targets.
Portland, OR
California
Portland, OR has required all ICI customers to divert at least 50% of their waste. Fines are used as enforcement. In 1989, California passes AB939, a law that required municipalities to divert 50 percent of waste from landfills by 2000 or pay $10,000 a day in fines.
Packaging Levy A levy is placed on specific materials and packaging in the ICI sector.
Toronto, ON
San Francisco, CA
Oakland, CA
Grocery retailers in Toronto reported a decline in the use of plastic grocery bags ranging from 55% to 70% in 2009 after The City of Toronto imposed a 5 cent levy on plastic bags. As part of San Francisco’s Food Service Waste Reduction Ordinance, food vendors are permitted to charge a “take out fee” to customers. This fee is used by vendors to cover the cost difference of the biodegradable/ compostable take-out container due to the Ordinance requiring all disposable food ware containers used in The City to be biodegradable/ compostable.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 5.3.3-3: Voluntary Waste Diversion Program Option Best Practices Initiative Description Municipalities Adopting
Initiative Success Examples
Waste Diversion Assistance
Technical and information assistance to companies that want to implement waste diversion programs. This can be helpful to businesses that may not have the technical knowledge or capacity to investigate diversion opportunities.
Seattle, WA
Portland, OR
Metro Vancouver, BC
Pittsburgh, PA
Middletown, CT
Launched in 2004, The SmartSteps sustainable business program works to promote eco-efficiency and sustainable work practices that take into consideration social, financial and environmental elements. Key elements of the program include: waste reduction and recycling, water conservation, energy efficiency, air quality control and sewer use discharge reduction. This program targets small and medium sized industrial, commercial and institutional businesses within Metro Vancouver and aims to provide ICI businesses with information, technical assistance and tools to help make the business case for sustainability. The City of Edmonton offers waste minimization and reduction assistance through personal meetings with businesses. The City also has provides school and community groups with tours and information sessions at the Edmonton Waste Management Centre. The City of Seattle has a large program which offers free technical assistance and training on composting for businesses. The City of Portland, OR encourages ICI sector members to divert organics through educational materials, technical assistance and staff training. The City also offers financial assistance to those participating in organics diversion to help offset collection and transportation costs.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Initiative Description Municipalities Adopting Initiative
Success Examples
Waste Diversion Promotion
Promote waste diversion in the commercial sector. Promotion and education can encourage waste diversion awareness and participation in the ICI sector. Options include recognizing businesses that show progressive initiatives in this area, and certification of businesses that achieve certain diversion standards.
Metro Vancouver, BC
Pittsburgh, PA
Ottawa, ON
Durham Region, ON
New York, NY
Alameda County, CA
Massachusetts
Boulder CO
Metro Vancouver has established a “Sustainability Purchasing Network” to help organizations develop sustainability purchasing practices. Alameda County, CA recognizes “Green Businesses” that have met certain recycling standards. Certified businesses receive decals and promotional materials to use for advertisement. The state of Massachusetts has a “Supermarket Recycling Certification Program” that exempts recognized members from extensive disposal inspections. Supermarkets can voluntarily become members by implementing a recycling program that meets program requirements. The City of Boulder, CO will rebate up to $250 per business for the purchase of additional recycling or compost collection items as a part of their Commercial Recycling Discount. Also, The City will provide a coupon for FREE collection during collection during the first three months of recycling service. The Durham School Board, along with the Halton Public and Catholic, Toronto Catholic, and York Region school boards participate in Ontario EcoSchools Waste-Free Lunch Challenge, which encourages students to bring waste-free or “boomerang” lunches which contain no throwaway packaging and produce no waste. The City has established 3 programs promoting waste diversion in New York City schools. TrashMasters! Super Recyclers showcases model school recycling programs. Winning schools receive $6,000 with smaller cash awards to runners up.
Food Redirection Excess food from restaurants and grocery distributors redirected to food bank/ shelters. Redirection of consumable food waste from grocers and restaurants to those in need through providers such as social agencies can provide a higher level use of these materials, while also filling a social need.
Edmonton, AB
Toronto, ON
The Edmonton Food Bank works collaboratively with churches and food depots (more than 200 agencies) throughout The City, serving about 15,000 people per month. In 2011, the Food Bank redistributed 3.1 million kilograms of food in 2011.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Initiative Description Municipalities Adopting Initiative
Success Examples
Recycling/Organics Collection
Municipality provides collection of recyclables or organics to local businesses. Builds on residential recycling program.
Seattle, WA
Jasper, AB
Toronto, ON
The City of Seattle has a private waste hauler contracted to provide organics collection for the ICI sector. The Town of Jasper has community collection sites with large wildlife-resistant bins for residents to take their recyclables, organics, and waste. The Town collects the materials from the community collection sites and hauls it to the transfer station. The City of Toronto offers a commercial Yellow Bag Program that has eligible commercial customers place their garbage in special yellow bags for pick-up. Organics and recycling collection is provided at no charge only to customers in the Yellow Bag program.
Zero Waste Special Events
Special events offer an opportunity for focussed waste diversion, as well as public education. To avoid the waste associated with these events, organizers can be required as part of their permit to include waste diversion opportunities, and meet certain targets. This can be first introduced on a voluntary basis, and can also be led by The City as part of its special events.
New York, NY
San Francisco, CA
Pittsburgh, PA
San Francisco Special Events Ordinance No. 73-89 requires any applicant seeking permission for the temporary use or occupancy of a public street, a street fair, or an athletic event within the city and county that includes the dispensing of beverages or which generates large amounts of other materials to submit a recycling plan. New York, NY requires all special events to have recycling. The City of Pittsburgh, PA has a “Zero Waste division” that provides assistance through a hotline and website to help businesses conduct zero waste events.
Working Group on Waste Diversion
An ICI working group could be formed with members of the ICI community to provide focussed discussions around common issues and challenges related to waste diversion in this sector.
Philadelphia, PA
Jefferson County, IN
The Philadelphia Commercial Recycling Council was founded in 1995 and is a group of 20 business leaders that meet regularly to discuss recycling and related environmental issues in the area. In Jefferson County, IN there is a group of representatives from the ICI sector that meet once a month to discuss waste reduction programs and their development.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 7.0-1: Long List of Vision and Strategic Policies
Hierarchy Program Strategy Comments When Assessment Element
Rethink Shift paradigm from garbage to wasted materials, or commodities
Introduce revised language to all communiques to cause residents to look at the materials being wasted within it.
This is a subtle change in how we message and redefine how we look at what was historically garbage. Changes in waste flows as it affects how we work and live (e.g. reduced paper from a push to a paperless society, less glass, higher plastic generation). As targets are instituted by material or product, the concept will be driven home
<5 years
N/A
Distribute community information feedback forms, and/or hold periodic public information meetings within communities.
To keep in touch with communities and be mindful of their direct needs; also, to have a stronger sense of a community’s feelings around waste management issues.
Where initiatives are about to be instituted or waste management issues are of a higher concern, regular public information meetings within communities could be instituted (e.g., two per year). This would provide the service demand feedback the ACR requires. This could be attached to other departmental initiatives.
>5 years
N/A
Continue ACR partnerships and relationships with individual municipalities to foster joint projects and ventures relating to solid wastes.
Maintain efforts to have complimentary services between jurisdictions to the benefit the public.
This effort will continue to build on the activities by the committee.
<5 years
4,7,12,16
Establish Working Group on Waste Diversion
ICI sector stakeholders that meet to discuss common issues and challenges related to waste diversion in this sector and identify potential solutions
Formation of a regional ICI sector working group could include municipal representatives, waste haulers and business associations.
<5 years
5,6,16
Material Disposal Bans
Lobby the Province and/or institute bans that prohibit the disposal of certain materials at regional landfills and transfer stations. Contaminated loads could have additional charges or be rejected.
Landfills and transfer stations in the region could reject loads containing the banned material if bans are put in place or have additional charges.
>5 years
10,15,17
Encourage ESRD to review waste management policies developed in 2004
Collaborate with Calgary Regional Partnership to present a unified position on changes to current policies.
Two regions represent over two-thirds of the population in the province and can make a real difference in how waste is managed in Alberta.
>5 years
N/A
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 7.0-1: Long List of Vision and Strategic Policies
Hierarchy Program Strategy Comments When Assessment Element
Reduce Food Redirection
Program that redirects excess food from restaurants and/or grocery distributors to food bank/shelters filling a social need while diverting waste. These programs already exist through agencies such as the food bank, but could potentially be further encouraged and expanded.
Each municipality can adopt programs to encourage restaurants and grocery stores to redirect its excess food to food banks/shelters in the area.
>5 years
15
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 7.0-2: Long List of Management Systems and Tools Policies and Programs
Hierarchy Program Strategy Comments When Assessment
Element
Rethink Periodic review of disposal, recycling and organics system capacity
To avoid capacity issues when instituting new diversion and disposal strategies to increase tonnage ensure system resiliency can handle change.
Regularize these reviews based on the maps and facility listing provided to think strategically about the each system as a whole when making select changes.
>5 years 13,15
Develop a set of internal checklists to ensure that staff have sufficiently identified and considered important aspects of the IWMP in reports and contracts.
To ensure the majority of indirect impacts are considered either anecdotally or quantitatively.
Considering social, economic, and environment aspects to a decision is as important to a decision as considering the short-term and long-term impacts.
<5 years 7,10
The ACR will develop an ICI Waste Reduction Strategy and Toolkit to educate, facilitate, and legislate waste reduction practices in the private sector
To provide a comprehensive, longer-range strategy to reduce waste from the ICI sector, and to provide ready-made materials to assist business in this regard. Consider Abbotsford Business Environmental Pledge programme (through BC Fraser Basin Council) based on Whatcom County model in Washington State which is avail for free.
The Institution, Commercial, and light Industrial sector is very complex, with each specific member having truly unique needs. For this reason alone, a comprehensive, specific strategy is suggested. Alberta website for C&D would be of assistance to business. Only proceed when sufficient ICI support is gained (possibly through Chambers of Commerce).
<5 years
5,6,11,15,16
Depot collection and transport system reviews for compatibility with neighbouring municipalities and adjacent jurisdictions.
To minimize per tonne costs to collect and transport solid waste, and to minimize GHG emissions.
There are various methods to collect and transport waste/recyclables to depots. Looking at regional systems, vessel types, vehicles, and transportation (along with neighbouring municipalities) may result in a more efficient system.
>5 years
11,16
Standardize development requirement with respect to solid waste management.
To harmonize environmental requirements for businesses operating within ACR member municipalities.
Edmonton’s efforts to reduce solid waste may be compromised if policies are not consistent with neighbouring communities, such as the ACR. To ensure that businesses do not select their location based on the possibility of avoiding higher environmental standards; this would help ensure there is no advantage to locate businesses elsewhere.
<5 years
7,11,19
Adopt a procurement policy and develop a Procurement Guide to encourage and require the purchasing of products and services that assist in the reduction of solid waste.
To show leadership to the community, and support the message being provided from the ACR municipalities to the public.
The City of Richmond, BC (along with many other municipalities in Western Canada) has developed a good example for this kind of initiative. By doing what is being recommended to the public, this encourages participation in waste reduction programs. This guide will require the involvement of other departments (especially Procurement) and could be expanded to promote other environmentally beneficial practices other than solid waste reduction.
>5 years
11,16
Develop a policy to result in documented procedures to incorporate specific clauses into competition specifications, agreements, building specifications, and the like so that the construction of all facilities through ACR municipality contracts have a high-level of emphasis on waste material diversion, recycling, and proper disposal.
To ensure waste management policy translates into contract language at the operational level.
For example, when conducting a tender for the construction of public infrastructure, having set contract language for the source separation of construction waste may ensure consistency with the IWMP.
>5 years
11,19
Regional Deposit Refund Program
A deposit program that would accompany some, if not all, C&D project permit applications in the region. A refund would be given upon completion of the project based on waste diversion performance.
Financial incentive that accompanies C&D projects to increase C&D waste diversion. In addition to diverting C&D waste, this program also helps increases ability to track C&D materials and increase C&D waste diversion within the region.
>5 years
5,6,10
C&D Waste System Study
An assessment of the C&D waste management system in the region to determine C&D waste quantities, waste composition, processing facilities, disposal facilities and management practices. Incorporates recording and monitoring C&D data in the region, and tracking progress of C&D waste diversion.
This is a necessary assessment that will help benchmark generation rates, diversion potential, new program requirements to which new data can be compared.
<5 years
5,6,11
All municipalities put into place a monthly data tracking system to continually record tonnes collected by material stream and by month
Identify person within each municipality and assign responsibility, record tonnage (either via weigh scale records or from invoices), trend, track, measure, monitor for seasonality, annual variation and growth
Identifies current generation rates, current recovery potential, seasonal fluctuations and areas for improvement
<5 years
3,7,9,11,13,20
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 7.0-2: Long List of Management Systems and Tools Policies and Programs
Hierarchy Program Strategy Comments When Assessment
Element
Reduce Develop a “tool kit” of strategies/ guidelines/ codes of practice to reduce and recycle construction and demolition waste going to landfill.
To develop a longer term, comprehensive strategy to manage this waste stream with a consistent set of rules or guidelines for Contractors.
Although willing, some contractors do not have the time, nor do they understand how to manage this waste for this purpose. The ACR can provide a service to this sector through the production of this educational information (which is readily available from other locations).
<5 years
5,6,11,19
Annual reporting on the progress of implementing the IWMP against targets set out to the ACR.
To provide a status report on the progress of solid waste management to the ACR and individual Councils and the public, but also to annually review the IWMP and its progress towards targets as a whole.
This report (to council and to residents) would contain a summary of the year’s achievements in waste management. Developing this publication will require methods to measure performance. A good example is the City of Hamilton’s annual reporting format.
<5 years
3,7,8,9
Mandatory Waste Audits and Waste Diversion Plans
Businesses are required, through regulation and/or bylaws, to develop and conduct waste audits and management plans much like in the Province of Ontario.
Businesses would need to conduct waste audits and prepare waste diversion plans and targets for diverting a certain percentage of waste materials.
>5 years
N/A
Recycle Waste Diversion Assistance Information and technical assistance that is provided to companies who are driven to implement waste diversion programs.
Information and assistance provided by the region and/or municipalities that supports businesses.
>5 years
ICI Mandatory Recycling/Source Separation Requirements
Businesses are required to participate in recycling and/or waste diversion initiatives. This requirement may take the form of physical diversion infrastructure, including separate collection containers, or proof of material diversion.
Regional requirement to implement separate collection containers, physical diversion infrastructure, or proof of material diversion.
>5 years
5,6
Private Waste Haulers that are required to Implement Recycling Programs
Mandatory requirement for the waste haulers to provide recycling services to ICI sector customers. Could be implemented as part of a licensing process.
Mandating the private sector through municipal/regional bylaws to provide recycling services to complement disposal services they offer.
>5 years N/A
Material Recovery Plan (MRP)
A MRP is a plan that outlines how waste from construction and demolition projects would be managed and diverted from disposal. These plans are typically prepared prior to initiating projects (new construction, demolition, and addition or alteration projects) that exceed a certain value. Most communities in California require MRP that would need to meet a minimum diversion targets. .
Helps contractors understand the types of materials that would be generated from C&D projects. Also increases awareness of C&D waste diversion options and processes. Promotes waste diversion on a regional level.
>5 years
5,6
Institute Best Practice and have separate RFPs for collection and processing; follow GAP for RFP preparations; follow GAP for contract development and management
Based on audit results and records management (and analysis), RFPs can be written with best possible household counts, tonnage expectations, reporting requirements, collection frequencies, acceptable materials, etc. Joint tendering results in greater economies of scale (i.e., lower costs), aligns / harmonizes programs across jurisdictions.
Institute in all municipalities (including EDM where in-house staff and private contractors allowed to bid); based on current contract terms, first step work to align end dates so that joint tendering process can be undertaken around the same time
<5 years
20
Residual The ACR will develop an Illegal Dumping and Burning Strategy and Toolkit to educate, facilitate, and legislate the reduction of the various forms of illegal dumping and refuse burning.
To develop a comprehensive strategy complete with ready-made templates to support staff initiatives to address this issue.
Managing change for what has been a regular past practice is difficult and often confrontational. With sensitivity, education, and promotion in mind, a comprehensive strategy could significantly improve the chances of success on this difficult. It is recommended that burning barrels be banned with a graduated increasing level of enforcement.
>5 years
N/A
Disposal Surcharges – Dedicated Landfill Levy
Levy or surcharge placed on waste entering the region’s landfills. This surcharge serves the dual purpose financial disincentive for disposal, while also providing a funding mechanism for waste diversion programming and enforcement measures.
Much like Metro Vancouver, there is a surcharge that is placed on waste entering the region’s disposal facilities and helps financially support waste diversion programs.
<5 years
11
Differential Tipping Fees Loads containing specified or designated materials that are divertible are subject to an increased tipping fee.
Development of a regional or municipal bylaw that identifies when differential tipping fees would be applied. The region would create a list of designated materials and charge increased tipping fees at the regional disposal facilities for loads containing those materials.
>5 years
11
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 7.0-3: Long List of Operational Infrastructure and Services Policies and Programs
Hierarchy Program Strategy Comments When Assessment
Element
Rethink Share Edmonton and ACR databases for future waste management initiatives as was composition and facility waste audits are completed.
To reduce effort duplication and work collaboratively with the ACR’s largest member community.
This would contribute to a much better understanding of the waste system dynamics as information becomes available.
>5 years N/A
Conduct periodic technology reviews. To encourage ACR municipal staff to be mindful of innovative alternatives to solid waste management to improve efficiency.
Reviewing literature regularly and comparing new equipment and technology to existing systems could become a policy, resulting in periodic reporting to ensure this practice occurs. Member municipal staff could present any new systems to other communities through the ARC
<5 years
14
Prepare solid waste facility licensing bylaw template to require new waste management related businesses best management practices.
To encourage best practices and ensure that compliance has been adopted in other jurisdictions. Information for new businesses, a bylaw and tool kit encouraging best practices, along with a mechanism to ensure compliance has been adopted in other jurisdictions.
The Greater Vancouver Regional District applies such a program. A coordinated response amongst neighbouring municipalities may be in order. The reason for such a bylaw is to avoid the negative impacts of improper storage and fire protection practices of MSW, resulting in impacts to neighbouring residential and commercial areas.
>5 years
19
Transfer haul analysis Undertake direct haul vs. transfer haul analysis to determine if the usage of transfer stations for recyclables, organics and/or waste is more cost effective/efficient
This could lead to partnerships between municipalities to reduce rates to residents by more efficient systems.
>5 years 16
Standardize collection and processing contracts Establish consistency in how waste is collected and processed across the region. Provides opportunities for municipalities to coordinate contracts.
Create consistency in collection and provide opportunities for cost savings through economies of scale.
<5 years 7,11
Reduce Develop a comprehensive strategy to implement expanded diversion opportunities at the Transfer Stations, complementing Provincial Programs and EPR programs by the industry.
To maximize the opportunity for residents to divert solid waste from disposal
Often, when a new opportunity arises from an industry or Provincial initiative, there are initial supporting funds available. To take advantage of these opportunities as efficiently as possible, a more specific, detailed strategy should be formulated. Include batteries and used oil.
>5 years
19,21
Prepare a feasibility study that considers a regional system of Free stores (possibly managed by established local volunteers and charity groups) to accommodate the reuse of “garage sale” type products.
To improve the economy of scale of diverting reusables,
Communities usually embrace these efforts as it helps to divert waste. But, this also provides opportunities for some residents to gain from another’s waste. It may be more worthwhile to partner with an adjacent municipality on this initiative. Some municipalities do charge a small fee for taking away items, usually to cover operating costs.
>5 years
N/A
Reuse Waste Exchange Program Online Waste Information System that encourages reuse by listing materials available that would otherwise be disposed of.
A regional or municipally supported system that can be operated as an online system where businesses can sell and trade commercial waste materials.
<5 years N/A
Recycle Construct an ACR Special Event Recycling Promotional Trailer. To encourage recycling at special events, while promoting waste diversion to the residential sector which could be shared upon demand by each member municipality.
In consultation with ACR member municipalities, design and construct a trailer with appropriate vessels to contain recyclable products generated at special events.
>5 years N/A
Increase recycling service while reducing garbage collection service.
Where applicable, increase recycling and organics collection to weekly and provide bi-weekly garbage collection
Can also collect organics weekly and collected garbage & recyclables bi-weekly and alternating – therefore each week only need two collection trucks or one truck if truck has a split load
<5 years N/A
Develop partnerships for on-going pilot projects for curbside collection of organics including yard waste and food scraps.
Develop community buy-in of organic collection through small pilot projects.
This small step approach will allow the ACR to adjust and deal with challenges on a small scale before expansion of a program to the greater area. This will also be cause for continuous growth in this key area to increase diversion.
<5 years
4,7,11,15,16
Recycling/Organics Collection Municipal program that provides collection of recyclables or organics to local businesses. Extension of residential waste diversion programs.
Includes local businesses in the recycling and organics collection already being done for residents in the many municipalities.
>5 years 15
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table 7.0-4: Long List of Promotion and Education Policies and Programs
Hierarchy Program Strategy Comments When Assessment
Element
Rethink Complete a participation rate survey of programs, such as the use of depots and participation in various programs, including existing e-waste, hazardous waste, and tire collection.
To gauge whether or not the service is operating to the general satisfaction of users and whether there is sufficient awareness of the service.
Periodic surveys could be a measure of performance and inform staff of where education and promotional activities can be better focused.
<5 years 9
Provide Community Information and Feedback forms at existing facilities.
To gain simple, direct feedback from customers of the ACR member municipality waste management system, and to continually improve service at our waste management facilities.
These forms could be sent out periodically to communities providing updates, but also seeking feedback. This would provide the service demand feedback the ACR member municipalities require while continually reminding residents of system to build awareness.
<5 years
N/A
Zero Waste Special Events Special events that offer/highlight an opportunity for focused waste diversion, as well as public education.
Policies that encourage event organizers to meet certain waste diversion targets as a part of the event permit process.
>5 years N/A
Reduce Develop a Master Recycler/Composter program to identify and educate environmental leaders within ACR communities.
To have interested community leaders inform the community on recycling best practices.
Communities such as the cities of Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver have Master Composter programs which serve to educate members of the community on the “how- to's” of composting. Need to look at the differences in lifestyles for a rural versus a more urban community.
>5 years
15
Develop an information resource to educate residents on the “how-to’s” of grass-cycling.
To educate the public on how to use mulching mowers and composters to deal with grass clippings on-site without having too many detrimental effects on the lawn.
People may not be aware of the money they can save by keeping grass clippings on the lawn by mulching and/or composting. There are also climate-specific issues that require certain handling for residents to maintain the quality of their lawns.
<5 years
15
Reuse Waste Diversion Promotion and Recognition Program Waste diversion awareness and participation that highlights using promotion and education.
A “recognition program” that identifies businesses that implemented waste diversion programs, achieved certain diversion standards and tells how and why they did this.
<5 years 5,6
Recycle Include an approved C&D disposal and recycling facilities brochure in all ACR member municipality building and demolition permit packages.
To encourage better management of ACR C&D waste on-site. This will provide the means and reminder for diverting many of these reusable or recyclable materials.
<5 years 5,6
Identify businesses and solid waste management initiatives that could represent a forum or leadership in this sector to better implement ICI initiatives
Create relationships with representing bodies of the business sector.
Examples include the Chamber of Commerce and business district groups to work together on waste management issues.
<5 years 5,6
Work with municipal representatives and their respective Building Departments to identify a method to encourage the proper management of construction and demolition waste (proof of proper disposal prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit).
To provide a level playing field for contracts to encourage the proper management of ACR waste.
Building accountability for proper waste management practices (through the Building permitting stage) will immediately notify contractors of ACR member municipality requirements, allowing them to plan before construction.
>5 years
11,16
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
FIGURES
Figure A Solid Waste Management Facilities Locations
Figure B Recyclables Processing
Figure C Organics Processing
Figure D Waste Disposal
PROJECT NO.
DATEOFFICE
FILE NO.
PROJECTION
DWN
DATUM
facility_location_overview_130114.mxd
CKD REV
M:\E
NV
IRO
NM
EN
TA
L\C
225
\C22
5011
83
\Ma
ps\f
acili
ty_lo
catio
n_
overv
iew
_13
0114
.mxd
mo
difie
d1
/15
/20
13
by
ste
phe
n.w
inn
em
ulle
r
APVD
CLIENT
Figure 4
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
E d m o n t o n
Y e l l o w h e a d C o u n t y
C l e a r w a t e r C o u n t y
M . D . o f B i g L a k e s
W o o d l a n d s C o u n t y
C o u n t y 1 2 A t h a b a s c a
F l a g s t a f f C o u n t y
B e a v e r C o u n t y
P o n o k a C o u n t y
S m o k y L a k e C o u n t y
M . D . 9 2 W e s t l o c k
M . D . 7 7 B r a z e a u
C o u n t y 2 2 C a m r o s e
L a m o n t C o u n t y
P a r k l a n d C o u n t y
C o u n t y 2 5 L e d u c
C o u n t y 2 7 M i n b u r n
C o u n t y 1 0 W e t a s k i w i n
L a c S t e . A n n e C o u n t yC o u n t y 2 1 T w o H i l l s
S t u r g e o n C o u n t y
C o u n t y 1 1 B a r r h e a d
C o u n t y 7 T h o r h i l d
S t r a t h c o n a C o u n t y
I . D . 1 3
Leduc
St. Albert
Fort Saskatchewan
Stony Plain
Spruce Grove
Devon
Morinville
Beaumont
Redwater
Gibbons
Calmar
Legal
Bruderheim
Wabamun
Lamont
Thorsby
Warburg
Bon Accord
StandstoneCleanit-Greenit
Ever Green
EWMC
©
CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Solid Waste Management
Facility Locations
NAD8310TM
C22501183 SW
January 15, 2013EBA-RIV
LEGEND
Facility Type
Major Class 2 Landfill
Class 2 Landfill
Class 3 Landfill
Compost Facility
Leaf and Yard Waste
Material Recovery Facility
Anaerobic Digestion Facility
River/Lake
Expressway
Primary Highway
City/Town Limits
Municipal Districts
Alberta Capital Region
NOTES
Base data source:
10 0 105
Kilometres
MS 0
Scale: 1:800,000
STATUS
MR
Beaver Regional LandfillLeducRegional Landfill
RoseridgeRegional Landfill
Edmonton WestLandfill
Highway 43 EastRegional Landfill
Lamont CountyRegional Landfill
Growing PowerHairy Hill
Aspen Regional Landfill
PROJECT NO.
DATEOFFICE
FILE NO.
PROJECTION
DWN
DATUM
C22501183_Recyclables_130114.mxd
CKD REV
M:\E
NV
IRO
NM
EN
TA
L\C
225
\C22
5011
83
\Ma
ps\C
225
011
83_
Recycla
ble
s_
13
0114
.mxd
mo
difie
d1/1
5/2
013
by
ste
phe
n.w
inn
em
ulle
r
APVD
CLIENT
Figure 7
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
?? ? ?
??
?
?
??
?
?
?
?
E d m o n t o n
Y e l l o w h e a d C o u n t y
C l e a r w a t e r C o u n t y
M . D . o f B i g L a k e s
W o o d l a n d s C o u n t y
C o u n t y 1 2 A t h a b a s c a
F l a g s t a f f C o u n t y
B e a v e r C o u n t y
P o n o k a C o u n t y
S m o k y L a k e C o u n t y
M . D . 9 2 W e s t l o c k
M . D . 7 7 B r a z e a u
C o u n t y 2 2 C a m r o s e
L a m o n t C o u n t y
P a r k l a n d C o u n t y
C o u n t y 2 5 L e d u c
C o u n t y 2 7 M i n b u r n
C o u n t y 1 0 W e t a s k i w i n
L a c S t e . A n n e C o u n t yC o u n t y 2 1 T w o H i l l s
S t u r g e o n C o u n t y
C o u n t y 1 1 B a r r h e a d
C o u n t y 7 T h o r h i l d
S t r a t h c o n a C o u n t y
I . D . 1 3
Leduc
St. Albert
Fort Saskatchewan
Stony Plain
Spruce Grove
Devon
Morinville
Beaumont
Redwater
Gibbons
Calmar
Legal
Bruderheim
Wabamun
Lamont
Thorsby
Warburg
Bon Accord
Standstone
Cleanit-Greenit
Ever Green
EWMC
©
CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Recyclables Processing
NAD8310TM
C22501183 SW
January 15, 2013EBA-RIV
LEGEND
Facility Type
Major Class 2 Landfill
Class 2 Landfill
Class 3 Landfill
Compost Facility
Leaf and Yard Waste
Material Recovery Facility
Anaerobic Digestion Facility
River/Lake
Expressway
Primary Highway
City/Town Limits
Municipal Districts
Alberta Capital Region?
Recyclables Processing Flow
NOTES
Base data source:
10 0 105
Kilometres
MS 0
Scale: 1:800,000
STATUS
MR
Beaver Regional LandfillLeducRegional Landfill
RoseridgeRegional Landfill
Edmonton WestLandfill
Highway 43 EastRegional Landfill
Lamont CountyRegional Landfill
Growing PowerHairy Hill
Aspen Regional Landfill
PROJECT NO.
DATEOFFICE
FILE NO.
PROJECTION
DWN
DATUM
C22501183_Organics_Processing_130114.mxd
CKD REV
M:\E
NV
IRO
NM
EN
TA
L\C
225
\C22
5011
83
\Ma
ps\C
225
011
83_
Org
anic
s_
Pro
cessin
g_
13
0114
.mxd
mo
difie
d1/1
5/2
013
by
ste
phe
n.w
inn
em
ulle
r
APVD
CLIENT
Figure 6
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
?
?
?
?
?
?
E d m o n t o n
Y e l l o w h e a d C o u n t y
C l e a r w a t e r C o u n t y
M . D . o f B i g L a k e s
W o o d l a n d s C o u n t y
C o u n t y 1 2 A t h a b a s c a
F l a g s t a f f C o u n t y
B e a v e r C o u n t y
P o n o k a C o u n t y
S m o k y L a k e C o u n t y
M . D . 9 2 W e s t l o c k
M . D . 7 7 B r a z e a u
C o u n t y 2 2 C a m r o s e
L a m o n t C o u n t y
P a r k l a n d C o u n t y
C o u n t y 2 5 L e d u c
C o u n t y 2 7 M i n b u r n
C o u n t y 1 0 W e t a s k i w i n
L a c S t e . A n n e C o u n t yC o u n t y 2 1 T w o H i l l s
S t u r g e o n C o u n t y
C o u n t y 1 1 B a r r h e a d
C o u n t y 7 T h o r h i l d
S t r a t h c o n a C o u n t y
I . D . 1 3
Leduc
St. Albert
Fort Saskatchewan
Stony Plain
Spruce Grove
Devon
Morinville
Beaumont
Redwater
Gibbons
Calmar
Legal
Bruderheim
Wabamun
Lamont
Thorsby
Warburg
Bon Accord
Standstone
Cleanit-Greenit
Ever Green
EWMC
©
CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Organics Processing
NAD8310TM
C22501183 SW
January 15, 2013EBA-RIV
LEGEND
Facility Type
Major Class 2 Landfill
Class 2 Landfill
Class 3 Landfill
Compost Facility
Leaf and Yard Waste
Material Recovery Facility
Anaerobic Digestion Facility
River/Lake
Expressway
Primary Highway
City/Town Limits
Municipal Districts
Alberta Capital Region?
Organics Processing Flow
NOTES
Base data source:
10 0 105
Kilometres
MS 0
Scale: 1:800,000
STATUS
MR
Beaver Regional LandfillLeducRegional Landfill
RoseridgeRegional Landfill
Edmonton WestLandfill
Highway 43 EastRegional Landfill
Lamont CountyRegional Landfill
Growing PowerHairy Hill
Aspen Regional Landfill
PROJECT NO.
DATEOFFICE
FILE NO.
PROJECTION
DWN
DATUM
C22501183_Waste_Disposal_130114.mxd
CKD REV
M:\E
NV
IRO
NM
EN
TA
L\C
225
\C22
5011
83
\Ma
ps\C
225
011
83_
Wa
ste
_D
isp
osa
l_1
3011
4.m
xd
mo
difie
d1
/15
/201
3b
yste
ph
en.w
inne
mu
ller
APVD
CLIENT
Figure 5
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
?
?
??
?
?
?
?
?
?
??
?
?
?
??
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
E d m o n t o n
Y e l l o w h e a d C o u n t y
C l e a r w a t e r C o u n t y
M . D . o f B i g L a k e s
W o o d l a n d s C o u n t y
C o u n t y 1 2 A t h a b a s c a
F l a g s t a f f C o u n t y
B e a v e r C o u n t y
P o n o k a C o u n t y
S m o k y L a k e C o u n t y
M . D . 9 2 W e s t l o c k
M . D . 7 7 B r a z e a u
C o u n t y 2 2 C a m r o s e
L a m o n t C o u n t y
P a r k l a n d C o u n t y
C o u n t y 2 5 L e d u c
C o u n t y 2 7 M i n b u r n
C o u n t y 1 0 W e t a s k i w i n
L a c S t e . A n n e C o u n t yC o u n t y 2 1 T w o H i l l s
S t u r g e o n C o u n t y
C o u n t y 1 1 B a r r h e a d
C o u n t y 7 T h o r h i l d
S t r a t h c o n a C o u n t y
I . D . 1 3
Leduc
St. Albert
Fort Saskatchewan
Stony Plain
Spruce Grove
Devon
Morinville
Beaumont
Redwater
Gibbons
Calmar
Legal
Bruderheim
Wabamun
Lamont
Thorsby
Warburg
Bon Accord
StandstoneCleanit-Greenit
Ever Green
EWMC
Coronation
©
CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Waste Disposal
NAD8310TM
C22501183 SW
January 15, 2013EBA-RIV
LEGEND
Facility Type
Major Class 2 Landfill
Class 2 Landfill
Class 3 Landfill
Compost Facility
Leaf and Yard Waste
Material Recovery Facility
Anaerobic Digestion Facility
River/Lake
Expressway
Primary Highway
City/Town Limits
Municipal Districts
Alberta Capital Region?
Waste Disposal Flow
NOTES
Base data source:
10 0 105
Kilometres
MS 0
Scale: 1:800,000
STATUS
MR
Beaver Regional LandfillLeducRegional Landfill
RoseridgeRegional Landfill
Edmonton WestLandfill
Highway 43 EastRegional Landfill
Lamont CountyRegional Landfill
Growing PowerHairy Hill
Aspen Regional Landfill
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
APPENDIX A EBA’S GENERAL CONDITIONS
General Conditions - Geo-environmental Report.doc
GENERAL CONDITIONS
GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
This report incorporates and is subject to these “General Conditions”.
1.0 USE OF REPORT AND OWNERSHIP
This report pertains to a specific site, a specific development, and a
specific scope of work. It is not applicable to any other sites, nor
should it be relied upon for types of development other than those
to which it refers. Any variation from the site or proposed
development would necessitate a supplementary investigation and
assessment.
This report and the assessments and recommendations contained
in it are intended for the sole use of EBA’s client. EBA does not
accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the
analysis or the recommendations contained or referenced in the
report when the report is used or relied upon by any party other
than EBA’s Client unless otherwise authorized in writing by EBA.
Any unauthorized use of the report is at the sole risk of the user.
This report is subject to copyright and shall not be reproduced either
wholly or in part without the prior, written permission of EBA.
Additional copies of the report, if required, may be obtained upon
request.
2.0 ALTERNATE REPORT FORMAT
Where EBA submits both electronic file and hard copy versions of
reports, drawings and other project-related documents and
deliverables (collectively termed EBA’s instruments of professional
service), only the signed and/or sealed versions shall be considered
final and legally binding. The original signed and/or sealed version
archived by EBA shall be deemed to be the original for the Project.
Both electronic file and hard copy versions of EBA’s instruments of
professional service shall not, under any circumstances, no matter
who owns or uses them, be altered by any party except EBA. The
Client warrants that EBA’s instruments of professional service will
be used only and exactly as submitted by EBA.
Electronic files submitted by EBA have been prepared and
submitted using specific software and hardware systems. EBA
makes no representation about the compatibility of these files with
the Client’s current or future software and hardware systems.
3.0 NOTIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES
In certain instances, the discovery of hazardous substances or
conditions and materials may require that regulatory agencies and
other persons be informed and the client agrees that notification to
such bodies or persons as required may be done by EBA in its
reasonably exercised discretion.
4.0 INFORMATION PROVIDED TO EBA BY OTHERS
During the performance of the work and the preparation of the
report, EBA may rely on information provided by persons other than
the Client. While EBA endeavours to verify the accuracy of such
information when instructed to do so by the Client, EBA accepts no
responsibility for the accuracy or the reliability of such information
which may affect the report.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
APPENDIX B MUNICIPAL SUMMARIES
APPENDIX B
EBA FILE: C22501183 | MARCH 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
1
Appendix B - Municipal Summaries
1.0 MUNICIPAL SECTOR
The following sections include a discussion of each member municipality of the ACR that includes a brief
discussion on each community’s vision of the future and their waste management system.
1.1 City of Edmonton
The City of Edmonton manages the waste from single-family homes and from a number of multi-family
residential units and other sources. This accounts for approximately 45 to 50 percent of the total waste
stream generated in Edmonton. Waste is collected by city-owned vehicles and by private haulers under
contract. The City currently collects two waste streams – mixed waste and recyclables. The recyclable
stream consists primarily of clean paper, cardboard, plastics, glass jars and bottles, and metal containers.
All other waste materials are consolidated in a mixed waste stream. The City also operates three
Eco-Stations that accept household hazardous waste, E-wastes and large objects that cannot be collected at
the curb. Recyclables from single-family and duplex units are gathered through a blue-bag program while
recyclables from multi-family units and commercial customers are gathered through a blue-bin system.
The waste managed by the City is processed at the Edmonton Waste Management Centre (EWMC) located
on the east side of the city, on Meridian Street. The primary elements of the EWMC are the material
recovery facility (MRF)for recyclables, the integrated processing and transfer facility (IPTF), a co-compost
facility and a refuse-derived fuel (RDF) plant. Material collected through the blue-bag/bin program are
taken directly to the MRF for sorting and consolidation for further processing and marketing. The IPTF is
the induction point for all material collected in the general waste stream. Wastes are sorted for a variety of
destinations. Food wastes and other biodegradable materials are sent to the composter. Clean recyclables
are diverted to the MRF and processed with material from the blue-bag/cart program. Non-recyclable and
non-compostable wastes are directed to the RDF plant to produce feedstock for the bio-fuel plant currently
under construction. Any waste that cannot be processed through the three main systems is consolidated
and shipped to the Beaver Regional Landfill at Ryley, Alberta.
The City also operates a plant for processing construction and demolition (C&D) waste. This plant
processes clean wood and drywall, metals, trees and shrubs, concrete and asphalt shingles. These
materials are processed into materials for a variety of other uses.
1.2 City of St. Albert
The City of St. Albert is responsible for the collection and disposal of wastes from single-family units and
approximately one-third of the St. Albert’s multi-family units. The City, however, is looking at reducing it’s
collection from multi-family units.
The City has an automated two-cart system with a brown cart for mixed or general household garbage and
a green cart for organics as well as a blue bag system for clean recyclables. Waste collection is funded
through a “Pay-As You-Throw” (PAYT) system. Three sizes of brown carts (60, 120 and 240 L) and two
sizes of green carts (120 and 240 L) are available. Residents can choose the size of carts they wish to use
and their monthly billing for waste services reflects the size of carts used – the smaller the carts, the lower
the fees. The City has also retained its previous “tag-a-bag” system for wastes in excess of what will fit in
APPENDIX B
EBA FILE: C22501183 | MARCH 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
2
Appendix B - Municipal Summaries
the brown cart. Black or green bags of waste with properly affixed yellow tags can be dropped off at the
City’s recycling depot.
Residents can use the green cart for a broad range of food wastes, soiled paper (i.e., pizza boxes), floor
sweepings, cooking grease, and yard waste. The use of bags in the green carts is optional, but any bags
used must be compostable. Otherwise, residents are encouraged to layer wastes in the carts and line them
with paper of cardboard. In addition to its curb-side programs, the City also has a Recycling Depot and a
Compost Depot both of which are manned during . The former has facilities for the typical recyclable
materials as well as household hazardous wastes and some electronics material. The latter accepts yard
wastes and larger items such as tree branches and stumps. Twice a year the City provides from this site to
residents free of charge.
The City has contracted with Standstone EnviroWaste Services Ltd. (Standstone) in Spruce Grove, Alberta
to collect the brown and green carts and deliver those materials to the Roseridge Regional Landfill located
near Morinville, Alberta. Recyclables collection has been contracted to Ever Green Ecological Services
(Ever Green) in Sherwood Park, Alberta.
1.3 Strathcona County
Strathcona County is unique in that it includes Sherwood Park, the largest hamlet in Alberta with a
population over 64,700. The County has a two-cart waste collection system and a “blue bag” program for
recyclables. Waste management is funded by monthly utility fees that vary from $20.50 to $22.95 per
month depending upon location. Waste collection is available to all County residents, but it is by
subscription only in rural areas. The County has contracted out waste collection and material processing.
Ever Green has a contract until 2014 for waste collection and for processing recyclables. Until recently, the
County’s organics were composted by Cleanit Greenit; however, the County is currently seeking a new
provider for this service. Other waste (black carts) is hauled by Ever Green to Roseridge Regional Landfill
for disposal.
A black cart is provided for mixed or general wastes and a green cart is used for organics. The organics
program targets food waste and yard waste such as grass clipping. Residents are also provided with a
smaller “green catcher” cart for collecting food wastes in the kitchen. The blue bag program is aimed at
clean, dry recyclables such as paper products, plastics, metal (steel, aluminum) and styrofoam. All other
materials not suitable for inclusion in the organics or recyclables programs is collected in the black carts.
Recyclables are collected weekly while the black and green carts are collected on alternate weeks.
1.4 City of Fort Saskatchewan
The City of Fort Saskatchewan provides co-mingled waste collection and a curb-side blue-bag program for
the standard recyclable – paper, glass, plastics, metal and cardboard. Co-mingled wastes and curb-side
recyclables are manually picked up weekly. The co-mingled waste is taken to the City’s waste transfer
station for consolidation and transport by BFI Canada to its landfill near Coronation, Alberta. The City also
operates a Recycling Depot, which accepts the same materials as the blue bag program, and a Composting
Centre for yard waste. Residential waste services are funded through a $14.07 per month utility charge for
single and multi-family units.
APPENDIX B
EBA FILE: C22501183 | MARCH 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
3
Appendix B - Municipal Summaries
Unique to Fort Saskatchewan’s waste management system is that the City also controls waste collection
from commercial and industrial waste generators. The City’s solid waste bylaw gives it sole authority to
determine who may collect wastes within the City. At present, residential collection is currently contracted
to BFI Canada until the fall of 2013. The City also has a franchise agreement with Tri-Line Waste Disposal
Inc. for commercial waste collection.
Fort Saskatchewan may review it’s waste management activities in 2013/14. One option that may be
considered is a change to bi-weekly automated collection.
1.5 City of Spruce Grove
The City of Spruce Grove operates a two cart system in conjunction with a blue bag program for recycles.
Each household is provided with a black 240 L cart for garbage or mixed waste and a green 240 L cart for
organics. Organics are collected weekly during a seven-month period from April to November. Curb-side
recyclables in the blue bag program are picked up bi-weekly. Mixed wastes are collected weekly on a year-
round basis. The carts are collected using automated equipment, but the recyclables are collected
manually. Residents are only allowed to put out one black cart full of garbage each week. However, unlike
most other municipalities using an automated green cart system for organics, Spruce Grove residents can
also put out additional bags of organics which will also be picked up as part of the organics collection.
The materials collected through Spruce Grove’s organics and blue bag programs are similar to those
collected by other municipalities with similar source separation programs. The City also has an Eco Centre
that accepts the same items as the curb-side programs as well as household hazardous wastes, electronic
waste, tires and scrap metal (including white goods and propane tanks). Fees are charged at the Eco Centre
for some items.
At present all three waste streams are collected by Standstone under separate contracts. Standstone
processes the recyclables while the organics are sent to Cleanit Greenit Composting System Inc.
1.6 Town of Stony Plain
The Town of Stony Plain has a three-container system for residential waste management. It consists of a
240 L black cart for garbage, a 240 L green cart for organics (Organicart) and blue bags for recyclables.
Cart collection is automated and blue bag collection is done manually. All residential waste is collected
under contract by Ever Green. Garbage and recyclables are collected bi-weekly as is organics during the
colder months. Organics collection is weekly from April to October. Ever Green processes the recyclables
at its own facility and delivers the organics to Cleanit Greenit or to an anaerobic digester at Vegreville,
Alberta.
Stony Plain’s list of acceptable recyclable materials is similar to other municipalities except glass is
excluded unless it is a refundable beverage container. Soiled paper such as pizza boxes is included in the
list of acceptable materials for the organics program. The volume of garbage that can be put out weekly is
limited to what can be placed in the black cart and still have the lid closed. There is not restriction on
organics or recyclables. Residents are encouraged to place additional yard waste in compostable bags
adjacent to the green cart. The use of bags is not mandated except that if bags are used for organics, they
must be certified as compostable.
APPENDIX B
EBA FILE: C22501183 | MARCH 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
4
Appendix B - Municipal Summaries
Waste management services are funded through a monthly utility charge based on the type of unit. There
are different rates for Single Family Dwellings (including townhomes and units up to four-plex size),
Apartment Houses (units over four-plex size), and Senior Citizens Apartment Houses.
The Town also operates the Rotary Recycling Centre. It has facilities for all materials collected through the
curb-side programs as well as electronic waste and paint. (Residents are directed to take household
hazardous wastes to the local Parkland County transfer station.)
1.7 Parkland County
Parkland County operates six waste transfer stations and three recycling centres that provide waste
management services to County residents. The only community with curb-side collection is the Hamlet of
Entwistle which was village until January 1, 2001. A combined waste transfer station and recycling centre
is located immediately west of Stony Plain and the other five waste transfer stations are located in the
western two-thirds of the County. Two recycling centres are also located in the western part of the County.
The waste transfer stations have weigh scales, are manned and offer a broad range of services to residents.
In addition to the typical materials, most transfer stations are equipped to accept, paint, motor oil and
containers, household hazardous waste, electronic wastes, batteries, appliances, propane tanks, tires, small
furniture, construction, demolition and renovation wastes, and commercial waste.
Parkland has a blue bag drop-off program for recyclables. Materials accepted include plastics (including
bags), clean mixed paper and cardboard, metal cans, and glass jars. Blue bags can be dropped off at the
recycling centres. Mixed paper products can also be dropped off at the Seba Beach, KeepHills and Moon
Lake waste transfer stations. According to information from the County, the blue bag program diverted
approximately 1,200 tonnes of material from landfill disposal in 2011.
Waste management services are partially funded by user fees. County residents with access cards can
deposit most wastes at transfer stations free of charge. There are some exceptions such as an surcharge for
fridges and freezers containing food waste. Non-residents can use facilities for a fee. There are also fees
for construction and accepted commercial wastes.
According to the Integrated Waste Management Plan prepared for Parkland County by Stantec1 in 2010,
waste collected at the transfer stations is transported to a number of facilities including the Beaver
Regional Landfill at Ryley, Alberta (45%), Aspen Regional Landfill (23%) at Drayton Valley, Alberta,
Highway 43 East Regional Landfill (23%) near Ross Haven, Alberta and Waste Management of Canada’s
170 Street Landfill (9%) in Edmonton, Alberta. A key recommendation in the Plan endorsed by the County
was to pursue the identification of a suitable landfill site in the County for potential development in the
future.
1.8 Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Authority
The Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Authority (the Authority) operates waste management
facilities at its site east of the City of Leduc for the benefit of its member municipalities. The Authority
1 Stantec Consulting Ltd. Integrated Waste Management Plan – Parkland County, February 2010.
APPENDIX B
EBA FILE: C22501183 | MARCH 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
5
Appendix B - Municipal Summaries
members are the Town of Beaumont, Town of Calmar, Town of Devon, City of Leduc and Leduc County. It
also receives waste from the Village of Thorsby. In addition to residential waste, it manages some wastes
generated by the ICI sector in Leduc County including the Edmonton International Airport. Facilities
include a landfill complex, a MRF, and yard waste composting. Most recently, the Authority constructed a
tipping floor to support the diversion of organics from the facility.
The landfill complex includes the East Landfill dedicated to mixed municipal/residential waste and the
West Landfill dedicated to non-biodegradable waste from the ICI sector including some impacted soils. The
MRF is a drop-off point for recyclables and household hazardous waste.
The City of Leduc provides management services for the regional waste management facility, and facility
operation is contracted to MCL Waste Services.
1.8.1 City of Leduc
The City of Leduc recently introduced a three-container curb-side waste management program for single-
family residential units. It consists of a 240-L black cart for garbage or mixed waste, a 240-L green cart for
organics, and blue bags for recyclables. The waste and organics carts are emptied using automated
collection equipment while blue bags are collected manually. Residents are limited in the amount of
garbage and organics that can be placed at the curb; however, an extra black cart can be obtained for up to
six months for an additional $10.00 per month. The standard charge for waste management services is
$21.50 per month. Residents also have the option of taking material directly to the regional landfill.
The organics program is aimed at diverting food waste, yard waste (including small, trimmed branches),
soiled paper (pizza boxes, paper towels, etc.) and other natural, biodegradable materials. Bagging organics
is not encouraged, but if residents use bags, the bags must be certified as compostable. The blue bag
program focuses on clean paper, cardboard, plastics with “recycling” logo, metal containers (steel and
aluminum) and non-glass beverage containers. Any material that doesn’t fit in the two previous categories
goes in the black garbage cart.
Blue bag material is picked up weekly as are organics between April and November. Green cart material is
collected bi-weekly between November and April, and black cart material is collected bi-weekly year-
round. Organics and garbage are taken to the landfill by Ever Green for further processing or disposal.
Recyclables are taken to Ever Green’s MRF in Sherwood Park for processing and marketing.
1.8.2 Leduc County
Leduc County operates nine waste transfer stations at various locations across the County. The transfer
stations accept residential waste, blue bag recyclables and compostable yard waste (May to October). The
transfer stations at Sunnybrook and New Sarepta also accept used oil and filters, batteries, paint, white
goods and other metals, clean wood, tires, C&D waste, furniture and electronic waste. Residents also have
to option of taking material directly to the regional landfill at Leduc. The County’s blue bag recycling
program accepts plastics, glass jars and bottles, metal cans, and paper and cardboard.
All transfer stations are manned during hours of operations. Residents require an access card to use these
facilities as well as the landfill. Non-residents can use the landfill, but payment is required based on weight
and type of material. Material is collected from the transfer stations by MCL Waste Services.
APPENDIX B
EBA FILE: C22501183 | MARCH 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
6
Appendix B - Municipal Summaries
The only area with door-to-door or curbside collection is Pigeon Lake. The County is considering changing
funding for this service from property taxes to a utility fee. If public acceptance is low, the County may end
the service completely.
1.8.3 Town of Beaumont
The Town of Beaumont has a three container system for residential wastes. Two 240 L carts are provided
to each single family dwelling, a grey one for garbage or co-mingled waste and a green one for organics.
The Town uses blue bags for the collection of recyclables. Residences are also provided with a “kitchen
catcher” for storing food wastes prior to transferring to the green cart. Wastes are collected weekly by
Ever Green using automated equipment. Garbage are hauled to the regional landfill for disposal while the
organics are taken to the anaerobic digester at Vegreville.
Beaumont’s organics program includes food wastes, soiled paper (i.e., pizza boxes, paper towel, etc.) and
yard and garden waste that will fit in the green cart with the lid closed. Large items such as tree branches
and stumps should be taken directly to the regional landfill. However, the Town does have two clean-up
events (spring and fall) for the collection of a variety of items that do not fit within the existing curb-side
programs.
Beaumont’s blue bag program includes the usual recyclables (paper, cardboard, plastics and metal
containers) but no glass or styrofoam. The recyclables collected by Ever Green are taken to their facility for
processing and marketing.
1.8.4 Town of Devon
The Town of Devon provides curb-side programs for three residential waste streams – 240-L carts are used
for mixed waste or garbage, blue bags for recyclables and brown bags for compostable yard waste. All
materials are collected by Ever Green under contract until the end of 2014. Each residence is allowed to
put out one cart of garbage and an unlimited number of blue and brown bags. All material streams are
collected weekly. Brown bag collection occurs from May to October. Wastes are hauled to the regional
landfill near Leduc.
Devon is considering implementing a curb-side organics program in 2013. The Town is currently
considering the type and size of container to use and how to implement the program.
Accepted blue bag material includes clean , paper, cardboard, plastics, metal containers and beverage
containers. Larger objects such as flattened cardboard boxes can also be placed under blue bags for
collection. Brown bags, which are constructed from heavy craft paper, are intended for grass clippings and
other yard wastes. Any material that doesn’t fit the previous two categories is placed in the cart. Only one
cart is provided for each residence and the lid must be closed for pick-up.
In addition to the curb-side programs, the Town also operates a recycling depot. Any material that can be
pick up curb-side can also be dropped off at the depot. Blue and brown bag material is accepted free of
charge, but there is a fee for garbage or mixed waste. The fee depends on the volume of waste. The depot
also accepts paint, tires, batteries, automotive products (antifreeze, used oil), propane tanks, fluorescent
tubes, printer cartridges, sports equipment (including bicycles), white goods, and tree branches. Fees are
charged for some items such as vehicle batteries, white goods and bulky objects. Funding for the recycling
APPENDIX B
EBA FILE: C22501183 | MARCH 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
7
Appendix B - Municipal Summaries
depot is cost-shared with Parkland County since a 2011 survey showed that about 32% of its users came
from Parkland County.
Some small businesses in Devon use the recycle depot to dispose of materials such as tires and used oil.
Some also have opted to use blue bins for recyclable materials. Schools in Devon participate in a blue bag
program with material being collected by Ever Green. Wastes from the ICI sector in Devon are collected
under contracts by private waste haulers such as Ever Green, BFI and Waste Management of Canada. As for
C&D waste, clean drywall is accepted at the recycle depot and the Town has made provisions at its snow
storage yard to accept concrete and asphalt rubble.
1.8.5 Town of Calmar
The Town of Calmar manages two waste streams for residential customers – mixed waste and recyclables.
Until recently Calmar residents used bags or bins for their mixed waste. In November 2012, the Town
changed to an automated collection system using 240 L carts for mixed waste. Waste management services
are funded through utility fees. The total cost is $55.00 bi-monthly.
Recyclables are collected using standard blue bags. The volume of waste residents can place at the curb
was limited to four bags or two bins. The limit now is one full cart (with the lid closed). There is no limit to
the number of blue bags that can be used. Accepted recyclables include clean paper, cardboard, metal cans,
glass, and coloured plastics. The Town also collects grass clippings from May to October. Grass must be in
clear bags to be picked up.
In addition to curb-side programs, the Town also has a drop-off at the Town Office for printer cartridges
and rechargeable batteries. Calmar has a spring and fall clean-up which allows residents to dispose up to
one tonne each of large objects such as furniture and tree branches. The Town does not accept material
such as concrete, appliances, propane bottles, paint, tires, automotive products and chemicals. There is
also an e-waste collection day following the spring clean-up.
Waste collection is done by Ever Green under contract to the Town. Waste is hauled to the regional landfill
near Leduc while Ever Green processes recyclables at its MRF in Sherwood Park.
1.8.6 Village of Thorsby
The Village of Thorsby manages two waste streams – mixed waste and recyclables. The Village is currently
rolling out a new automated waste collection system using carts for mixed waste. The Village also collects
recyclables.
Collection has been contracted to Ever Green. Mixed waste is collected weekly and recyclables are
collected bi-weekly. Mixed waste is disposed of at the regional landfill near Leduc.
1.9 Roseridge Regional Waste Services Commission
The Roseridge Regional Waste Services Commission was established in 2001 to provide waste
management services for its member municipalities – the Town of Bon Accord, Town of Gibbons, town of
Legal, Town of Morinville, Town of Redwater and Sturgeon County. The Commission’s waste management
services include a Class II landfill, a compost pad, household recycling compound, storage areas for scrap
APPENDIX B
EBA FILE: C22501183 | MARCH 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
8
Appendix B - Municipal Summaries
metal and white goods, tires, and used oil and filters. Roseridge has a card system for residents in member
municipalities.
In 2012, the Commission constructed a new compost pad and extended composting operations to include
food waste. The primary user of this service to date is the City of St. Albert.
Sturgeon County provides administrative and management services to the Commission and facility
operation are contracted out to MCL Waste Services Ltd.
1.9.1 Sturgeon County
Sturgeon County is the largest member of the Roseridge Regional Waste Services Commission. A significant
portion of the County’s residents live in 11 hamlets and 74 rural subdivisions. Other than its role as a
member of the Roseridge Regional Waste Services Commission, the only other waste management service
provided by the County is the operation of the waste transfer station at Redwater. Residents in the hamlets
and rural subdivisions are responsible for hiring their own waste management service provider.
1.9.2 Town of Bon Accord
The Town of Bon Accord uses a three-container system for curb-side collection of waste materials. A black
cart is provided for mixed waste, a green cart, for organics, and recyclables are collected in blue bags. Cart
pick-up is automated while blue bags are collected manually. Standstone has the contract for waste
collection in Bon Accord. Waste and organic carts are picked up weekly and blue bags are collected bi-
weekly.
Residents are limited to placing one cart of mixed waste and one cart of organics at the curb. Any
additional material can be taken directly to the Roseridge regional landfill if the resident has an access card
obtained from the Town. An unlimited number of blue bags can be used provided they don’t interfere with
cart collection.
Bon Accord’s organics program is limited to yard waste and grass clippings. Food waste is not permitted in
the carts. The use of bags, compostable or otherwise, is not permitted. Acceptable recyclables include
clean paper, cardboard, glass jars without lids, metal cans without labels, and recyclable plastics.
1.9.3 Town of Gibbons
The Town of Gibbons manages two curb-side waste streams – mixed waste and recyclables. Each residence
is provided with a 360 L cart for mixed waste. All waste must be placed in the cart. Any waste placed
outside the cart is not collected. Residents needing to dispose of additional waste can obtain an access pass
from the Town Office and take material directly to the Roseridge regional landfill, near Morinville. The
recyclables program uses blue bags. Accepted material includes clean paper, cardboard, glass jars and
bottles, steel and aluminum cans and containers, and plastics (except styrofoam). An unlimited number of
blue bags can be placed at the curb.
Waste carts are emptied using automated equipment while recyclable are picked up manually. Waste
collection is provided by Standstone under contract to the Town.
APPENDIX B
EBA FILE: C22501183 | MARCH 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
9
Appendix B - Municipal Summaries
1.9.4 Town of Legal
The Town of Legal manages two waste streams – mixed waste (or garbage) and recyclables. Mixed waste is
collected manually every week on Thursday or Friday depending on location. Recyclables are collected
weekly by Ever Green. Accepted recyclables are clean paper, cardboard, “rigid” plastics, and metal cans.
Glass, styrofoam, plastic bags and plastic wrap are not accepted. Residents also can purchase a tag annually
for access to the Roseridge regional landfill.
Waste management costs are covered by utility fees - $31 bi-monthly for waste collection and $7 bi-
monthly for recyclables.
1.9.5 Town of Morinville
The Town of Morinville has a three-container waste management system that employs carts for mixed
waste and yard wastes and blue bags for recyclable materials. Cart collection is automated while blue bag
collection is done manually. All materials are collected by Standstone under contract to the Town. Mixed
waste and yard waste are hauled to the Roseridge regional landfill. Mixed waste and recyclables are
collected weekly, and yard waste is collected bi-weekly from late-April until early-November.
Residents are limited to one cart for mixed waste unless they choose to pay for an additional cart. Yard
waste includes grass clippings, leaves, small branches and garden wastes (plants and weeds). Produce
(fruit and vegetables), root balls, soil, rocks and food wastes are not permitted in the yard waste cart.
Recyclable materials include clean paper, cardboard, metal cans, “recyclable” plastics, and clear glass jars
without lids. Residents may place out an unlimited number of blue bags for recycling.
Residents also may take material, particularly large objects, directly to the Roseridge regional landfill.
Morinville residents are billed through the Town for material taken directly to the landfill.
1.9.6 Town of Redwater
The Town of Redwater has a three-container waste management system that uses carts for mixed waste
and organics and blue bags for recyclables. Mixed waste and organics are collected weekly while
recyclables are collected biweekly. Standstone has the contract for mixed waste and organics, and Ever
Green has the contract for recyclables. The mixed waste stream includes those materials that cannot be
placed in either of the other material streams. Permissible material in the organics cart include yard and
garden waste, short tree branches, food wastes such as fruit, vegetables, egg shells and coffee grounds, and
soiled paper and cardboard. Meat, dairy products, and cooking oils and grease are not permitted. No
plastics bags, compostable or otherwise are allowed in the organics cart. Recyclables include paper,
plastics, clear glass jars, and aluminum and steel cans. Returnable beverage containers are accepted
regardless of their composition.
The Town also operates a waste transfer station in conjunction with Sturgeon County. Materials that
cannot be collected at curb-side can be taken to the transfer station or directly to the Roseridge regional
landfill. Residents require cards to be able to access either facility.
Redwater’s waste management program is funded by utility fees charged for waste/organics and
recyclables collection.
APPENDIX B
EBA FILE: C22501183 | MARCH 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
10
Appendix B - Municipal Summaries
1.10 Lamont County Regional Solid Waste Commission
Lamont County together with the towns of Lamont, Bruderheim and Mundare, and the villages of Andrew
and Chipman in Lamont County are members of the Lamont County Regional Solid Waste Commission
(LCRSWC) which was created under the Municipal Government Act to manage waste disposal activities for
the member municipalities. The LCRSWC operates a small (less than 10,000 tonnes per year) Class II
landfill near the Hamlet of St. Michael. Only the County and the towns of Lamont and Bruderheim are
considered part of the Capital Region.
1.10.1 Lamont County
As a predominantly rural municipality, Lamont County does not provide waste collection or recycling
programs for its residents. As mentioned in Section 2.0, Lamont County has a population density of only
1.6 persons /km2. Aside from the hamlets administered by the County, there is only one area zoned for
“Country Residential” and that is about 130 ha located east of Elk Island National Park. Providing any sort
of a “curb-side” collection would be cost prohibitive for a municipality whose residents are not interested
in paying for such service. The County, however, has not ruled out participating in regional waste
management activities in the future although it would probably be done under the banner of regional solid
waste commission.
1.10.2 Town of Bruderheim
The Town of Bruderheim provides curb-side waste management services for its residents. It has an
automated collection program for mixed waste and a “blue bag” cart program for recyclables. Collection of
both material streams is contracted out to Standstone. Standstone also collects commercial wastes in
Bruderheim. Residential material is picked up every Tuesday and commercial waste is collected every
Wednesday. Bruderheim also has a compost drop-off site for yard and garden waste.
As with other automated collection systems, only waste in the cart is collected. Residents are encouraged
to take larger objects or additional waste directly to the regional landfill. Residents can place additional
recyclable material next to the recycling cart but it must be bagged or secured in some manner to prevent
littering.
APPENDIX B
EBA FILE: C22501183 | MARCH 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
11
Appendix B - Municipal Summaries
1.1%
69.9%
1.6%
2.1%
2.3%
5.3%
0.3%
1.2%
2.6%
8.0%
1.7%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.6%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.7%
0.2% 1.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Figure B1: Detailed Breakdown of Population Distribution - Alberta Capital Region
(Source: Statistics Canada, 2011 Census
Town of Beaumont
City of Edmonton
City of Fort Saskatchewan
City of Leduc
City of Spruce Grove
City of St. Albert
Lamont County
Leduc County
Parkland County
Strathcona County
Sturgeon County
Town of Bon Accord
Town of Bruderheim
Town of Calmar
Town of Devon
Town of Gibbons
Town of Lamont
Town of Legal
Town of Morinville
Town of Redwater
Town of Stony Plain
Village of Thorsby
Village of Wabamun
Village of Warburg
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
APPENDIX C DETAILED SUMMARIES OF MUNICIPAL WASTE QUANTITIES
EBA FILE: C22501183 | MARCH 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Appendix C-1: Detailed Summary of Materials
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Materials 2011
Municipality Population
Total # of
Households
Serviced
Waste
Collection
Frequency
Curbside
Collection
Technique
Waste
Collection
Contractor
Town of Beaumont 13,287 4,369 Weekly Automated Ever Green
City of Edmonton 812,201 341,000 Weekly Manual City
City of Fort Saskatchewan 19,051 8,398Weekly - 7 day
cycleAutomated BFI
City of Leduc 24,279 9,290 Biweekly Automated Ever Green
City of Spruce Grove 26,171 9,619 Weekly Automated Sandstone
City of St. Albert 61,466 19,052 Biweekly Automated Standstone
Lamont County 3,872 1,581 Weekly N/A Sandstone
Leduc County 13,541 6,333 Weekly Ever Green
Parkland County 30,568 10,931 None Depot None
Strathcona County 92,490 32,579 Biweekly Automated Ever Green
Sturgeon County 19,578 6,546 None N/A
Town of Bon Accord 1,488 541 Weekly Automated Sandstone
Town of Bruderheim 1,155 489 Weekly Automated Sandstone
Town of Calmar 1,970 735 Weekly Automated Ever Green
Town of Devon 6,510 2,112 Weekly Automated Ever Green
Town of Gibbons 3,030 1,075 Weekly Automated Standstone
Town of Lamont 1,753 645 Weekly Manual Town
Town of Legal 1,225 440 Weekly Manual Town
Town of Morinville 8,569 2,829 Weekly Automated Sandstone
Town of Redwater 1,915 776 Weekly Automated Sandstone
Town of Stony Plain 15,051 4,417 Biweekly Automated Ever Green
Village of Thorsby 797 334 Weekly Automated Ever Green
Village of Wabamun 789 265 Weekly Automated Ever Green
Village of Warburg 662 308 Weekly Manual Ever Green
1,161,418 464,664
Recycling Materials 2011
Municipality Population
Total # of
Households
Serviced
Program
Style (cart,
bag, box)
Curbside
Collection
Technique
ContractorCorrugated
CardboardBoxboard
Gable / Tetra /
Aseptic
Aluminum
Cans, Foil,
etc
Steel / Tin
Cans
Empty
Aerosol Cans
Empty Paint
Cans
PET
Containers
(#1)
HDPE
Containers
(#2)
Other Bottles
& Containers
(#3, #5, #7)
LDPE/HDPE
film (#2, #4)
Tubs & Lids (#2,
#4, & #5)
Polystyrene
Foam(#6)
Polystyrene
Crystal(#6)Glass
Shredded
Paper
Single Family
Dwellings
Multi-Family
Dwellings
Town of Beaumont 13,287 4,369 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Weekly ?
City of Edmonton 812,201 341,000 Blue Bag Manual City & Contractor? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ??? Yes Yes Yes, but no #3 Yes Yes No No Yes No Weekly ?
City of Fort Saskatchewan 19,051 8,398 Blue Bag Manual BFI Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes, baggedWeekly 7 day
cycle?
City of Leduc 24,279 9,290 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Weekly ?
City of Spruce Grove 26,171 9,619 Blue Bag Manual Sandstone Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged Bi-weekly ?
City of St. Albert 61,466 19,052 Blue Bag Manual City Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Weekly ?
Lamont County 3,872 1,581 None N/A N/A
Leduc County 13,541 6,333 Cart & Depot N/A Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Biweekly ?
Parkland County 30,568 10,931 Depot N/A None Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No None ?
Strathcona County 92,490 32,579 Bag & Box Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Weekly ?
Sturgeon County 19,578 6,546 None N/A None
Town of Bon Accord 1,488 541 Blue Bag Manual Sandstone Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Bi-weekly ?
Town of Bruderheim 1,155 489 Bag & Cart Automated Sandstone Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Weekly ?
Town of Calmar 1,970 735 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Bi-weekly ?
Town of Devon 6,510 2,112 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No #4 No No Yes No Weekly ?
Town of Gibbons 3,030 1,075Blue Bag at
DepotN/A Sandstone Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged Bi-weekly ?
Town of Lamont 1,753 645 Box Manual ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged ? ?
Town of Legal 1,225 440 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged Weekly ?
Town of Morinville 8,569 2,746 Blue Bag Manual Sandstone Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes ? Yes No No Yes No Weekly ?
Town of Redwater 1,915 776 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged Bi-weekly ?
Town of Stony Plain 15,051 4,417 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged Bi-weekly ?
Village of Thorsby 797 334 ? Manual Ever Green Yes Yes ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Bi-weekly ?
Village of Wabamun 789 265 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Bi-weekly ?
Village of Warburg 662 308 Blue Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Monthly ?
1,161,418 464,5811) 2011 - May also have access to depot collection2) Based on highest level of service
*Households Based on 2011 Data presented by Statistics Canada https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/mobile/2011/cp-pr/index-eng.cfm
N/A
N/A
Collection Frequency
Appendix C - Materials Accepted and Tonnages
EBA FILE: C22501183 | MARCH 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Organic Materials 2011
Municipality Population
Total # of
Households
Serviced
Program
Type
Curbside
Collection
Technique
Organics
ContractorLeaves Grass
Branches,
Twigs, etc
Christmas
TreesFood Scraps Pet Waste Diapers
Sanitary
Products
Shredded
Paper
Plastic Bags
Acceptable
Compostable
Bags
Acceptable
Wrapped in
Newspaper
allowed
SSO and YW
collected
separately or
together
Organics
Collection
Frequency
Town of Beaumont 13,287 4,369 Cart Automated Ever Green Yes Yes Yes ? Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Together Weekly
City of Edmonton 812,201 341,000 Bag / CanComingled
WasteCity* No No No SF, Y; MF PDO No No No No No No No No None None
City of Fort Saskatchewan 19,051 8,398 Depot None None Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No None None
City of Leduc 24,279 9,290 Cart Automated Ever Green Yes Yes Yes ? Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No Together
Weekly Apr-
Nov; biweekly
Nov-Apr
City of Spruce Grove 26,171 9,619 Cart Automated Sandstone Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No TogetherWeekly Apr-
Nov only
City of St. Albert 61,466 19,052 Cart, drop-off Automated Standstone Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Both
Weekly May-
Nov; biweekly
Dec-Apr
Lamont County 3,872 1,581 None None None None None
Leduc County 13,541 6,333 Drop-off N/A None Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Depot None
Parkland County 30,568 10,931 Drop-off N/A None Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Depot None
Strathcona County 92,490 32,579 Cart Automated Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No TogetherWeekly urban,
biweekly rural
Sturgeon County 19,578 6,546 None None None None None
Town of Bon Accord 1,488 541 Cart Automated Sandstone Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No SeparateWeekly, May-
Oct only
Town of Bruderheim 1,155 489 Drop-off N/A None Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Depot None
Town of Calmar 1,970 735 Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No No SeparateWeekly, May-
Oct only
Town of Devon 6,510 2,112 Bag Manual Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No SeparateWeekly, May-
Oct only
Town of Gibbons 3,030 1,075 None None Standstone None None
Town of Lamont 1,753 645 None None N/A None None
Town of Legal 1,225 440 None None None None None
Town of Morinville 8,569 2,660 Cart Automated Sandstone Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No NoneBiweekly, Apr-
Nov
Town of Redwater 1,915 776 Cart Automated Sandstone Yes Yes No Yes Yes but … No No No No ? ? ? Separate Weekly ?
Town of Stony Plain 15,051 4,417 Cart Automated Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Together
Weekly, Apr-
Oct Biweekly
Nov-Mar
Village of Thorsby 797 334 None None None None None
Village of Wabamun 789 265 Cart Automated Ever Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes TogetherWeekly, May-
Oct only
Village of Warburg 662 308 None None None None None
1,161,418 464,4951) 2011 - May also have access to depot collection
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Appendix C - Materials Accepted and Tonnages
EBA FILE: C22501183 | JANUARY 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
Appendix C-2: Materials Accepted and Tonnages - Residential Data Only
Municipality Tonnes kg / Capita Tonnes kg / Capita Tonnes kg / Capita
Beaumont 13,287 898 372 4,448 5,718 430.3 1,270 95.6 4,448 334.8 22.2%
Bon Accord 1,488 56 123 601 780 524.2 179 120.3 601 403.9 22.9%
Calmar 1,970 0 106 653 759 385.3 106 53.7 653 331.6 13.9%
Devon 6,510 632 230 2,264 3,126 480.2 862 132.4 2,264 347.8 27.6%
Edmonton 812,201 51063 98,856 131,355 281,274 346.3 149,919 184.6 131,355 161.7 53.3%
Fort Saskatchewan 19,051 1190 1,000 4,225 6,415 336.7 2,190 115.0 4,225 221.8 34.1%
Leduc (City) 24,279 1697 1,052 7,883 10,633 437.9 2,749 113.2 7,883 324.7 25.9%
Leduc (County) 13,541 16.99 13 2,179 2,209 163.1 30 2.2 2,179 160.9 1.4%
Parkland 30,568 1462.33 266 7,283 9,012 294.8 1,729 56.6 7,283 238.3 19.2%
St. Albert 61,466 5113 7,929 6,881 19,923 324.1 13,042 212.2 6,881 111.9 65.5%
Spruce Grove 26,171 1,844 1,844 5,531 9,218 352.2 3,687 140.9 5,531 211.3 40.0%
Stony Plain 15,051 1,222 1,662 3,213 6,097 405.1 2,884 191.6 3,213 213.5 47.3%
Strathcona 92,490 6755 10,635 12,212 29,602 320.1 17,390 188.0 12,212 132.0 58.7%
Thorsby 797 0 1 202 203 254.1 1 1.0 202 253.1 0.4%1
Collected tonnes, as reported by municipality and/or from Roseridge Regional Landfill 2011 annual report and/or as verbally reported by the municipality and/or as reported on the municipal website(s)2
Other refers to items such as White Goods, Bulk Waste, Agricultural Film, Agricultural Twine or any other material not listed previously3
Diversion Rate calculated on Collected tonnes, not post-Processing tonnes
*2011 Census, Statistics Canada
Municipality Tonnes kg / Capita Tonnes kg / Capita Tonnes kg / Capita
Bruderheim 1,155 142 476 618 534.9 142 122.8 476 412.1 22.9%
Gibbons 3,030 148 915 1,063 350.9 148 48.9 915 302.0 13.9%
Lamont (Town) 1,753 194 652 846 482.7 194 110.8 652 371.9 22.9%
Lamont (County) 3,872 204 1,031 1,235 319.0 204 52.7 1,031 266.3 16.5%
Legal 1,225 139 467 606 494.8 139 113.5 467 381.2 22.9%
Morinville 8,569 561 561 2,947 4,068 474.8 1,122 130.9 2,947 343.9 27.6%
Redwater 1,915 57 57 704 818 427.3 114 59.6 704 367.8 13.9%
Sturgeon 19,578 2,250 10,193 12,443 635.6 2,250 114.9 10,193 520.6 18.1%
Wababmun 662 0 0 135 135 204.6 0 0.0 135 204.2 0.0%
Warburg 789 0 0 142 142 180.5 0 0.0 142 180.1 0.0%1
Estimated tonnes collected as data not available2 Other refers to items such as White Goods, Bulk Waste, Agricultural Film, Agricultural Twine or any other material not listed previously3
Diversion Rate calculated on Collected tonnes, not post-Processing tonnes
*2011 Census, Statistics Canada
Totals 1,161,418 75,645 124,707 206,592 406,944 350.4 200,351 172.5 206,592 177.9
CRWMAC Diversion Rate 49.2%
Table 1
2011 Tonnage
2011 Tonnage
Table 2Total
Population
Served*
Estimated Recyclable
Tonnes1
Estimated Organic
Tonnes1
Estimated Disposed
Tonnes1
Diversion
Rate3
Total
Population
Served*
Estimated Generated Estimated Diverted Estimated DisposedEstimated
Diversion
Rate
Collected Recyclable
Tonnes1
Collected Organic
Tonnes1
Reported Disposed
Tonnes1
TOTAL Diverted TOTAL DisposedTOTAL Generated
Appendix C - Materials Accepted and Tonnages
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
APPENDIX D CAPITAL REGION PROCESSING FACILITIES
EBA FILE: C22501183 | MARCH 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table D-1: Landfills Receiving Waste from Alberta Capital Region
# Facility Type Status Location (Municipality) Name Address or Legal AuthorityCapacity/
Year
Tonnage/
YearRemaining Airspace Volume Diverted
Expected Closure or
ExpansionNotes
1 Class II OperatingLamont
County
Lamont Area - St.
MichelNW-7-56-18-W4M
Lamont County Regional
Solid Waste Commission10,000 5,000 75 years Unknown
Capital Region Waste
1,031
652
476
2,159
2 Class II OperatingLeduc
County
Leduc and District
Regional LandfillNE 29-49-24-W4M
Leduc and District
Regional Waste
Authority
75,000 -100,000
tonnes45,000-50,000
15 years with existing
permit1,366 tonnes Unknown
Applying for new permit and will add 120 acres to
existing site
Capital Region Waste
4,448
7,883
2,179
653
2,264
202
17,629
3 Class II OperatingSturgeon
County
Roseridge Regional
Landfill
LSDs 3, 4 and 6 of
Section 36-55-25-W4M
Roseridge Waste
Management Services
Commission
Unknown 25,000 50 years Unknown
Capital Region Waste
704
467
601
915
2,947
10,193
6,881
5,531
1,911
12,212
42,362
Town of Lamont
Town of Bruderheim
Municipalities
Lamont County
CRWMAC Member supplied
Appendix D: Capital Region Processing Facilities
Municipalities
CRWMAC Member supplied
Town of Calmar
Town of Devon
Village of Thorsby
Town of Beaumont
City of Leduc
Leduc County
Municipalities
Sturgeon County
Town of Redwater
Town of Legal
Town of Bon Accord
Town of Gibbons
Town of Morinville
City of St. Albert
City of Spruce Grove
Town of Stony Plain
Strathcona County
CRWMAC Member supplied
EBA FILE: C22501183 | MARCH 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Table D-1: Landfills Receiving Waste from Alberta Capital Region
# Facility Type Status Location (Municipality) Name Address or Legal AuthorityCapacity/
Year
Tonnage/
YearRemaining Airspace Volume Diverted
Expected Closure or
ExpansionNotes
4 Class II OperatingBeaver
County
Ryley Regional
LandfillNE 10-50-17-W4M
Beaver Regional Waste
Services Commission
250,000 tonnes.
Limited by
equipment, not by
airspace
130,000-200,000 9 quarter sections UnknownSpace is potentially infinite if rotating cell
technology is implemented
Capital Region Waste
107,441
2,428
109,869
5 Class II OperatingBrazeau
County
Drayton Valley
Regional LandfillSE 20-49-7-W5M
Drayton Valley Regional
Landfill Authority15 - 20 years left Now called Aspen Waste Management Facility
Capital Region Waste
2,428
142
2,570
6 Class II OperatingLac Ste. Anne
CountyHighway 43 Landfill
c/o Box 219
Sangudo, AB
Highway 43 East
Waste Commission
Capital Region Waste
2,428
135
2,563
7 Class II OperatingPaintearth
CountyCoronation Landfill
5006 Royal Street
Coronation, AB
Waste Services
IncorporatedNo limit 300,000 +50 years Unknown +50 years Lots of capacity
Capital Region Waste
4,225
4,225
8 Class II OperatingCamrose
County
West Dried Meat
Lake LandfillSW 14-44-21W4M
West Dried Meat Lake Landfill
AuthorityNo Limit 368,000 Unknown None Unknown
Accepts waste from across west central Alberta.
Contract with Ever Green.
Capital Region Waste
Ever Green 55,000
55,000CRWMAC Member supplied
Municipalities
Municipalities
City of Edmonton
Parkland County (est. third)
CRWMAC Member supplied
CRWMAC Member supplied
Municipalities
City of Fort Saskatchewan
CRWMAC Member supplied
Parkland County (est. third)
Village of Warburg
CRWMAC Member supplied
Municipalities
Parkland County (est. third)
Village of Wabamun
Project Number
Date
Acceptable Materials
# StatusLocation
(Municipality)Name
Address or
LegalAuthority
Capacity/Y
ear
Tonnage/Y
ear
Expected
Closure or
Expansion
Notes Leaves GrassBranches,
Twigs, etc
Christmas
Trees
Food
ScrapsPet Waste Diapers
Sanitary
Products
Shredded
Paper
Plastic Bags
Acceptable
Compostable
Bags
Acceptable
Wrapped in
Newspaper
allowed
1 Open Edmonton Co-composting Facility13111 Meridian
(1st) Street NECity of Edmonton 200,000 94,500
YW, SSO and MSW co-
compostedYes Yes Yes Separate Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Yes Yes Yes Separate Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
City of Edmonton 69,500
CRWMAC member supplied 69,500
2 Open Morinville Roseridge Compost Class IISite 1, Box 19,
RR1
Roseridge Waste
Management Services
Commission
??? ??? Yes ? Yes ? Yes ? Yes ? Yes ? No ? No ? No ? No ? No ? Yes ? Yes ?
Morinville
Alberta
T8R 1P4
City of St. Albert 7,929 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes
CRWMAC member supplied 7,929
3 Open Edmonton Cleanit Greenit15619-112
Avenue NW
Cleanit Greenit Composting
System Inc.??? ??? Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No ? ? ? Yes
www.cleanitgreenit.net Edmonton
T5M 2V8
Town of Stony Plain 849 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes
City of Spruce Grove 1,844 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No
Strathcona County 10,635 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No
CRWMAC member supplied 13,328
4 Open Two Hills ABGrowing Power Hairy Hill
(GPHH)
142040
Township Road
544 Two Hills
AB
Growing Power Hairy Hill ??? ???
Municipalities deliver
material to Leduc Regional
Landfill for pre-screening
then materials transferred to
GPHH
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Town of Beaumont 372 Yes Yes Yes ? Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes
Town of Calmar 106 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No No
Leduc County 13 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No
City of Leduc 1,052 Yes Yes Yes ? Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No
Town of Devon 230 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No
CRWMAC member supplied 1,773
Note: The acceptable list per email from Trevor Nickel, GM of Himark BioGas, January 11, 2013
5 Open Various
Municipalities doing their own
composting at their own
municipal facilities
City of Fort Saskatchewan 1,000 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No
Parkland County 266 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No
Town of Bon Accord 123 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No
Town of Morinville 561 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No
Town of Redwater 57 Yes Yes No Yes Limited No No No No ? ? ?
CRWMAC member supplied 2,007
Table D-2: Compost Facilities
Appendix D - Capital Region Processing Facilities TableCompost
Project Number
Date
Acceptable Materials
#Facility
TypeStatus
Location
(Municipality)Name Address or Legal
MRF
Capacity /
Year
Tonnage /
YearOCC OBB
Gable /
Tetra /
Aseptic
Aluminum
Cans, Foil,
etc
Steel / Tin
Cans
Empty
Aerosol
Cans
Empty
Paint Cans
PET
Containers
(#1)
HDPE
Containers
(#2)
Other
Bottles &
Containers
(#3, #5, #7)
LD/HD film
(#2, #4)
Tubs &
Lids (#2,
#4, & #5)
PS
Foam(#6)
PS
Crystal(#6)Glass
Shredded
Paper
45 Diamond Avenue, Spruce Grove, AB ??? ??? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, bagged
City of Spruce Grove 1,844 Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged
Town of Bon Accord 56 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No
Town of Bruderheim 142 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No
Town of Gibbons 148 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged
Town of Lamont 194 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged
Town of Morinville 561 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes ? Yes No No Yes No
CRWMAC member supplied 2,945
2020 Sherwood Drive, Sherwood Park, AB ??? ??? Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes, bagged
Town of Beaumont 898 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No
City of Leduc 1,697 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No
City of St. Albert 5,113 Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No
Leduc County 17 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No
Strathcona County 6,755 Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Town of Calmar 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No
Town of Devon 632 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No #4 No No Yes No
Town of Legal 139 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged
Town of Redwater 57 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged
Town of Stony Plain 607 Yes Yes Yes Cans only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged
Village of Thorsby 0 Yes Yes ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Village of Wabamun 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No
Village of Warburg 0 Yes Yes ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
CRWMAC member supplied 15,916
3 MRF Open EdmontonCity of Edmonton Waste
Management Centre13111 Meridian (1st) Street NE 70,000 51,063 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ??? Yes Yes
Yes, but no
#3Yes Yes No No Yes No
City of Edmonton51,063
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ??? Yes YesYes, but no
#3Yes Yes No No Yes No
Municipalities with unknown MRF
City of Fort Saskatchewan BFI 1,190 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes, bagged
Lamont County None 204
Parkland County None 1,462 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No
Sturgeon County None 2,250
N/A
N/A
Table D-3: Recycling Facilities
1 MRF Open Spruce GroveStandstone Enviro-Waste
Services Ltd
2 MRF Open Sherwood ParkEver Green Ecological
Services
Appendix D - Capital Region Processing Facilities TableRecycling
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
APPENDIX E CONTINUUM OF REGIONAL GOVERNANCE OPTIONS
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
Description Governance Advantages Disadvantages
1. Extended Municipal Services (i.e., contract service arrangements)
One or more of the existing member municipalities within the region extends their operating jurisdiction to be the regional service provider.
Simplest form is a contract for services – O&M, plan, design, and build. Transfer of assets would require additional complexity.
Requires Council approval.
Subject to Municipal Government Act in
regard to legislation restricting types of services.
Municipalities continue to be accountable to their Council.
Establish an Advisory Committee made up of member municipality representatives to provide input and guide the providing municipality.
Funded by the infrastructure asset owner / service provider or through rates charged to municipalities receiving the services.
No governmental approvals to establish delivery of services or governance structure.
Minimizes administration and governance complexity.
Advisory Committee facilitates input from the participating municipalities and acts as an oversight role; assist in ensure alignment with the Capital Region vision.
Access to funding, low borrowing rates, and tax exempt status through the municipality.
Advisory Committee is only advisory only; no decision making authority.
Providing municipality would hold all formal decision making authority, which would limit influence from remaining regional municipalities.
Potential for competing priorities for the providing municipality – i.e. regional vs. own customers.
2. Inter-Municipal Agreements (e.g. Waste Management Authority)
Member municipalities enter into an agreement for the investment, development, and provision of regional waste management services.
Participating municipalities pass a resolution of council to become a part of the agreement. These agreements can lead to the formation of an authority, board or committee that can oversee the provision of services on a regional basis.
Not a separate legal entity and cannot directly hold assets, own land, or borrow funds.
Subject to Municipal Government Act in regard to legislation restricting types of services.
An Oversight Committee comprised of appointed elected official and/or technical expert members is created.
Committee has an advisory role only; municipal councils are ultimately accountable.
Owned and funded by member municipalities based on an agreed-upon funding and ownership formula (typically determined through extent of usage e.g. number of customers / tonnes processed per municipality)
Relative easy to form, requiring no approval from provincial government.
Allows for both broad representations (i.e. both political and expert members) on the Oversight Committee.
Access to funding, low borrowing rates, and tax exempt status through its municipal funding partners.
Reliant on member municipalities for funding (i.e. debt financing); therefore would impact debt limits of individual municipalities.
Ultimate accountability and liability remains with member municipalities.
Allowing decision making in proportion to “share” of contribution may cause concerns of excess control by a participating municipality.
Decision making process may be cumbersome and complex since decisions must be ratified by all participating Councils.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
3. Regional Service Commissions
Municipalities request to Minister of Municipal Affairs to establish a commission (per Municipal Government Act)
Are authorized to provide services to municipalities within and outside (with Municipal Affairs approval) the boundaries of its members.
Subject to Municipal Government Act in regard to legislation restricting types of services.
Initially Board appointed by Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Board made up of an elected official from each member municipality, appointed by each respective Council.
Board is theoretically autonomous from municipalities and is accountable for all financial decisions, execution of contracts.
Owned and funded by member municipalities.
Operates on cost recovery basis only (i.e. does not distribute a profit to member municipalities).
The only governance option in Alberta that can directly expropriate land.
Streamlined process for establishing – 50+ regional service commissions in Alberta.
Access to provincial funding and grants (including grants specific to regional service commissions.)
Access to loans through Alberta Capital Finance Authority.
Income tax exempt.
Board will always have representation from member municipalities (elected officials).
Separate and autonomous body from member municipalities, with ability to hold assets and borrow funds.
Able to generate revenue with member municipalities without restrictions.
Clear accountability for mandate defined in legislation.
Continued oversight by the Province, have the ability to intervene (i.e. appoint directors).
Board regulated to be elected officials from each of the member municipalities, resulting in an absence in technical experts, and regular turnover of board members
Restricted to providing services as described by the commission’s regulation.
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
4. Municipally Controlled Corporation
Separate legal entity controlled by one or more municipalities in legislation. Share holder agreements permit inclusion of multiple municipalities.
Must be “for-profit” and must demonstrate financial viability through three year business plan.
Established with approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Municipal controlled corporations are regulated by the Municipal Government Act, Business Corporations Act, Control of
Corporations Regulation, and the Debt Limit Regulation.
Subject to Municipal Government Act in regard to legislation restricting types of services.
Board, selected based on desired competency / representation. Typically includes limited number of elected officials.
Board accountable for all organized actions, including financial performance.
Can provide profit distributions to member municipalities.
Relatively easy to establish, requires Ministerial approval.
Permits broad representation on corporation’s board – at the discretion of the municipality.
Income tax exempt as long as scope of services remains within municipal boundaries.
Clear accountability for scope of duties as defined in regulations, policies and business plans.
May create push-back from private sector given the perception that the controlled corporation may have an unfair competitive advantage given its relationships with the municipalities and perceived access to grant funding / financial advantages.
Not able to borrow directly from the Alberta Capital Finance Authority.
Lacks automatic GST exemption on fares and expenditures on goods and services, obtaining exemption is costly and time-consuming.
Shareholder agreement dictates degree of ownership and hence degree of decision-making authority, which typically puts control in favor of the municipality who bears the majority of investment. This could lead to concern re: regional control and changes in board
ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBA FILE: C22501183 | APRIL 2013 | ISSUED FOR USE
5. Not-for-Profit (Part 9 Corporation)
Municipalities for a Not-for-profit under either the Alberta Societies Act or Companies Act (Part 9 Corporation).
A not-for-profit corporation is an association of one or more shareholders whose corporate governance requires that surplus funds are used to pursue the organization’s stated goals.
Subject to Companies Act.
Present provincial regulations restrict the scope of services for Not-for-Profits to “promoting art, science, religion, charity, and recreation activities”. A change in provincial regulations would be required to support a Waste Management Not-for-Profit.
Board, selected based on desired competency / representation. Typically not elected officials.
Owned by the NFP and funded by NFP and rates.
Relatively easy to establish, requires Ministerial approval.
Permits broad representation on corporation’s board – at the discretion of the municipality.
Access to preferred municipal borrowing rates.
Income and property tax exempt.
Clear accountability for scope of duties as defined in regulations, policies and business plans.
Does not have the explicit requirement to be “for-profit” as does a controlled corporation.
Less restricted in financial relationship than controlled corporation; can enter into fee-for-service contracts, receive municipal grants, and accept donations.
No precedent for this type of waste management utility in Alberta – would require provincial legislative change.
Does not provide a return on investment for participating parties.
One-step further removed from municipal control than controlled corporation.
Lacks automatic GST exemption on fares and expenditures on goods and services, obtaining exemption is costly and time-consuming.
6. Corporatized Public / Private Utility
Publicly owned for-profit corporation that operates like a private business or private utility corporation.
For corporatized public utility, Council owns shares, and can select directors.
Key priority is for-profit. Encourages pursuit of business development / revenue expansion opportunities.
Independent expert board; no elected official representation.
Overarching goal is to provide an agreed-upon rate of return within regulatory requirements.
May own and operate assets, or may operate infrastructure on behalf of an owner (e.g. municipality).
Funded by asset owner and rates.
Not income tax exempt.
Provides easier access to financing.
Commercial discipline; mitigates political interference.
Separate entity with clear accountability for contracted or defined mandate.
May not be compatible with social, economic and environmental objectives.
Potentially reduced stakeholder input into decision making; may require stakeholder advisory committee.
Higher cost alternative; high financing rates, not exempt from income tax.
Commercial confidentiality limits access to information by consumers and politicians.