Ontario Recycler Workshop

1
Ontario Recycler Workshop

• November 2, 2006

2
Introduction

• 3rd Ontario Recycler Workshop
• Joint initiative of
• Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO)
• Stewardship Ontario
• Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)
• Reflects broad interests information needs

3
Goals for the Day

• Update on key Effectiveness Efficiency (EE)
  Fund project results to date
• first time poster session
• Update on Best Practice work
• Update on 2007 municipal payments

4
Agenda

• EE Fund Report
• Enhanced Blue Box Recovery Program
• MRF Studies (Collection Processing)
• Better Best Practices
• Key Issues

5
Our Audiences

• In person (60)
• Webcast audience (30)
• listening with slides, on-line
• type in questions/comments directly on webcast
  console
• Archived webcast available for 180 days

6
EE Fund Report

• Guy Perry
• Stewardship Ontario

7
EE Fund Overview

• 10 of industry contribution to municipalities
• 14.4M available over first 3 years
• another 5.4M for 2007
• Objectives
• reduce system cost (net cost per tonne)
• minimize cost increases as recovery increases
• build capacity for sustainable recycling system
• 64 projects approved to date for 12.3M

8
Deepening our Knowledge

• Best Practice (BP) focus overall
• Building on tools experience
• Consolidating infrastructure
• Technology
• A-Team resources
• Measurement
• Getting the word out

9
Best Practice Focus

• Previous Projects
• Best Practice (BP) for rural depots
• model tenders contracts
• Recent or On-going Projects
• BP in promotion education
• AMRC best practice workshops series
• BP assessment project
• compaction
• Complementary non-EE Fund Activities
• BP in other industry sectors
• BP in private sector delivery

10
Building on Tools

• Model Recycling Tender Tool (MRTT)
• Fuel Surcharges
• adding fuel escalation clause
• further research on fuel surcharges
• incorporating into MRTT
• Recycling Advisor Help Desk
• York Region ? Stratford
• Elgin County ? Kingston
• South Frontenac

11
Consolidating Infrastructure

• London surrounding areas
• Kingston South Frontenac
• Peterborough, Northumberland, Quinte Durham
• Hamilton surrounding areas
• Alexandria (RARE) surrounding areas
• York Region collection

12
Technology

• Optical sorting
• plastics (Toronto Dufferin MRF)
• fibres (Metro Waste Scarborough MRF)
• Bag breaker (Peel)
• Automated transfer system (Dryden)
• Carts automated collection (Toronto)

13
Measurement

• Waste audit program
• 2005 2006
• continuing in 2007
• Getting it right general ledger accounts
  Datacall
• BP projects
• AMRC workshops
• BP assessment

14
A-Team Resources

• Recycling program advisor
• Special assignments to BP assessment project
  (full part time)
• municipal staff
• special advisors
• Stewardship Ontario staff

15
Getting the Word Out

• Recyclers Knowledge Network
• updated new products
• A-Team updates
• BP
• In-the-Loop quarterly newsletter
• ORW twice per year
• Poster sessions
• Posting reports project evaluations

16
Enhanced Blue Box Program Promotion Education
Campaign

• Barbara McConnell
• Stewardship Ontario

17
Summary

• Sponsors Durham, York, Peel, Toronto
• Goals boost Blue Box recovery with effective
  electronic PE campaign
• Potential Impact up to 25,000 additional tonnes
  by 2008 (Golden Horseshoe)
• Email bmcconnell_at_stewardshipontario.ca
• Website www.blueboxmore.ca

18
Enhancing Blue Box Recovery

• Project Objective
• increase tonnage of key materials to optimize MRF
  capacity increase diversion
• important improved behaviour 1) awareness 2)
  opportunity 3) convenience
• Tonnes available in Golden Horseshoe
• Single Family (SF) 114,000 tonnes
• Multi-Family (MF) 115,000 tonnes

19
Research Findings

• Waste Audits
• SF 70 diversion of recyclables
• MF 40 diversion
• Potential for Increase
• propensity to recycle greatest opportunity
• easier to push SF than MF
• e.g. convenience vs. barriers alert!

20
Project Components

• Technical segmentation analysis (2005)
• MGM Management GTA technical committee
• CE benchmark research
• qualitative - Durham, York, Toronto
• quantitative (800 interviews) - Peel, York,
  Durham, Toronto
• Established Communication Advisory Committee
• Strategic communications plan

21
Strategic Plan Recommendations

• Target audience SF MF
• Women 25 to 60, work out-of-home, watch TV
• Huge difficulties reaching MF with information
• Electronic campaign TV - if its important
• Reach beyond GTA GHA
• Support with print ads carrying same messages
• One click access to recycling information

22
PE Campaign Sequence

• Hire agency develop concepts
• Focus group testing Toronto, Durham, York Peel,
  London, Peterborough, Sudbury
• Confirm target audience response to preferred
  concept
• Produce TV, print ads web site
• Test track London (includes region)
• October to November 2006 (4 weeks)
• January to February 2007 (3 weeks)
• Potential GTA/full province roll out late spring
  2007

23
Magic Box Apartment Ads
24
Recycling Works Campaign
Recycled detergent bottles turn into all kinds
of surprising things, like watering cans.
Recycled pop and water bottles turn into all
kinds of surprising things, like fleece.
Recycled newspapers turn into all kinds of
surprising things, like egg cartons.
25
www.blueboxmore.ca
26
Impacts Next Steps

• Year 1 1.1M
• segmentation analysis
• benchmark research
• concept testing
• TV print production (reach SF MF)
• create/host website
• field test in London
• On-air in GTA in 2007 2008 (2M each)

27
Processing and Collection Optimization

• Rick Clow
• Quinte Waste Solutions

28
The Topic

• Investment in labour saving processing
  technologies priority in high volume MRFs
• Clear need opportunity for integrated
  collection processing planning
• MRF improvements municipally-driven regional
  optimization

29
Other work ideas

• Large MRF retrofit applications regional
  proposals submitted or coming to MIPC
• Kingston Peterborough London Hamilton
• Collection optimization projects underway
• Onboard Weigh Scales for MF collection (Peel)
• Joint Solid Waste/Blue Box Collection (York)
• Research on clear garbage bag use (Quinte)

30
Speakers

• Al Metauro, Metro Municipal Recycling Services
  Inc.
• Optical sorting equipment for Scarborough Metro
  Waste MRF
• Shaun Spalding, York Region
• York Collection Processing Study
• Pam Russell, Northumberland County
• Recycling program optimization study regional
  MRF considerations

31
Optical Sorting Equipment for Scarborough Metro
Waste MRF

• Al Metauro, CEO
• Metro Municipal Recycling Services Inc.

32
Project Summary

• Project goal
• improve quality of ONP sorted by single stream
  systems
• Anticipated impacts
• increase sorting efficiency decrease processing
  costs
• Email ametauro_at_metrowaste.com
• Website www.metrowaste.com

33
Issue

• Sorting labour turnover above other departments
• Quality consistency currently dependent on labour
  skill

• Disc screen inefficiencies
• flattened non fibre materials stay with fibre
• 8 ONP contamination 6 to 10 significant
  revenue loss

34
ONP Quality
Sample inbound material note flattened
containers
Sorted 8 ONP note contaminants (flattened
containers)
35
The Project

• Examine efficiency of using optical sorting to
  remove containers contaminants from paper fibre
  sorting lines
• Evaluate efficiency of removing fibre
  contaminants from 8 ONP
• Evaluate further fibre sorting into OBB, OCC
  MIXED paper versus all as MIXED
• Assess technology potential opportunities to
  utilize optical sorters in other operations

36
Key Features

• Volumes processed exceed 500 tonnes/day
• Operating experience with equipment gt 3 years
• Extensive work to ensure all components of system
  maximized
• Convinced contaminants can not be reduced
  elsewhere in system
• Optical sorting technology advancing proven
  successful at sorting rigid materials
• Manufacturers addressed volume throughput fibre
  buoyancy

37
Implementation/Risk

• Implementation
• major challenge to install equipment with least
  impact on production
• RFP issued request to install in 2 phases
• Risk
• equipment does not work
• 8 ONP quality below specs
• labour reduction not realized

38
Tonnage Impacts

• Contamination/outthrows expected reduced to lt 4
• Throughput capacity not impacted
• Optical sorters designed to process additional
  volume if total throughput increases
• Container line volume will increase

39
Financial Impacts

• Estimated cost 1.65M to install 2 optical
  sorters
• Labour reduction 8 sorters/shift X 2 shifts
  475K annual cost reduction
• Payback period 3.8 years
• Equates to 1.81/tonne processing fee reduction
  for 1.4M potential savings over next 6.5 years
• Threat of revenue loss on additional volumes
  minimized good markets City receives highest
  value (gt150K/yr)

40
Best Practices Impact

• Increases capture rate
• Reduces costs
• Maximizes value of material

41
Next Steps

• Visit manufacturer view latest application of
  proposed optical sorting equipment (Oct. 16 to
  18)
• Award contract by end of Oct. 2006
• Commence installation Feb. 2007
• Complete system commissioning by May 2007

42
York Collection Processing Optimization Study

• Shaun Spalding
• The Regional Municipality of York

43
Project Summary

• Recommend optimal compaction level that maximizes
  blue box collection while providing acceptable
  feedstock quality for MRF operations
• Email shaun.spalding_at_york.ca
• Website www.york.ca

44
The Issue

• Compaction vehicles allow for collection
  efficiencies
• but feedstock quality MRF operations impacted
  by compaction
• How much compaction is too much?

45
The Project

• Survey of North American municipalities (focus on
  Ontario)
• gather compaction experiences practices
  relating to collection MRF processing
• Compaction tests at York Region MRF
• evaluate MRF processing performance with
  different compaction levels

46
Survey Results

• 140 contacted 66 valid responses
• 55 Ontario 6 Canada 5 USA
• 6 have compaction policy
• 5 policies based on vehicle manufacturers
  recommendation or legal transportation limits
• 1 policy based on MRF operational requirements
  but not equipment suppliers recommendation
• York Regions policy based on MRF equipment
  supplier recommendation (2.5 to 1)

47
York Region Baseline

• Inbound Composition

• Throughput 25 tonnes/hr
• Residue Rate 7

48
Compaction Test Results

• As compaction rate increased, MRF performance
  decreased

ONP Sample

• ONP Mixed Paper quality below specs
• residue rate residue increased

Residue Sample
Mixed Paper Sample
49
Conclusions

• As compaction during collection increases MRF
  performance decreases
• Implement BP only if practice benefits system as
  whole
• Recommended compaction limit
• 2 to 1 operationally effective
• 2.5 to 1 upper limit

50
Recycling Program Optimization Study Regional
MRF Considerations

• Pam Russell
• Director, Transportation Waste
• County of Northumberland

51
Project Summary

• Project goal
• increase efficiency of MRF by optimizing
  feedstock updating equipment
• Anticipated impacts
• increased recovery decreased processing costs
• Email russellp_at_county.northumberland.on.ca
• Website www.northumberland.ca

52
Issues

• Dry stream difficult to process
• 10-year old processing equipment
• High costs
• 263/tonne compared to municipal grouping average
  of 233/tonne

53
The Project

• Audits of incoming feedstock residual
• Equipment review recommendations

54
Results/Findings

• 20 incoming material not recyclable
• 23 sorting costs incurred by removal of non
  recyclables
• Many recyclables lost
• 45 material in grocery bags
• Flat/round separator only 60 efficient

55
Recommendations

• Convert to expanded recycling program
• Bag your bags but keep other recyclables loose
• Replace flat/round separator with star screen
  separator

56
Expected Results

• Increase throughput from 5 tph to 10 tph
• Decrease residual from 36 to 10
• Reduce labour costs by 346K/yr
• Capture 27 more recyclables

57
Next Steps

• Promote Recycle Clean program
• EE funding application for equipment upgrades
• Regionalization discussions with neighbouring
  municipalities

58
Questions Answers
59
Break

• Session resumes _at_ 220

60
Better Best Practices Studies

• Geoff Love
• Stewardship Ontario

61
Why the focus on Best Practices

• Ministers direction to encourage Best Practice
  (BP) activities pay to BP costs in 2008
• Implications
• need to identify BP activities
• need to determine BP costs
• need to get there from here
• sustainable continuous improvement goal

62
Other work

• On-going work to identify BP activities from EE
  Fund, A-Team activities
• London, Toronto, RARE study (with FCM)
• Depot BP Study/KN posting
• PE BP modules
• AMRC BP Consultations (EE project 200)
• Comprehensive BP Assessment Project

63
Speakers

• Chris Reid, KPMG LLP
• BP assessment project
• Mike Birett, York Region AMRC
• Municipal consultations on Blue Box BP
• Jay Stanford, City of London
• Recycling in Southwestern Ontario A regional
  MRF other BP

64
Blue Box Recycling Program Enhancement Best
Practices Assessment Project

• Chris Reid
• KPMG

65
Project Summary

• Project goal
• determine Ontario net system best practice (BP)
  cost for determining stewards' contribution
• identify Ontario Blue Box Recycling Program BP
  activities, opportunities costs
• use of EE Fund to promote BP
• Email crreid_at_kpmg.ca
• Website www.kpmg.ca

66
Anticipated Impacts

• List of BP activities
• Individual plans on how to adopt BP for
  participant municipalities
• Total system cost for setting 2008 Stewards Fees
• Options for use of EE Fund

67
The Project

• Review practices across sample of Ontario
  municipal recycling programs
• identify document BPs
• formulate opportunities to implement diffuse
  BPs
• quantify effects of province-wide BP adoption
  define Ontario net system BP cost for determining
  stewards contributions
• Array of stakeholders need to have interests
  perspectives considered
• Timeframe September 2006 to May 2007

68
Key Drivers

• Blue Box program costs rising may increase with
  more diversion
• Municipalities want to maximize diversion
• Stewards concerned their share of program cost
  goes to some programs not considered best in
  class
• Minister of Environment by 2008, Stewards
  obligation 50 of BP costs
• Net 2008 system cost for fee setting to be
  determined based on rigorous identification of
  true BP costs
• Lack of existing information to define BP costs
• Municipal concern unique characteristics not
  fully considered in previous classification
  costing methods

69
Project Work Plan Phases (1)

• Start Up
• establish a robust Project Management foundation
  engage key stakeholders in project
• Insight
• review municipal programs, identify Ontario
  international BPs
• Design
• develop blueprints for programs quantify
  program-wide effects of adopting BPs

70
Project Work Plan Phases (2)

• Implement
• help municipalities adopt BPs provide options
  to distribute funding through EE Fund
• Sustain
• provide tools for institutionalizing adoption of
  BPs

71
Key Milestones Deliverables
72
Best Practices Working Definition for This
Project

• Best Practices are defined as waste system
  practices that affect Blue Box recycling programs
  that result in the attainment of provincial
  municipal Blue Box material diversion goals in
  the most cost-effective way.

73
Attributes of the Best Practices Definition

• Oriented to attainment of Blue Box Program goals,
  as defined in legislation Blue Box Program Plan
• Municipalities determine programs within
  legislative guidelines
• Diversion is a goal cost-effectiveness in
  achieving diversion is a goal

74
BP Criteria

• BPs are
• measurable, comparable
• transferable, replicable
• result in reduced cost (minimizing unit cost)
  while maintaining or improving diversion
• result in net positive benefits as it relates to
  costs diversion
• temporal in nature - continuous improvement will
  yield new BPs
• could be operational, promotional,
  administrative, legislative, political, etc.

75
Next Steps

• Selecting participant programs
• Planning conducting program reviews
• Additional BP research
• Reporting results recommendations to
  municipalities MIPC

76
Municipal Consultation Sessions on Blue Box Best
Practices

• Michael J. Birett
• AMRC

77
Project Summary

• Obtain input on applying Best Practices (BP) to
  Blue Box funding
• Objectives
• raise municipal awareness
• identify several good practices indicators
• identify barriers to implementation
• facilitate informed policy development by MIPC
  others
• Additional information on Knowledge Network

78
Issue

• Ministerial direction
• begin paying to BP in 2008
• Funding for 2008 based on 2006 activities
• Low stakeholder level of awareness
• Needed to engage stakeholders in collaborative
  effort

79
The Project

• Conducted 4 consultation sessions
• Sessions explored
• potential BP indicators activities
• guiding principles concerns
• approaches to funding models
• Background info provided on
• past funding decisions
• MIPC activities

80
Practices, Indicators Principles

• BP must
• respect municipal autonomy apply equally to
  stewards
• recognize municipal contractual obligations
  provide predictable municipal funding
• BP must not
• restrict diversion or be reduced to a cost
  cutting exercise

• Possible BPs
• user pay, bag limits, tracking diversion
• numerous outstanding questions concerns
• Possible indicators
• kg/hhld/year
• recovery overall
• lack of consensus

81
Approaches to Funding

• /tonne vs. of total costs funding model
• mixed support
• PEER model
• potentially complex with high degree of
  uncertainty

82
Conclusions

• BPs rarely absolute
• True BPs transferable
• Application may increase system costs
• Nexus ruling may prevent development of incentive
  based funding systems

83
Next Steps

• Best approach may focus on outlying
  municipalities
• Results forwarded to BP Management Team
• AMRC consulting with members providing further
  input to MIPC

84
Recycling in Southwestern Ontario A Regional
MRF Other Best Practices

• Jay Stanford
• City of London

85
Project Summary

• Project goal Phase 1 - prepare business case for
  regional MRF develop framework for regional
  best practices
• Anticipated impacts lower cost/tonne increased
  diversion
• E-mail jstanfor_at_london.ca
• Website www.london.ca

86
Issue

• About 8 to 10 MRFs in region
• Limited recent investment
• Regional capacity not available coordination
  among municipalities limited (distance)
• RFP comprehensive recycling services
• Processing is a stumbling block
• Regional recycling Is it possible?

87
Phase 1 - Key Outcomes Best
Practices

• MRF London 10M Regional 15M
• Developing partnerships take time (1 year?)
• Public ownership has strong merits
• Regional MRF has strong merits
• Regional cooperation has benefits
• 2 Stream MRF leads thinking
• Incentive-based fee essential
• Next step - RFP for 2 MRFs

88
Cooperative Opportunities

• Marketing recyclables . . . clout
• Purchasing . . . from services to products
• Advertising . . . Wouldnt it be nice if . . .
• Knowledge sharing . . . Council reports,
  background studies, research

89
Tipping Fee Incentive (TFI)

• Invested into capital works
• Lowers processing cost of regional partners
• London capital operating
• Partners capital operating TFI
• Regional partners less likely without incentive

90
The Regional MRF Opportunity
91
Community A With TFI
92
Community B With TFI
93
Regional MRF - 75,000 Tonnes
Annual MRF savings of approximately 1M
94
Next Steps
95
Questions Comments
96
Key Issues Intro

• Gary Everett
• Municipal Recycling Program Advisor

97
Topics (1)

• 1) A-Team Activities Update
• A-Team is FREE on-site support service provided
  through EE Fund to municipal recycling programs
  across province
• play role in supporting KPMGled Best Practices
  (BP) assessment project

98
Topics (2)

• 2) Approach, plans timelines for 2007 municipal
  payments
• led by Glenda Gies WDO Executive Director
• QA Andy Campbell (York Region AMO
  representative on MIPC) Guy Perry (Stewardship
  Ontario MIPC representative)

99
A-Team Report

• Gary Everett
• Municipal Recycling Program Advisor

100
Project Summary

• Project goal
• help municipalities obtain program effectiveness
  efficiencies
• Anticipated impacts
• increased diversion
• reduced program costs

101
The Project

• AMO, WDO, Stewardship Ontario initiative
• Hands-on help
• No charge to municipalities
• Results-oriented
• Local focus
• Practical, useable, specific recommendations
• Possible EE funding

102
What We Do

• Free expert resource, advice, guidance for Blue
  Box programs
• contracts, tenders, RFPs
• collection, processing, marketing
• equipment, MRF, curbside, depot
• multi-municipality co-operation, joint ventures

103
Current A-Team Projects

• York Region Municipalities co-operate in joint
  collection
• Fuel cost escalation sample clauses available for
  tenders
• Peterborough explores co-operative options
• London MRF may process for neighbours
• Northumberland MRF upgrade funding

104
Northumberland MRF Upgrade
105
Advisory Reports
106
Contact us, we can help!
107
2007 Blue Box Funding

• Glenda Gies
• Waste Diversion Ontario

108
2007 Funding Methodology (1)

• MFAM considered
• overly complex - hard to explain understand
• difficult to use for budget predictions
• MIPC considered options to
• reduce complexity improve predictability
• maintain financial incentive to improve program
  performance

109
2007 Funding Methodology (2)

• MIPC recommended WDO Board approved
• setting aside MFAM
• establishing 2 levels of funding for programs
  above below cost bands
• recognizes programs can improve
• defined by of each programs reported net
  system cost

110
2007 'Reasonable Cost' Band

• 2007 14M
• Municipal portion 7M
• 80 shared by all programs 20 shared by
  programs above reasonable cost band for group
• gives the two levels of of net cost
• programs above cost bands receive 982,000 less
  cash payments than programs below cost bands
• Cost bands determined using EE Factor
• net cost/tonne
• recovery

111
2007 Funding Amounts

• MIPC has deferred issue to November
• Funding requires recalculation to reflect WDO
  Boards decision to remove Wine Spirit tonnes,
  costs revenues from net system cost for
  purposes of 2007 Blue Box stewards fees

112
2007 Fee Setting Process

• WDO reported net system cost to Stewardship
  Ontario in August
• Stewardship Ontario
• calculated 2007 fees began consultation on 2007
  fees August 31, 2006
• suspended 2007 Blue Box fee setting process
  September 12, 2006, pending determination of
  effect of Wine Spirit deposit system on net
  system cost

113
2007 Fees Timeline

• 2007 fees must be approved December 31, 2006
• WDA did not anticipate absence of approved fees
• If 2007 fees not approved, legal position of
  BBPP, Stewardship Ontario, 2007 fees 2007
  municipal funding is uncertain

114
Fees on Deposit Containers

• WDA S.35 prohibits Blue Box IFO from levying fees
  on Brewers deposit containers
• Stewardship Ontario will likely be prohibited
  from levying fees on Wine Spirit deposit
  containers
• number of regulatory options available

115
2007 Fee Setting Options

• Assume Stewardship Ontario will not have
  authority to levy Wine Spirit deposit
  containers
• remove 100 of Wine Spirit tonnes, costs
  revenues
• Assume Stewardship Ontario will have authority to
  levy Wine Spirit deposit containers
• remove estimated Wine Spirit containers
  returned for deposit
• fees would require adjustment when actual
  quantity of Wine Spirit deposit containers
  remaining in BB system known

116
2007 Fee Setting Process

• WDO Board decided to assume Stewardship Ontario
  will not have authority to levy Wine Spirit
  deposit containers
• Approach is
• consistent with WDA
• results in shared costs spread over fewer tonnes
  (i.e. higher fees for stewards)
• reduces possibility of 2 sets of 2007 fees

117
Adjusting Net System Cost

• Stewards legal obligation to fund municipal Blue
  Box programs commenced on Feb 1, 2004
• steward legal obligation for funding year
• funding is not retroactive to data year
• Most current cost data utilized for fee setting
• workable in a steady state system
• requires adjustment during transition period

118
Adjusting Tonnes

• Methodology
• identified quantity of Wine Spirit containers
  as of containers marketed in 2005
• removed 11/12ths of Wine Spirit containers
  (Feb.-Dec.)
• Calculation
• 382,226 tonnes of containers marketed in 2005
• 81,126 tonnes of Wine Spirit containers
  marketed
• 11/12ths 74,366 tonnes of Wine Spirit
  containers

119
Adjusting Revenues

• Methodology
• based on average revenue/marketed tonne
  multiplied by tonnes of Wine Spirit containers
• Calculation
• revenue of 566,367.19 for 74,366 tonnes Wine
  Spirit containers
• Revised 3 year rolling average revenue
• 76,876,910

120
Adjusting Costs

• Methodology
• based on average gross cost/marketed tonne
  multiplied by tonnes of Wine Spirit containers
• Calculation
• average gross cost/marketed tonne 252.23
• gross costs of 18,757,305 for 74,366 tonnes of
  Wine Spirit containers

121
Revised Net System Cost

• Original 50 share of net cost (August)
• 62,017,482
• Revised 50 share of net cost (October)
• 55,048,166
• Reduction in 2007 funding due to exclusion of
  Wine Spirit deposit containers as stewardable
  Blue Box Waste
• 6,969,316

122
Questions Comments
123
For More Information

• www.stewardshipontario.ca/eefund
• www.vubiz.com/stewardship

124
Thank you!