Ontario Recycler Workshop - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 173
About This Presentation
Title:

Ontario Recycler Workshop

Description:

Mandate: review and approve applications. Recommend large projects to ... Time & Motion Study; Household Survey; Focus Groups; Waste Audits; Ergonomics Study ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:261
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 174
Provided by: beverl55
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Ontario Recycler Workshop


1
Ontario Recycler Workshop
  • December 4, 2008

2
Welcome!
  • 7th Ontario Recycler Workshop (ORW)
  • Presented by
  • Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO)
  • Stewardship Ontario
  • Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)
  • Key areas
  • results of EE Fund special projects
  • other activities affecting recyclers
  • optical sorting technology (OST) application

3
In the Audience
  • Representatives of
  • Ontario recycling programs (municipal recycling
    co-ordinators waste management staff)
  • Municipal staff councillors
  • Consultants
  • Stewards stewardship program representatives
  • 80 in room 50 webcast participants

4
ORW Overview How To
  • Full day session (to 3pm)
  • EE Fund program project updates
  • optical sort technology (OST) feature
  • 4 speakers facilitated panel discussion
  • Webcast details
  • we move slides
  • post full webcast slides after ORW

www.stewardshipontario.ca
Questions
Enlarge slide
Volume
5
Todays Topics
  • EE Fund Highlights
  • CIF update
  • WDO report
  • Theme segments
  • Driving Diversion through Design
  • Special Projects
  • Lunch
  • Optical sort technology panel

6
EE Fund Highlights
  • Guy Perry
  • Stewardship Ontario

7
What I will Cover
  • EE Fund activity review
  • Status of EE Fund projects
  • The future
  • CIF in full swing
  • EE Fund project evaluation

8
EE Fund Commitments by Priority Area
9
EE Fund Spending by Geographic Area
10
Status of Projects
  • 4 years, 20M allocation approved
  • 75 projects in total
  • completed projects 45
  • projects in progress 30
  • expect completion by end of 2008 15
  • completion beyond 2008 15
  • As projects completed, budgets reconciled
  • unspent funds will be transferred to CIF

11
To be Completed
  • Optical sorting technology (OST) projects
  • testing monitoring plus OST working group
  • Recycling training strategy implementation
  • Multi-family (MF), Toronto
  • Infrastructure capital projects
  • MRF upgrades (York, Kingston, Northumberland)
  • collection transfer (Woodstock, Peterborough
    County)
  • Support projects (Municipal Coordinator)

12
Project Reporting
  • Recently completed
  • West Perth Blue Box lid pilot (PN 289)
  • Conversion of Dryden MRF to Transfer Facility (PN
    12)
  • Elliot Lake Multi-Residential Service (PN 241)
  • About to be released
  • Implementation of a Waste Management Utility in
    Ontario (PN 160)7 Discussion Papers
    Implementation Manual
  • Toronto EWSWA cart pilots (PN 60 PN 262)
  • Markham QWS Clear Bag projects (PN 285 PN 177)

www.stewardshipontario.ca/bluebox/eefund
13
Communicating EE Fund Results
  • Project evaluation in progress
  • Project-by-project with agreed metrics
  • cost/tonne reduction tonnage increases payback
    period return on investment other results
  • what worked/didnt why identify strongest
    elements for future work
  • determine how to maximize/build on EE Fund
    investment
  • Continue to report at future ORWs

Results to be posted
14
Continuous Improvement Fund Update
  • Andy Campbell
  • Waste Diversion Ontario

15
CIF is Operational!
  • Key committees in place
  • Program Manager (Mike Birett)
  • Application process available online
  • fine-tuning application process approval
    criteria
  • applications welcome
  • 15 projects approved

Apply now, dont wait!
16
CIF Committee
  • Subcommittee of MIPC
  • Oversees all CIF business compliance with
    obligations under BBPP CIF Agreement

17
CIF Project Committee
  • Mandate review and approve applications
  • Recommend large projects to CIF Committee

18
Successful Applications
  • Increase effectiveness efficiency
  • Increase diversion
  • Transferability to other municipalities
  • Handle a changing mix of materials
  • Define adopt best practices
  • Present a good financial business case

19
Applications Contracts
  • Application Data Summary at
  • www.wdo.ca/cif/applications.html
  • Complete 3 sections
  • Project description
  • Best practice (BP) review
  • baseline information to measure BP impacts
  • Financials diversion data
  • operational/capital projects
  • BP study projects
  • small other (50K or less)
  • Standard form of contract

Application questions? Please call!
20
Project Applications Under Review
21
Approved Projects (2008)
22
Approved Projects Sample
  • 40K for co-op recycling plan for 6
    municipalities surrounding Thunder Bay (Gilles
    Twp.)
  • 32K to improve depots move to 2-stream
    collection (Seguin Twp.)
  • 120K to develop online database of municipal
    recycling contracts
  • 70 funding for plastic film handling (Hamilton)

23
2009 Priorities
  • 70 funds on efficiency (i.e. reduce costs)
  • 30 funds on effectiveness (i.e. increase
    tonnage)
  • CIF may call RFPs for projects in specific
    areas to focus spending

Fund first adopters at a higher level
24
CIF Committee 2009 Priorities
3
2
1
4
25
Apply Now!
Novel projects will get funded above 50
www.wdo.cif/index.htm
26
Contacts
  • Andy Campbell
  • 705-719-7913
  • andycampbell_at_wdo.ca
  • Mike Birett
  • 705-719-7914
  • mbirett_at_wdo.ca
  • Clayton Sampson
  • 519-539-0869
  • csampson_at_wdo.ca

27
Waste Diversion Ontario Update
  • Glenda Gies
  • Executive Director, WDO

28
Updating On
  • Blue Box Program
  • funding to Best Practices
  • BBPP Review Consultation Process
  • Status of Other Plans
  • implementation development

29
Funding to Best Practices
  • Likely to include base funding for all programs
    enhanced BP funding calculated using points
    system
  • Mandatory expanded BP questions in 2008 Datacall
  • process to evaluate/review program against
    objectives
  • types of performance measures used
  • assessment of MRF in last 2 years
  • single question on joint delivery of services
    into multiple questions by type of service
    actions to synchronize contract expiry dates
  • more focused questions on staff training
  • MIPCs BP Funding Distribution Working Group
  • currently working to assign points to each
    question/ response option

30
BBPP Review
  • Public
  • 4 focus groups 1,000 person public opinion
    survey
  • Facilitated meetings
  • AMO/AMRC Waste Management Task Force on Nov 19
  • Ontario Waste Management Board on Nov. 24
  • Stewardship Ontario Board on Nov 28
  • other industry associations on Dec. 12
  • environmental non-government organizations on
    Dec. 16
  • MIPC-Blue Box on Jan. 7/8

31
BBPP Review
  • Draft report to be posted end of January
  • Public workshop/webcast mid February
  • Written submissions
  • by email to BBPPReview_at_WDO.ca
  • comments submitted prior to December 31
    considered when preparing draft report for
    consultation
  • comments may be submitted until February 27, 2009

32
WEEE
  • Phase 1 commencement April 1, 2009
  • registration of collectors, reuse organizations,
    processors underway
  • audits of processors underway
  • RFPs for transport, consolidation, processing
    under development
  • Phase 2 due to Minister July 10, 2009
  • developing baseline data
  • public workshop early February 2009

33
Phase 1 MHSW
  • 70 of 103 municipal agreements signed or about
    to be signed
  • expect up to 99 by December 15
  • Commercial collection locations coming on board
  • 250 Rona/Home Depot locations for paint
    batteries
  • targeting 50 to100 automotive locations for DIY
    oil filters, antifreeze containers by end of
    year
  • Communications launch January 2009
  • point of purchase brochures
  • print selected outdoor media

34
Phase 2 MHSW
  • Program development to date
  • Phase 2 definitions
  • partial baseline data compiled
  • Behind schedule
  • draft program plan for consultation should have
    been posted mid November
  • Workshop 2 should have been held early December
  • Extension request expected from Stewardship
    Ontario

35
Used Tires
  • Draft preliminary plan for consultation will be
    posted soon at www.ontariotirestewardship.org
  • will also be linked from WDO website
  • Public consultation workshop
  • December 18, 2008
  • 830 am to 1230 pm
  • Delta Meadowvale (401 Mississauga Road)
  • register via OTS website

36
Questions
37
Driving Diversion Through Design
  • John Dixie
  • Stewardship Ontario
  • Moderator

38
Designing Effective Collection Systems
  • Changes in collection approach with introduction
    of
  • 1 or 2-stream recycling
  • expanded BB programs
  • bi-weekly garbage collection
  • bag limits
  • pay as you throw (PAYT)
  • organics collection
  • Systems drive participation increase diversion
    rates
  • Opportunities for improvement
  • expand program by using regional MRFs that accept
    a wider range of materials
  • increase yield by providing more capacity at curb
  • automated carts for single-family collection
  • variable rate systems for multi-family collection

39
In this Session
  • Prior EE Fund support for collection projects
  • Essex-Windsor cart pilot
  • Peterborough depots
  • Dryden transfer station
  • Session focus on learnings from 3 recent EE Fund
    collection projects
  • Woodstock MRF to transfer station conversion (PN
    247)
  • Toronto single-family cart program (PN 60)
  • Toronto multi-family volume-based program (PN 32)

40
Speakers
  • David Creery
  • City Engineer, City of Woodstock
  • Reporting on Woodstocks MRF to transfer station
    conversion
  • Kerrie Skillen
  • Team Leader, Jacques Whitford
  • Reporting on Toronto single-family cart pilot
    studies
  • Renée Dello
  • Senior Analyst, Waste Diversion Planning, City of
    Toronto
  • Toronto single-family cart program roll-out
    update on Toronto multi-family recycling program

41
Woodstock Transfer StationEE Project 247
  • David Creery, City Engineer
  • City of Woodstock

42
Project Summary
  • Project goal
  • convert MRF to transfer station
  • convert system from 7- to 2-stream collection
  • Anticipated impacts
  • reduction of labour operational costs
  • increase in volume of recyclables collected
  • More information
  • dcreery_at_city.woodstock.on.ca
  • www.city.woodstock.on.ca

43
The Issues
  • Inefficient recycling program
  • Collection capacity MRF capacity exceeded
  • System not able to accommodate additional
    materials
  • Labour supply contract deficient

44
The Project (1)
  • Convert existing MRF building into transfer
    facility (i.e. send materials to larger MRF)
  • convert from 7- to 2-stream collection
  • install weigh-scale loading compaction
    equipment
  • train new staff in collection materials
    handling
  • Public education
  • Collection schedule changes to accommodate
    bi-weekly recycling weekly garbage pick-up
  • Monitoring (capture rate set out rate survey)

45
The Project (2)
  • After

Before
46
Tonnage Financial Impacts
  • Project cost 1.02M
  • EE Fund support 245K
  • Anticipated cost savings 300K/year
  • Gross costs decreased from 300 per tonne in
    2007 to 250
  • Estimated pay-back 2 yrs
  • Tonnage appears to be increasing

47
Results/Findings (to date)
  • Currently fibre to Toronto/containers to Guelph
  • Not all equipment installed for launch but system
    working well
  • PE most successful at messaging change to
    2-stream less so at conveying collection date
    changes
  • Additional material results in additional
    collection cost
  • Increasing set out noted since launch
  • Resident survey results (n300) positive

48
Best Practices/Next Steps
  • Best practices
  • a smaller program can reduce costs by
    transferring recyclables to a larger MRF
  • increased opportunity for diversion by using a
    MRF processing a greater range of materials
  • Next steps
  • short-term continued monitoring to gauge impact
    on capture rates finalize equipment installation
  • long-term monitoring arrangement with larger MRFs

49
City of Toronto Single-Family Cart
ProgramPilot Studies City-wide Rollout
  • Kerrie Skillen, Team Leader - Solid Waste
    Services, Jacques Whitford Limited
  • Renée Dello, City of Toronto

50
Cart Pilot Studies Project Summary
  • Project goal
  • determine best option for providing increased
    recycling container capacity
  • More information
  • rdello_at_toronto.ca
  • www.toronto.ca/garbage

51
The Issues
  • Outgrown original Blue Box (BB) system
  • Assumed lack of capacity keeps people from
    recycling more
  • 235K grant from EE Fund for pilots to compare
    increased recycling storage options
  • Scarborough Downtown Pilots
  • Time Motion Study Household Survey Focus
    Groups Waste Audits Ergonomics Study

52
Scarborough Pilot Overview
  • 4 Study Areas
  • Cart (bi-weekly)
  • Weekly Blue Box
  • Blue Bag (bi-weekly)
  • Control (bi-weekly)
  • 4 Monitoring Phases
  • Fall 2005 Winter/Spring/Summer 2006
  • 620 households per study area
  • Similar housing, participation recycling trends

53
Scarborough PilotSet-Out Participation Results
  • Cart area highest average set out
    participation rates of all 4 monitoring phases

54
Scarborough PilotSurvey Focus Group Results
  • Cart area highest satisfaction rate
  • 93 of respondents rated program 8 to 10
  • out of 10
  • Highest increase in recycling from Cart Area

55
Scarborough PilotErgonomics Assessment
  • Cart ranked as most ergonomically preferred
    option
  • Little to no manual lifting
  • Reduced risk of injury to back, shoulder, elbow,
    wrist from lifting physical fatigue
  • 1 drawback where cars are parked, crew has to
    manually roll cart into position
  • risk of overexertion injury

56
Downtown Pilot
  • 5 neighborhoods in downtown areas chosen with
    representative characteristics
  • dense housing
  • narrow or no driveways
  • limited storage areas
  • hills
  • on-street parking
  • 240L carts delivered to 850 homes

57
Downtown Pilot Survey Results
  • Residents preferred carts over traditional BB
    collection
  • Concerns expressed
  • hard to move up stairs or hills
  • can be heavy
  • 240L cart difficult to store use

58
City-wide Roll-Out (1)
  • Findings from pilot studies led to city-wide
    rollout
  • semi-automated recycling cart collection
  • delivered to 500K hhld between Dec. 2007 Nov.
    2008
  • 3 size options
  • Program promoted through
  • community newspapers
  • transit shelter silver box posters
  • staffed mall displays

59
City-wide Roll-Out (2)
  • Program evolved to include volume-based rate
    structure for garbage
  • Garbage cart delivery started June 2008
  • 90 complete

60
City-wide Roll-Out (3)
  • Goal move to fully automated collection where
    possible
  • Certain areas will never be fully automated,
    i.e., downtown core with on street parking

Fully-automated
Semi-automated
61
Expected Impacts
  • Largest variable-rate cart program roll-out in
    North America
  • Anticipate 15K tonne increase in recyclables due
    to increased capacity from cart program
  • Anticipate 43K tonne increase due to volume-
    based rate behaviour change of both SFD MFD
    program

62
Torontos Integrated Multi-Unit Recycling Strategy
  • Renée Dello
  • City of Toronto

63
Project Summary
  • Project goals
  • support overall City goal of 70 diversion by
    2010
  • implement volume-based solid waste management fee
  • Anticipated impacts
  • SWM programs will be funded entirely by user fees
    instead of taxes
  • improved recycling rates for multi-residential
    dwellings
  • Funding
  • 1.9M from EE Fund for communications
    monitoring initiatives
  • More information
  • email rdello_at_toronto.ca
  • website www.toronto.ca

64
The Issue
  • Diversion goal huge challenge
  • 51 or 540,500 households multi-residential
  • Current multi-residential diversion rate 13

65
The Project
  • Implement volume-based rate structure using RFID
  • Increase education, outreach enforcement
  • Combined water/solid waste utility bill sent by
    Revenue Services
  • Citys contractor manually tracking number size
    of garbage bins

66
Volume-Based Rate StructureMulti-unit Building
2008 Fees
  • Fee for each cubic yard (for building) XL size
  • 9.56/cubic yard, uncompacted
  • 28.67/cubic yard, compacted

3.0 bags/unit every 2 weeks
2.0 bags/unit every 2 weeks
1.0 bag/unit every 2 weeks
235/unit/yr (157/unit/yr) 78/unit/yr
2/3 bag/unit every 2 weeks
205/unit/yr (157/unit/yr) 48/unit/yr
175/unit/yr (157/unit/yr) 18/unit/yr
150/unit/yr (157/unit/yr) (7)/unit/yr
67
Increased Promotion Outreach (1)
  • Undertook targeted advertising
  • Public meetings with building owners managers
  • Promotional tools (letters, presentations,
    recycle cards, handbook)
  • Recycling ambassador volunteer program
  • Hiring additional education/by-law officers

68
Increased Promotion/Outreach (2)
  • Providing free in-unit recycling containers to
    all multi-residential customers

69
Results/Findings (to date)
  • Data has been collected since July 1, 2008, no
    analysis done yet on volume
  • contractor noticed decrease in garbage bins set
    out increase in recycling bins
  • noticeable increase in contamination in recycling
     
  • Challenges
  • getting account numbers for all customers (linked
    to water accounts some customers do not have
    meters)
  • billing tied to residential units?discrepancies
    between SWM records tax records
  • shared collection points
  • greater demand on resources to investigate

70
Next Steps
  • Proceed with RFID technology for waste containers
  • Long-term?phase in RFID for recycling containers
  • will enable performance tracking on
    building-by-building basis
  • will allow targeted education/communication

71
Questions?
72
Break
  • ORW resumes in 20 minutes!

73
Welcome Back!
74
Special Projects
  • Rick Clow
  • Quinte Waste Solutions

75
Special Projects
  • Special because
  • highly collaborative
  • scope covers broad Blue Box (BB) issues
  • provide BB system support through
  • direct program support resource person, or
  • targets a system need or practice (training,
    material market development)

76
Speakers
  • Clayton Sampson, Northern Ontario Program Advisor
    EE Fund PN 157 Ontario Multi-Family Support
  • Vivian de Giovanni, Municipal Waste
    Association/Association of Municipal Training
    Coordinators EE Fund PN 341 Ontario 3-Year
    Blue Box Recycler Training Implementation Update
  • Guy Perry, Stewardship OntarioPlastics Market
    Development Update

77
Northern Ontario Blue Box Program Technical
AdvisorEE Fund Project 157
  • Clayton Sampson
  • AMO/Stewardship Ontario/WDO

78
Project Summary
  • Project goal
  • assist programs to overcome challenges barriers
    inherent to Northern programs
  • Anticipated impacts
  • improve performance of Northern Blue Box (BB)
    Programs
  • More information
  • csampson_at_wdo.ca
  • www.stewardshipontario.ca

79
The Issue
  • How to engage Northern programs to improve their
    BB programs?
  • BB recycling is not top responsibility
  • competing for time
  • Work on barriers faced by programs in North
  • geography distance
  • limited budget staff resources

80
The Project
  • Provide a dedicated resource for Northern Ontario
    programs
  • Proactively work with programs to implement best
    practices
  • Get out visit with programs to get first hand
    look at situations
  • Help programs submit project applications to EE
    Fund (now CIF)

81
Tonnage Financial Impacts
  • 27 of ON reporting programs in North
  • Northern programs account for 7 of total BB
    program cost
  • The North accounts for 5 of ON tonnage
  • Gains can be made to improve program performance
    with relatively simple solutions
  • e.g. improve depot signage, add more depots,
    more/more effective promotion education to
    improve capture

82
Site Visits
  • 30 programs visited
  • Most programs doing best they can
  • seeking assistance ideas
  • Impact of on-site interaction
  • highlighted simple opportunities to increase EE
  • program operators demonstrate great interest in
    implementing program enhancements
  • Share ideas, information options fit to
    northern program realities

83
Locations
  • Black RiverMatheson
  • Blind River
  • Chapleau
  • Dryden
  • Elliot Lake
  • Fort Frances
  • Kapuskasing
  • Kenora
  • Kirkland Lake
  • Laurentian Hills
  • Longlac
  • Manitoulin Island
  • McDougal Township
  • North Bay
  • Ottawa Valley
  • Parry Sound
  • Red Rock
  • Sault Ste. Marie
  • Schreiber
  • Seguin Township
  • Sioux Lookout
  • Smooth Rock Falls
  • Sudbury
  • Tarbutt Township
  • Temiskaming Shores
  • Terrace Bay
  • Thunder Bay
  • Timmins
  • West Nippising

84
Results/Findings
  • Key to project proactive networking, on-site
    collaboration
  • provide information
  • learn about provide information to address
    issues
  • Result in 5 current CIF projects
  • additional applications in development
  • new issues, new ideas
  • Projects in early stages results to come

85
Best Practices
  • Current projects underway in North are best
    practice oriented
  • optimizing operations (Fort Frances)
  • multi-municipal co-operation/recycling planning
    (Thunder Bay area townships)
  • enhancing promotion education (Black
    River-Matheson)
  • Project effective for promoting best practices to
    programs

majority of projects in progress now are under
CIF
86
Next Steps
  • Project wraps at end of 2008
  • Final project report will be completed posted
    on Stewardship Ontario website
  • Project reports will be posted on CIF website
  • Anticipate CIF will continue with concept

87
Municipal Multi-Residential Recycling Support
  • Clayton Sampson

88
Project Summary
  • Project goal
  • improve increase capture of BB material from
    multi-residential (MR) sector through provision
    of a resource person
  • Anticipated impacts
  • raise profile of MR recycling increase
    effectiveness efficiency of programs
  • provide link to CIF to help fund promote
    implementation projects
  • More information
  • csampson_at_wdo.ca

89
Background (1)
  • Multi-Residential Working Group (MRWG) formed in
    2004
  • EE Fund project 215 provided support for MRWG
    to develop assess projects
  • Undertook background survey (EE Fund project
    18) to gage status of MR recycling programs
  • results most programs did not have good costs,
    tonnages diversion information on MR recycling

90
Background (2)
  • MRWG initiated other EE Fund projects to get
    better information ideas on MR recycling
  • enhancing recycling in Multi-residential
    Buildings in Markham, Richmond Hill, Vaughan (PN
    186)
  • focus groups/interviews with tenants,
    superintendents property managers (PN 199)
  • project to acquire analyze MR diversion cost
    data in 8 programs (PN 201)
  • Working group members undertook projects focused
    on MR recycling
  • MRWG provided a forum networking opportunity to
    discuss move forward

91
Results/Findings
  • Great potential to improve MR recycling programs
  • EE Funding for MRWG fully expended in 2008
  • Need to dedicate time resources to MR recycling
  • develop coordinated approach
  • MRWG scratched the surface
  • Application made to CIF for dedicated support
    position

92
Multi-Residential Support Position
  • CIF project 113 approved in September
  • possible 2 year program
  • year 1 funding approved
  • Funding provided for a position to support
    municipal MR programs projects
  • EOI issued for municipal secondment, successful
    in obtaining qualified responses
  • Anticipate project will begin in January, 2009

93
Next Steps
  • MRWG to act as sounding board to direct efforts
  • Proactive initiatives with municipalities to
    enhance MR recycling implementation
  • Bring forward projects to CIF to enhance MR
    recycling
  • Municipalities encouraged to participate on MRWG
    to increase networking value engage MR resource
    person in project support
  • Report at next ORW

94
3 Year Ontario Blue Box Recycler Training Program
  • Vivian De Giovanni
  • Municipal Waste AssociationAssociation of
    Municipal Recycling Coordinators

95
Project Summary
  • Project goal
  • 3 year program
  • core training 200 existing municipal staff
    trained certified with 50 new entrants in field
  • specialized training 140 individuals
  • Anticipated impacts
  • assist inform program decisions
  • re cost capture
  • More information
  • vivian_at_amrc.ca
  • www.amrc.ca

96
Program Origins
  • 2 EE Fund-supported projects
  • BB Program Enhancement Best Practices
    Assessment Project (2007)
  • identified staff training as a best practice
  • 3 Year Blue Box Recycler Training Strategy
    Implementation Plan (2007) needs study
  • confirmed interest (survey, targeted interviews)
    in municipal BB-specific training

97
Project Outline
  • Implement 3-year, 1.75M strategy
  • Develop deliver training with 2 elements
  • core (foundation) training to cover broad range
    of competencies at high level
  • specialized training in PE, markets marketing,
    contract management data management
  • Aided by steering group subject team
  • input for training coordinator (MWA/AMRC)
    curriculum developer (Jacques Whitford)

98
Project Deliverables
  • Core Training to be piloted Spring 2009
  • Courses include on-line in-class components
  • 1st delivery of specialized courses

99
In Progress...
  • In place steering group, subject matter team,
    training coordinator curriculum developer
  • Kick-off meeting September 11/12, 2008
  • Collaborative approach working well
  • high quality input from steering content groups
  • Developing core training content

100
Best Practices
  • Ensure this best practice delivered to high
    standard incorporates input from steering
    content development teams

101
Next Steps
  • Collaboration continuing with steering content
    groups
  • content exam questions being developed (Winter
    2008, Spring 2009)
  • Will seek test group for piloting
  • Core curriculum ready for piloting by March 2009
  • Curriculum developer for specialized modules
    selected through RFP process
  • agreement pending
  • Training will be offered starting in 2009!

102
Developing Markets for Blue Box Plastic
Packaging in Ontario
  • Guy Perry
  • Stewardship Ontario

103
Todays Session
  • Recap Stewardship Ontarios BB Plastic Plans
  • All Bottles Plus Tubs Campaign in Brockville
  • REOI for processing capacity
  • RFP for re-processing capacity

104
Blue Box Plastics Plan
  • Analysis of opportunities costs to increase
    Blue Box plastics recycling in Ontario (RW Beck,
    2007)
  • 2.4M fees from stewards of plastics
  • 2-track approach

105
All Bottle Plus Communications Demonstration
Project
  • Purpose to deepen capture of core materials
  • immediate impact
  • learn what works prepare for outreach to
    municipalities
  • Brockville selected
  • June campaign
  • Advertisements used for this are available
    through WDO

106
Demonstration Project Results
  • Recall of advertisements high unaided aided
  • Highest for direct mail highlighting PET water
    bottle
  • Hits to www.blueboxmore.ca increased
    significantly
  • Recovery rates generally increased

small component of stream some conflicting
promotion information in public
107
REOI Results
  • Consulted with municipalities plastics
    recycling industry in May June
  • Issued REOI June 30, 2008
  • Closed July 18, 2008
  • 8 companies responded
  • CPRA, EFS, Entropex, Haycore, HRL, Intercoat,
    Merlin, Nexcycle
  • Interviews with 7 companies during July August

108
Key Findings from REOI (1)
  • Address film rigid plastics 1 to 7 as
    different streams
  • Engage with re-processors who are linked to end
    users (i.e. not just MRF operators)
  • best way to identify high-value applications
  • ensures most flexibility lowest risk
  • greater chance to secure other interests,
    stakeholders potential funders
  • greater chance to identify promote closed loop
    options
  • Investments required now in positive sort
    technologies/systems in MRFs for plastics
  • to provide better throughput quality assurance

109
Key Findings from REOI (2)
  • No consensus on timing for a large solution
  • Constraints of conventional RFP process (as was
    done for glass)
  • significant uncertainty re plastics composition
    supply
  • common municipal contract (achieved with glass)
    very difficult
  • length of contract (unlike glass) an issue
    regarding pricing
  • likely to be a protracted process
  • Other funding may be available
  • FCM, SDTC, Ontario auto sector strategic
    investment funding

110
RFP for Plastics Re-processing
  • Proceed with competitive process
  • open to all, not just REOI respondents
  • RFP purpose
  • solicit proposals for re-processing BB plastic
    packaging from Ontario BB programs marketing
    resultant product(s)
  • RFP focus
  • 1 to 7 rigid plastic packaging
  • proposals need to go beyond bottle grade 1 2
  • recyclable film plastic

111
Key Elements of RFP
  • Seeking proposals from re-processors
  • prepare plastics for direct use by end markets
  • not just prepare materials to broker to others
  • Ontario location
  • Joint initiative-CIF Stewardship Ontario
  • 1.9M from Stewardship Ontario
  • 1.9M from CIF
  • address possible collection/processing impacts
  • support long-term municipal contractors
  • independent decisions whether to proceed with any
    proposal

112
Evaluation Based on 5 Criteria
113
Successful Respondents
  • 2-step Process
  • Proposal evaluation
  • 1 or more preferred respondents
  • Municipal involvement
  • Due diligence negotiations
  • 1 or more successful respondents
  • develop contracts with municipalities

Funding provided only if contracts secured for
municipal material
114
Comparison to Glass RFP
  • Similarities
  • seeking solution from marketplace
  • Stewardship Ontario offer of financial assistance
  • require contracts with municipalities to receive
    funding
  • work closely with municipalities
  • Plastics RFP differences
  • 2-step process-ask what market can do before
    compiling municipal material
  • quantities composition of material unknown
  • information to allow Stewardship Ontario
    municipalities to assess what needs to be done to
    commit specific materials
  • allows preferred respondent(s) to put together
    appropriate business case system impacts

115
Working with Municipalities
  • After selection of preferred respondent,
    Stewardship Ontario CIF work with
    municipalities
  • identify available plastics meeting respondents
    specifications
  • provide data for respondent(s) to complete a
    business case
  • Assess most beneficial result for province of
    Ontario
  • based on business case for proposals available
    material
  • To prepare for negotiations
  • Stewardship Ontario CIF to compile data on
    quantities composition of potentially available
    plastics

Contact mlalani_at_stewardshipontario.ca
116
Timeline
Allow for possible Round 2 depending on quality
of proposals
117
Questions?
118
Enjoy your lunch!
119
Welcome Back!
120
Afternoon Program
  • Optical Sorting Technology (OST)
  • presentations by municipal representatives
  • OST panel discussion
  • questions
  • Wrap-up

121
Optical Sorting TechnologyPresentations Panel
Discussion
  • Guy Perry
  • Stewardship Ontario

122
Optical Sorting Projects
  • EE Fund supported OST
  • Others being installed /or operating
  • Ottawa, Hamilton, Northumberland
  • Additional installations being planned
  • OST working group to review findings from EE
    Fund OST projects to provide information re
    performance role of OST
  • todays panel to report on discuss EE projects
    to date

123
Session Agenda
  • 4 presentations from OST communities
  • represents 4 out of 5 EE Fund OST projects
  • Panel discussion follows
  • Then open discussion
  • questions for panelists
  • what do you need to know?

124
Speakers Panelists
  • Craig Bartlett, Region of Durham
  • Jake Westerhof, Canada Fibres Ltd. (Dufferin
    installation, Toronto)
  • Cameron Wright, Essex-Windsor Solid Waste
    Authority
  • Dan Lantz, METRO Waste Paper Recovery
  • Other people are available to comment

125
Regional Municipality of DurhamDual Stream
Optical SortersEE 237
  • Craig Bartlett
  • Manager of Waste Operations

126
Project Summary
  • Highlights
  • in Durhams 2-stream system (fibres/containers),
    new MRF uses dual-functioning Pellenc optical
    sorters to further separate plastic bottles
    containers
  • first of their kind in Canada offering recovery
    rate of about 97
  • first unit separates PET HDPE plastics.
  • second unit separates tubs, lids gable/aseptic
    containers
  • More information
  • craig.bartlett_at_region.durham.on.ca
  • www.durhamregionwaste.ca

127
The Issue
  • Majority of MRFs use contracted staff resources
    to manually-sort various grades of plastic
    containers
  • Manual sorting method is less efficient less
    effective with increasing volumes
  • longer operating hours
  • increased energy for processing
  • increased labour costs

128
The Project
  • Total project cost 634,500 plus GST
  • incl. equipment, installation, controls wiring
  • EE Fund contribution 317,250 plus GST
  • 2 state-of-the-art optical sorting systems
    specifically designed, custom-built installed
    to sort
  • PET HDPE
  • tetrapak/aseptic polycoat containers
  • plastic tubs lids

129
Tonnage Financial Impacts
  • MRF began full processing operations January
    2008
  • Revenues under review
  • Possible increase of regional revenues through
    short-term sale of existing excess processing
    capacity

130
Results/Findings
  • When operational, sorting lines increase, process
    more containers in shorter time period with
    improved quantities quality of product going to
    end market
  • Experienced alignment problems associated
    downtime which has resulted in manual sorting
  • Loss of productivity
  • More technical investigation required to reduce
    the possibility of equipment failure

131
Best Practices
  • OST has tremendous benefits in terms of
  • lower operating costs
  • reduced electricity natural gas consumption
  • higher recovery of target plastics containers
  • greater quantities, higher-quality products,
    for industrial buyers
  • Automated system expected to set new processing
    standard as best practice in recycling
    operations

132
Next Steps
  • Upon completion of commissioning the facility,
    Region will retain a consultant to provide
    analysis
  • Expectations of optical sorters include
  • throughput of up to 7 tonnes per hour along
    container processing line
  • minimum Recovery Rate of 97 of plastics
  • meet or exceed market specifications

133
City of Toronto Vanley MRFPlastics Optical
Sorting TechnologyEE Fund 210
  • Jake Westerhof
  • Canada Fibers Ltd

134
Project Summary
  • Retrofit of existing container line with optical
    sorting technology
  • RFP for design, procurement, installation
    commissioning of an optical sorting system
  • detailed evaluation of responses from PELLENC
    MSS
  • evaluation team included Stewardship Ontario,
    City of Toronto, Gartner Lee, CFL
  • install during 10 day shutdown (February 2008)
  • Commissioning included performance testing

135
Project Summary
  • Project goals
  • reduce labour costs while maintaining throughput
    levels material quality
  • evaluate effectiveness efficiency of optical
    sorting technology as part of Torontos goal of a
    highly automated 3rd MRF
  • Anticipated impacts
  • reduction of 3 sorters/shift increased recovery
    of PET polycoat/aseptic containers improved
    consistency of material quality
  • More information
  • jakew_at_canadafibersltd.com
  • www.canadafibersltd.com

136
Equipment Costs
  • Pellenc Optical Sorter
  • Mistral 12-05T Dual Valve
  • Conveyor(s) modifications
  • Perforator to improve material stabilization
  • Disc screen (2½" minus) to remove fines
    increase life of downstream components
  • 1.4M capital cost
  • 700K EE Fund
  • 700K Toronto

137
Schematic
  • Bottom valve block ejecting PET upwards
  • Top valve block ejecting polycoat aseptic
    containers downwards

138
OST Project
139
Recovery Financial Benefits
  • 200K per year operational savings
  • Year-to-year increase (adjusted for growth)
  • PET 12
  • Polycoat 25
  • Increased market revenues from sale of additional
    recovered material

Average Tonnes/Month (March-October)
140
Results/Findings
  • Realized labour savings increase in recovery
  • Technical problems include
  • air qualityfilter replacement
  • temperature issues
  • faulty valves, full replacement
  • recognition issues
  • no local (GTA) technical expertise
  • Commissioning results below expectations (second
    valve block performance)

141
Performance Test(_at_ 2,400 to 2,750 kg/hr
throughput)
  • PET (bottom valve)
  • Polycoat (top valve)
  • 90.5 recovery
  • 91.0 purity
  • 84.5 recovery
  • 80.5 purity

142
Next Steps
  • Testing of other sorting parameters on second
    valve block
  • Continued monitoring ongoing improvement
  • Build internal technical expertise through
    additional training
  • Project report to be completed in 2009

143
Optical Sorting Equipmentfor Plastics
PaperEE Fund Projects 260 261
  • Cameron WrightManager of Waste Diversion
  • Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority

144
Project Summary
  • Project goal
  • use optical sorting for plastics fibre in 2
    stream/mid-size MRF
  • Anticipated impacts
  • higher efficiency
  • lower processing costs
  • improved material quality capture
  • More information
  • cwright_at_ewswa.org
  • www.ewswa.org

145
The Issue
  • What problem was OST intended to solve?
  • low capture rates
  • loss of single serve PET
  • high manual separation
  • health safety issues

146
Tonnage Financial Impacts
  • Cost total project 2.7M
  • fibre 350K
  • container 240K
  • EE Fund contribution 544K
  • Anticipated cost savings to be determined
  • base case 7 sorters?containers 7 sorters?fibre
  • OST requires 6 sorters?containers 4
    sorters?fibre (theoretically)

147
Sorting Labour (1)
  • Container Line (with Optical Sort)
  • 4.5 tonnes/hour
  • 1 to 2 pre-sort
  • 1 glass
  • 1 aluminum quality control (QC)
  • 1 HDPE QC
  • 1 PET QC
  • 3 manual sorters for PET, HDPE, poly-coat,
    aluminum foil, paper, tubs lids

148
Sorting Labour (2)
  • Fibre Line (with or without Optical Sort)
  • 8 tonnes/hour
  • 2 pre-sort
  • 1 OCC QC
  • 5 ONP QC

149
Results/Findings (to date)
  • Material quality better
  • Material capture appears much better (especially
    OCC PET single serve)
  • Containers processed
  • on 1 day shift
  • Notable improvement
  • in material quality

150
Lessons Learned
  • Container optical
  • A/C unit inside panel
  • nozzles replaced
  • conveyor ripped apart (poor vulcanization)
  • Fibre optical
  • humidity
  • unable to distinguish between OBB ONP
  • low bridge height of unit causes many jams
  • infrared unit heats up bags stick to it
  • slow in-feed required

151
Need to Know
  • Fibre optical (infrared) technology not proven
  • Container optical?problems appear similar to
    those experienced elsewhere in Ontario
  • Installation start-up delays
  • Ensure technology could be demonstrated in
    2-stream Ontario MRF application prior to award

152
Best Practices
  • Everyone looking for more efficient, less
    labour-intensive means to process
  • Technology exists for removing containers is
    very effective
  • Reduces sorting hours
  • Reduces repetitive motion

153
Next Steps
  • Containers
  • reduce pre-sort by 1 sorter
  • continue to performance-test
  • evaluate residue levels capture rates
  • track quality
  • Fibres
  • eliminate fibre optical system
  • examine ONP screen application
  • performance test
  • status report currently being completed

154
Scarborough MRF Fibres Optical Sorters
  • Dan Lantz
  • METRO Waste Paper Recovery

155
Project Summary
  • Project goal
  • reduce cost of ONP processing
  • improve quality of ONP
  • Anticipated impacts
  • reduction of up to 10 sorters per shift
  • ONP with less than 10 outthrows prohibitives
  • More information
  • dlantz_at_metrowaste.com
  • www.metrowaste.com

156
The Issue
  • 22 sorters for ONP cleanup
  • Prohibitives outthrows too high
  • particular concerns with plastic film, PET, OBB

157
The Project
  • Remove 4 ONP quality control lines
  • replace with 296 dual eject optical sorting
    units
  • Installation completed in October 2007

Before
After
158
Financial Impacts
  • Overall cost of installation in excess of 2.1M
  • 1.6M for equipment
  • 0.5M for local work
  • Reduction of 8 sorters
  • net savings of approximately 475K per year
  • EE Fund contribution (incl. GST) 1.037M

159
Results/Findings (to date)
  • Overall, ONP quality marginally improved
  • Issues with consistency
  • OBB VERY difficult to identify
  • Increasing inbound residue making material harder
    to manage

160
Best Practices
  • Optical sorting for ONP does help save money
  • Inbound product quality critical
  • Not expected to be really efficient to manage
    OBB white OCC
  • Not suitable for 2-stream programs
  • Best practice? Better practice that still
    needs development

161
Next Steps
  • Requires a lot of ongoing monitoring
  • Must track changes in the inbound stream
  • Extending ONP QC lines to allow for additional
    ONP improvements
  • affects payback/cost effectiveness
  • Report is in very final stages
  • Metro would do it again
  • installing optical sorters for ONP in new Calgary
    facility

162
Panel Discussion
163
DiscussionMain Topics
  • Recognition recovery
  • Throughput
  • Operational Issues
  • Cost
  • Monitoring
  • Future developments

164
DiscussionTopic 1
  • Recognition recovery
  • recovery rates for target materials
  • acceptable?
  • likely to improve?
  • levels of contamination
  • acceptable?
  • likely to improve?
  • recognition issues
  • can they be mitigated?

165
DiscussionTopic 2
  • Throughput
  • what is range of throughput level?
  • are they acceptable?
  • can they be improved?

166
DiscussionTopic 3
  • Operational Issues
  • what are the key operational challenges and how
    can they be mitigated?
  • are there situations which, if they exist, make
    OST unworkable

167
DiscussionTopic 4
  • Cost
  • can/should we define threshold situations
    (materials, throughput, etc.) in which OST can
    economically be applied

168
DiscussionTopic 5
  • Monitoring
  • what monitoring should be done, by whom?
  • how should monitoring be structured?
  • how should results be disseminated?

169
DiscussionTopic 6
  • Future developments
  • is there anything we should be telling equipment
    suppliers for future development?

170
DiscussionMain Topics
  • Recognition recovery
  • Throughput
  • Operational Issues
  • Cost
  • Monitoring
  • Future developments

171
Questions?
172
Concluding Remarks
  • Watch www.stewardshipontario.ca
  • EE Fund project wrap-ups reporting
  • plastics market development information
  • More information about CIF start-up coming soon
  • Stay tuned through In-the-Loop, Recyclers
    Knowledge Network, EE Fund CIF webpage
  • Thank you to all ORW speakers!
  • slides available at ORW webpage

173
Thank you!
www.stewardshipontario.ca/bluebox/eefund www.recyc
lersknowledgenetwork.ca www.wdo.ca/cif
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com