Report to/Rapport au:
Environmental Services Committee /
Comité des services de l’environnement
and Council/et au Conseil
03 March 2003/le 03 mars 2003
Submitted by/Soumis par: R.T.
Leclair, General Manager/Directrice générale
Transportation, Utilities and Public Works/Transport, services et travaux
publics
Contact/Personne-ressource: P. McNally, Director/Directeur
Utility
Services Branch/Direction des services publics
Telephone No.: (613) 580-2424, ext./poste 22609
e-mail/courriel: Patrick.McNally@ottawa.ca
|
|
|
Ref N°:
ACS2003-TUP-UTL-0001
|
SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE – INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
MASTER PLAN STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND
PHASE TWO NEXT STEPS
OBJET: DÉCHETS SOLIDES – PLAN DIRECTEUR INTÉGRÉ DE LA GESTION DES
DÉCHETS – ORIENTATIONS STRATÉGIQUES ET PHASE DEUX – ÉTAPES SUIVANTES
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Environmental Services Committee
recommend Council approve the strategic directions resulting from Phase One of
the Integrated Waste Management Master Plan as outlined below, and the next
steps for Phase Two, as outlined in this report:
1.
That the City increase its efforts to achieve higher
waste diversion with a minimum target of 40 percent, and that options to
increase diversion up to 70 percent be considered in Phase Two;
2.
That
the City endorse public consultation, involvement and education as essential
requirements to sustain waste management diversion at higher levels;
3. a) That
the City continue to be responsible for ensuring the provision of all residential waste collection services
to single and multi-family dwellings;
and
b)
That the City remove Industrial, Commercial and
Institutional (IC&I) small businesses from municipal responsibility;
4. a) That
the City retain its two landfill sites in public ownership as strategic assets
that benefit the community;
b) That the City continue to reserve
landfill disposal capacity within the City for locally-generated solid waste;
c)
That the City recognize the value of conserving
landfill capacity, and consider the export of residential waste where economics
warrants;
5.
That the City monitor, test, evaluate and implement
initiatives that leverage technology or environmental benefits, as appropriate,
over the course of the Plan; and
6. That the City develop strategies to ensure waste management
costs are recovered on a user-pay basis.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité des
services de l’environnement recommande au Conseil d’approuver les orientations
stratégiques qui découlent de la phase 1 du Plan directeur intégré de la gestion
des déchets ainsi que les étapes suivantes de la phase 2, tel qu’il est décrit
dans le présent rapport.
1.
Que la Ville augmente ses efforts
afin d’obtenir une augmentation du taux de réacheminement des déchets, avec un
objectif minimal de 40 pour cent, et que des options visant à porter le taux de
réacheminement à 70 pour cent soient envisagées dans le cadre de la phase
2.
2.
Que la Ville appuie la consultation,
l’engagement et l’éducation du public comme autant de critères essentiels en
vue de maintenir le réacheminement des déchets à des niveaux plus élevés.
3.
a) Que la Ville continue à assumer la
responsabilité de la prestation de tous les services d’enlèvement des déchets
résidentiels aux maisons unifamiliales et aux immeubles d’habitation;
b)
Que la
Ville se déleste de cette responsabilité dans le cas des petits établissements
industriels, commerciaux et institutionnels.
4.
a) Que
la Ville conserve ses deux décharges publiques en tant que biens stratégiques
pour la communauté;
b)
Que la Ville continue de maintenir
une capacité de réacheminement dans la ville afin de recueillir les déchets
solides produits localement;
c)
Que la Ville reconnaisse
l’importance de conserver une capacité d’élimination et envisage l’exportation
des déchets résidentiels lorsqu’une telle mesure est justifiée sur le plan
économique.
5.
Que la Ville contrôle, vérifie,
évalue et mette en œuvre des initiatives tirant parti d’avantages
technologiques ou environnementaux, selon le cas, dans le cadre du plan.
6.
Que la Ville élabore des stratégies
visant à donner l’assurance que les coûts de la gestion des déchets soient
recouvrés au moyen d’un système de financement par l’usager.
BACKGROUND
On 10 May 2002, the Environmental Services Committee and
Council approved the work plan for the development of an Integrated Waste
Management Master Plan (Report ACS2002-TUP-UTL-0020). The approved master plan process is
comprised of two phases. Phase One
is intended to reduce the scope of future work by establishing key strategic
directions, while Phase Two will address identified program elements in
more detail and document the overall master plan.
Prior
to the initiation of this study, the City of Ottawa did not have a waste
management master plan. Instead,
various reports, policies, practices, and programs formed the basis for
collecting, processing and/or disposing of residential solid waste. Significant planning activities were carried
out in past years, including the Waste
Management Master Plan – Interim Review (1990), Waste Composition Study (1990-92), 3Rs Study (1995), and the Landfill
Optimization Study (1999).
The Integrated Waste
Management Master Plan (May 2002) staff report gave examples of eight typical issues
that could be considered in Phase One. As work with the consultant team commenced, these and
related issues evolved into major themes. It was clear from the beginning that the themes were related and interwoven.
Phase One
was conducted as follows:
The Terms of
Reference for the project were released in August 2002 and three proposals were
received. The successful consultant
team was comprised of MacViro, RIS International and Dillon Consulting –
probably the three top waste management firms in the province if not the
country.
City of Ottawa staff developed terms of reference for this
first phase of the master plan study.
These terms of reference focused on addressing the following twelve key
issues:
Ÿ
Waste Diversion Goal (should there be a goal and if so, what should it be?);
Ÿ
Role of the City in Solid Waste Management (who does what?);
Ÿ
Financial Sustainability for the Integrated Waste
Management Master Plan (i.e., who pays
for what and how do they pay?);
Ÿ
Landfill Self-Sufficiency (managing the City’s current landfill capacity);
Ÿ
Import or Export of Waste for Disposal (what are the advantages and disadvantages
of import/export?);
Ÿ
Commercial Collection Service (what role should the City have in this area and what are the
implications?);
Ÿ
Use of Public Private Partnerships (given the advantages and disadvantages, should the City pursue this
implementation approach?);
Ÿ
Resident Participation and Involvement in Programs (what can be done to continue to encourage
participation in diversion programs?);
Ÿ
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (to what extent should the issue of greenhouse gas be considered?);
Ÿ
Energy Recovery Technologies (to what extent should the issue of energy recovery be considered?);
Ÿ
Integration with Biosolids (what are the opportunities for integrated solutions?); and
Ÿ
Public Consultation (what
strategy should be used to consult on the above issues and consult throughout
the development of the master plan?).
In response to a competitive procurement process, a team
of consultants from MacViro Consultants Inc., in association with RIS
International Inc., and Dillon Consulting Ltd. was selected to undertake the
project.
The
consultant team’s first task was to prepare a presentation on each of the now
twelve key waste management issues to present the issues and facilitate
“brainstorming” sessions. In order to
broaden the discussion and take advantage of the larger corporate knowledge
base, staff members from branches in other departments, including Finance,
Business Development, Communications and Marketing, and Environmental
Management, were invited to these sessions.
In addition, representatives from local waste management companies were
specifically invited to participate in sessions to discuss issues of importance
to them relating to waste collection and landfill sites.
One
of the outcomes of the first workshop was to establish a Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Committee to provide high level, broad
community input on the twelve key issues.
More
discussion of this group is provided below under Consultation.
Following
the issue development workshops, the consultant prepared summary papers on each
of the twelve issues. The
summary papers were brought to the Multi-Stakeholder
Advisory Committee where discussions were facilitated by the
consultants. after which the papers were translated and posted
on the City’s web site for public review and commentThe consultant then
submitted draft policy recommendations to the City on each issue. At the
request of the Advisory Committee, these policy recommendations plus staff
comment were brought back for a final review workshop. The opinions of the Advisory Committee were
also clarified at this time. The result
of this process is provided in Annex B. Finally, the consultants prepared more
detailed position papers on each issue, and these were the basis of the
consultants’ policy recommendations.
Staff considered the input from the stakeholders during Phase One as well as the recommendations
from the team of MacViro, RIS International and Dillon Consulting. (Annex
A provides a summary of the consultants’ recommendations and comments from
the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Committee and Environmental Advisory Committee
member).
DISCUSSION
As a result of the discussion, dialogue and consultation
in Phase One, and given the interaction between some of the issues,
staff has developed a number of strategic directions that Committee and Council
are being asked to approve. Approval of
these directions will help focus some of the Phase Two activities and
work, and will allow staff to come back with subsequent reports guided by these
directions.
1.
Waste Diversion Goal
That the
City increase its efforts to achieve higher waste diversion with a minimum
target of 40 percent, and that options to increase diversion up to 70
percent be considered in Phase Two.
In Ontario in the late 1980s,
it became clear that a landfill capacity crisis was approaching, and siting new
landfills was becoming more difficult and more expensive. Numerous failed landfill-siting processes
stressed the need to reduce the reliance on landfill, which had become the
cornerstone of most waste management strategies. The federal governments in Canada and the United States, along
with provincial and state governments in both countries, tackled the waste
management issue as a crisis, investing considerable time and effort in
promoting waste diversion through various policies and funding programs. States and provinces, as well as numerous
municipal governments, adopted specific waste diversion goals (such as 25
percent or 50 percent) to be achieved by very specific dates (1992, 1996,
2000).
The early diversion goals of 50
percent were set without analysis of what achievement of the goals would
require in terms of both finances and waste processing technologies. The time frame (as much as 13 years into the
future) seemed sufficient for new technologies to develop to meet the
aggressive goals identified. In
practice, many municipalities with a combination of recycling and composting
achieved goals of 25 percent, but only one location (Halifax, Nova Scotia) actually
achieved the 50 percent diversion goal in the time stated.
In recognition of a looming
landfill crisis, the Province of Ontario set a waste diversion objective of 50
percent reduction in the amount of waste disposed per capita in the Province.
The goal was announced in 1989, with an achievement date of the year 2000. It used 1987 as the benchmark year against
which progress would be measured. The
Province also set an interim goal of 25 percent reduction in per capita waste
to landfill by 1992 that was met as a result of two factors:
Ÿ
Significant financial support to get recycling systems
up and running across Ontario from the Provincial Government and also the
Ontario Multi-Media Recycling Inc. (OMMRI) that contributed $45 million to
infrastructure development; and
Ÿ
Provincial 3Rs regulations that required municipalities
of a particular size to provide curbside recycling, and also leaf and yard
waste and backyard composting programs.
In 1997, the Official Plan of
the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton adopted an objective to encourage a waste minimization
equivalent to the Province’s 50 percent diversion by the year 2000. By 1999, it became clear that the 50 percent
diversion goal would not be met. In
awarding the 1999 residential waste collection contracts, the former Region
acknowledged that its waste diversion goal would not be met; however, staff was
directed to establish a viable demonstration project. This project became the Compost Plus pilot.
In addition to the landfill
capacity crises, there were a number of reasons for provincial or municipal
governments to set waste diversion goals:
Ÿ
Goals are a good management tool to measure performance
of the waste management system;
Ÿ
There is strong support for the opinion that goals are
critical to encourage waste diversion and “stretch” the system to be as good as
it can be;
Ÿ
Waste diversion goals provide a framework and rationale
for continuing efforts to divert more waste from landfills. Without higher goals, cities can stop when
they have achieved a diversion level that may not be optimal;
Ÿ
Goals are essential to provide a rationale for moving
from convenient, usually low-cost systems that divert small amounts of waste
and dispose of large amounts of resources to potentially more challenging,
higher-cost systems that divert more waste from disposal to useful purpose;
Ÿ
Goals define the criteria used to evaluate new
technologies as they are presented to Council and staff. If a new technology helps achieve a
previously defined goal, then it deserves further consideration using other
evaluation criteria;
Ÿ
Goals are expected by advocates and environmental
activists, as a community is not considered to be serious about waste diversion
or committed to waste diversion unless specific goals are identified;
Ÿ
Goals force waste managers to measure progress, which
is a good management discipline. A
system must be measured to be well managed;
Ÿ
Communities establish waste diversion goals in order to
set a directional focus for efforts and provide a rationale for waste diversion
activities. They also provide a good
management tool from which to measure performance and progress.
Goals are often in place in
communities which have no landfill crisis (for example, Winnipeg and Seattle)
but are nonetheless committed to waste reduction for various reasons, including
a philosophy of reducing reliance on landfill, resource conservation,
sustainability, environmentally-responsible behaviour and policies.
There are some drawbacks to identifying specific
goals, although these are not considered significant and can be dealt with by
instituting on organized and well-designed process. The most significant drawback of waste diversion goals is that
the goals are sometimes set without sufficient analysis of the funding and
technologies required to achieve these goals.
This level of analysis is critical to successfully educate the public
about the impacts and implications of different goals, so that the community
can choose a goal that makes practical and economic sense for their own
circumstances. This approach is
recommended for Ottawa.
The commitment to a high goal
requires commitment to different approaches and technologies. Simple rules of thumb can be used to guide
discussions with the public, and also to provide an indication of cost estimates
of the impacts of goals.
The current
rate of 32 percent waste
diversion is not enough on a go-forward basis. Staff believes 40 percent waste diversion can be achieved by
implementing garbage bag limits, increasing by-law enforcement, and
implementing an ongoing education program.
A higher diversion rate of 50 percent can be achieved by adding
household organic waste to the (single-family) curbside diversion effort as
proven during the first full year of the Compost Plus pilot, and
70 percent diversion may be achieved by diverting organic matter from the
multi-family sector.
The two high
diversion scenarios can be achieved in two different ways. One depends on high householder
participationand relatively inexpensive and sorting, thus reducing processing requirements. Alternatively, the sorting requirements for the residents could
be reduced, but higher processing costs would result.Alternatively where
participation is low, it is possible to resort to mixed waste processing, at a
higher processing cost as would be required from apartments. Significant progress on waste diversion from
apartments will likely require a broad mix of waste processing capability. The down side of this approach is that mixed
waste processing produces Grade B compost that is classified as a “waste” in
Ontario, and is thereby difficult to market.
Ongoing work in
Phase Two will review the program design options to achieve the various
diversion goals, as well as identify significant break points where incremental
diversion increases link to significant economic or program changes, and then
consult with the public to obtain its input on both the goals and the program
design. Phase Two will also
involve a review of the previous 3Rs work, including focus on emerging issues
(electronic waste), and the provision of household hazardous waste services.
2.
Public Consultation and Participation
That the City endorse
public consultation, involvement and education as essential requirements to
sustain waste management diversion at higher levels.
The existing
waste diversion system in Ottawa requires residents to source separate
recyclables as well as leaf and yard waste for separate processing. The existing system for managing residential
waste achieves a 32 percent diversion rate.
Resident participation in the existing recycling system is high.
In spite of the current good
performance record of 32 percent residential waste diversion, coupled with the
relatively low waste generation rates for both single-family and multi-family
households, a large amount of the residential waste is still disposed at
landfill. This waste contains
significant amounts of both recyclables and organic material. The options to increase waste diversion are
as follows:
Ÿ
Encourage the public to source separate more
recyclables and organics; or
Ÿ
Process the waste thrown out to recover more materials
and value.
Given that a higher diversion
target is being recommended, plans to reach these targets must consider the
level of resident participation required for success with different approaches.
Options where the level of public
engagement and involvement required is realistic are the only possible courses
of action.
Even when residents take part in
the recycling program, they do not recycle absolutely all the material that
they could recycle, and the capture rate for materials from participating
households is not 100 percent. For
these reasons, even a well functioning recycling program only captures about 80
percent of the material that could be captured.
The waste currently
discarded from Ottawa multi-family buildings contains approximately 28 percent
paper, 8 percent plastic, 6 percent glass and 5 percent metal, indicating that
almost half of the multi-family waste stream contains recyclable material. An increase in the recycling of this material
is critical to achieving higher diversion of multi-family waste. This issue needs significant attention and
focus on how to increase resident participation in existing programs.
The trend elsewhere in Ontario
and Canada is towards three-stream (recyclables, organics, garbage) collection,
where the recyclables and organics are source separated by the household. In Ontario, Toronto, Peel, York, Niagara and
parts of Durham are implementing three-stream collection for their
single-family residential sectors over the next few years. To stimulate participation in higher waste
diversion programs, enhanced public education programs are essential.
A large majority of the general public will
participate in a community-based program if the appropriate infrastructure,
education and enforcement are provided.
Since this has been proven across the country, the City should continue
to develop communications programs that support more public involvement and
resident participation in current, as well as any future program. The City
should develop comprehensive and effective communications programs as an
integral part of implementing the Waste Management Master Plan.
3.
Extent of City
Services
a) That the City continue to be responsible for
ensuring the provision of all residential waste collection services to single
and multi-family dwellings; and
b) That the
City remove Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) small
businesses from municipal responsibility.
The City’s provincially mandated role is that of providing
residential collection services to single-family residential properties. Single-family residential properties are
defined as six units and less.
Multi-family residential units are considered under legislation as
Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I), and separate provincial
legislation requires these property owners to provide service to their
occupants. In 1995, when Solid Waste
Collection services were amalgamated under the Region of Ottawa-Carleton, the
City of Ottawa was already providing collection services to all
multi-residential buildings, and the decision was made by Regional Council to
extend that service level to all multi-residential buildings.
The City currently services only 3,500 commercial establishments
out of 28,000 total businesses in the City of Ottawa. These units are receiving residential levels of service; that is,
once-per-week curbside collection, with a five-bag garbage limit and curbside
recycling. This level of service
provided by the City is insufficient for most commercial facilities.
Many communities are evaluating
commercial waste collection services and the private verses public provision of
these services. One major reason for
this consideration is the need to meet more stringent waste diversion goals and
reduce the amount of waste being landfilled.
Much of the waste generated within municipal borders comes from the
IC&I sector. Municipalities may
have greater influence on the waste generation and diversion habits of the
IC&I sector if they become more active in providing the collection
services.
The question of what level of
service to provide is interlinked with the financing of municipal solid waste
services, and also the appropriate role of the City. The above strategic direction is recommended for the City of
Ottawa because:
Ÿ
The current level of service provided by the City is
unsuitable for most commercial facility needs;
Ÿ
The City of Ottawa currently services only 3,500
commercial establishments out of 28,000 total businesses in the City;
Ÿ
Many other Ontario municipalities are slowly moving
away from provision of commercial collection service; and
·
This is a necessary step to eventually moving all waste
management services off the property tax base, as discussed in the section on
Waste Management Funding.
The public has raised concern
that there are not sufficient opportunities to recycle in Ottawa when outside
the home. The issue of public space
recycling is being partially addressed on the City’s right-of-way by installation
of recycling bins in public spaces throughout the City.
The public has also raised a
concern that businesses recycle less if cut off from City collection
service. The Ontario Waste Management
Association (OWMA) estimates that Ottawa businesses recycle at least 40 percent
of the waste they produce. Much of the
non-residential sector is beyond the City’s residential mandate, and is
regulated in its waste reduction obligation by Ontario Regulation 102/94
Waste Audits and Waste Reduction Work Plans. This regulation has sections dealing with retail shopping
establishments, retail shopping complexes, large construction projects, large
demolition projects, office buildings, restaurants, hotels and motels,
hospitals, educational institutions and large manufacturing establishments. For these facilities, the obligation rests
with the owners. Not all City-owned
facilities are covered by this regulation.
The City’s role in promoting waste
diversion in the private sector could range from non-existent to actively
monitoring and encouraging. In
the past, the City’s role has been limited. City staff has worked with the
Business Improvement Area associations to introduce waste reduction and
recycling programs in the IC&I sector.
With respect
to municipal facilities, Real Property and Asset Management Branch of the
Corporate Services Department is currently reviewing waste diversion in all
City facilities and will report back with the 2004 budget preparation.
Given that
material diverted from landfill, regardless of the source of origin, helps
preserve landfill capacity, staff will undertake a best practices review
and report back on strategies and related cost implications to support the
non-residential sector. It is
anticipated that the review would include evaluation of municipal options to
regulate waste diversion in the non-residential sector, dialogue and review of
best practices with waste management companies and their efforts to support
waste diversion, examples of municipal program interaction with educational
system, to name a few.
Work in Phase Two on this issue
would have three key components: (1)
development of a strategy methodology and timing to eliminate service to 3,500
IC&I customers; (2) further review of funding impacts; and (3) report back
on a best practices review of options that support non-residential waste
diversion.
4.
Landfill Strategy
a) That the City retain its two landfill
sites in public ownership as strategic assets that benefit the community;
b) That the City continue to reserve
landfill disposal capacity within the City for locally-generated solid waste;
and
c) That the
City recognize the value of conserving landfill capacity, and
consider
the export of residential waste where economics warrants.
The City owns two landfill
disposal sites. The main site is the
Trail Landfill with a remaining capacity of 1.8 million cubic meters (m³) as of
November 2001. With the expected
landfill expansion approval early this year, an additional 6.0 million m³ of
capacity will be added to the site providing an added 10 to 40 years of site
life, depending on growth and waste diversion goals. The City’s other site is the Springhill Landfill with a remaining
capacity of 1.1 million m3.
It receives municipal waste from the Osgoode area, as well as
contaminated soils, and construction
and demolition waste from Eastern Ontario.
Assuming that the City receives
approval to expand the Trail Landfill, it is reasonable to suggest that the
landfills will have a minimum 20-year-plus site life to approximately the year
2022. Twenty years is a normal
long-term planning period for a landfill.
As Certificates of Approval (C of A’s) for landfills are increasingly
difficult to obtain, and conditions of approval become more and more stringent,
possession of current C of A’s are valuable assets to municipalities and
private landfill owners.
In 1996, the operation of the
Springhill Landfill was contracted to Tomlinson Environmental Services
Ltd. Although some immediate site
enhancements were made by the private sector operator, the landfill pre-dates
some of the modern requirements to ensure environmental protection. Staff and Tomlinson are currently reviewing
the existing agreement with the intention of revising that agreement in such a
way as to further respect the business aspects of the original agreement and,
at the same time, mitigate any long-term environmental effects.
The current residential waste
disposal operation in the City uses both the two City- owned landfill sites and
a private landfill site owned by Canadian Waste Services (CWS). Currently, 67 percent of residential waste
goes to City-owned landfill sites, and 33 percent goes to the CWS landfill
site.
The City does not currently
export residential waste out of the City, nor is residential waste imported to
City landfill sites. The current
agreement with private landfill sites in the City “reserves” capacity for
City-generated waste. For example, 90
percent of the CWS landfill site capacity and 75 percent of the Waste Services
Inc. (WSI) Capital landfill site is reserved for City waste from all sources.
In terms of landfill disposal
self-sufficiency, there is a long track record in the City (formerly the
Region) of trying to protect disposal capacity as an asset of the
community. The current agreements
acknowledge some of the private sector’s business concerns that historic
contracts and waste generation and disposal needs do not necessarily coincide
with municipal boundaries. Private
operators and the City need some flexibility to address the business realities
of waste management.
The City’s vision of
sustainability, however, should not be threatened by economics and bottom-line
financing concerns. As per the existing
agreements, which generally preserve future landfill disposal capacity for the
residents and businesses of Ottawa, the private sector should be allowed some
import of waste, and the City may consider some export. The City, however, should monitor the
movement of waste and strive to maintain a sustainable balance between imports
and exports, and a consistent policy approach considering similar materials
such as biosolids and septage.
Anticipating some resolution or
finalization of the Trail Landfill Environmental Assessment and the ongoing
Springhill Landfill dialogue, Phase Two work should include an analysis
of the use of current City disposal capacity addressing the question of using
City capacity versus private-sector capacity, and formulate business plans for
both sites.
5.
Technology and Environmental Considerations
That the City monitor, test,
evaluate and implement initiatives that leverage technology or environmental
benefits, as appropriate, over the course of the Plan.
Waste management activities
are at the forefront of technology and environmental innovation. In addition to
the direct environmental impacts related to the collection, processing and
disposal of discarded material, environmental impacts can be seen in the
following:
· Trucks used to collect and transport garbage,
recyclables and organics use diesel fuel that generates CO2 emissions
and other contaminants such as particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrous
oxide and volatile organic carbons;
·
Landfills produce methane emissions from the
decomposition of organic material in an anaerobic environment. Methane is 21 times more powerful a
greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide; therefore, controlling the release of
methane into the atmosphere has a significant impact on greenhouse gas
emissions, which are measured as CO2 equivalents;
·
Recycling material has a significant impact on the
energy required to produce materials, as it takes considerably less energy to
produce materials from recycled material rather than virgin stock.
Historically,
the City has taken steps in its waste management operations to reduce
environmental impacts. Contract design
has looked at fleet operations; and in 1999 resulted in a contract that would
allow the use of compactor trucks to collect recyclables and hence carry a
greater quantity, thus reducing vehicle requirements. Landfill gas has been flared for environmental reasons at the
Trail Landfill site since 1992, and the City is currently exploring options to
generate “green power” from that gas.
In addition, the City has participated in a pilot project with Natural
Resources Canada investigating the use of micro-turbines running on landfill
gas. Recycled products such as aluminum
require 96 percent less energy to process than virgin materials.
New and
innovative technologies continue to appear to address various waste management
needs. These vary from automated
collection vehicles to new processing schemes for various forms of waste. Some of these technologies are subject to
Provincial approval under the regulatory Certificate of Approval process. In considering these technologies, there are
many variables, including the nature and source of the incoming material, the
process, and finally the output material and residue, and what can be done with
these materials. Some examples include:
·
Co-composting of leaf and yard waste or possibly some
form of organic material with biosolids to produce a marketable end compost;
·
Anaerobic digestion of any one of a number of possible
waste streams, producing bio-gas and a marketable end product;
·
Enhanced recycling technology to process a fully
commingled fiber and container stream while still producing quality recyclable
end products;
·
Thermal treatment of contaminated soils to produce
inert fill.
Quite often these and other
technologies offer further environmental benefits as well when compared to current
processes.
Although it is
impossible for the City to become involved in supporting research and
innovation in all these areas, it must stay abreast of developments; and, where
appropriate, may choose to test or pilot certain systems. In that the best opportunity to implement
significant technology change, which impacts the whole waste stream, coincides
with the review and re-call of major tenders, the practicality of making
significant change may be limited to those intervals when contracts are being
reconsidered.
In conjunction
with the Program Design work of Phase Two, new technologies will be
considered on an economic, environmental and regulating compliance basis, and
brought forward to Committee and Council, as they contribute to meet waste management
goals.
6.
Waste Management Funding
That
the City develop strategies to ensure waste management costs are recovered on a
user-pay basis.
Prior to amalgamation of waste management services in 1995,
funding was raised by various methods.
The Region financed waste management programs primarily through tipping
fees charged to the lower-tier municipalities, the lower-tier municipalities
raised funds as either a portion of the property tax or as a flat fee. Post 1995, most of the funding has been
raised from the property tax. Tipping
fees have not been reviewed, as they generally became a flow-through cost and
only impact the limited amount of revenue from non-residential fees at the
Trail Landfill. The Springhill Landfill
operating agreement with Tomlinson Environmental Services Inc. generates
revenue to the City of approximately $200,000 per year.
Some municipalities separate
waste management services into a separate utility or cost-center, making waste
management services financially independent and also self-financing. Utility programs for waste management follow
other utility-based systems used to charge customers for continual service,
such as electricity, gas and water. Traditional utility services are characterized
by the administration of a uniform charge in monthly, bi-monthly or annual
installations. Typical services based
on the utility/flat fee principle include local telephone bills, flat-rate
water bills, cable television rates and Internet service rates.
The utility/flat-rate principle
can be effectively used to fund waste management services. Municipalities can remove waste management
costs from the property tax bill, and evenly distribute the costs among
householders. Some of the reasons why
communities have adopted the utility approach to waste management are:
Ÿ
Charging households for waste management services based
on a flat fee/utility approach enables householders to better understand the
cost to provide waste management services rather than the information being
buried in the property bill;
Ÿ
It continues to provide a stable revenue base; and
Ÿ
The utility approach offers possible transition to full
user pay, where residents pay according to usage. This eliminates the regressive taxation approach currently in
place for waste management.
Many Ontario municipalities
finance residential waste management costs through general property tax
revenues. Often, the IC&I sector
subsidizes the cost to provide residential waste management services through municipal
tax payments. This situation makes it
impossible for residents to ascertain the true cost for the municipality to
provide residential waste management programs.
Consequently, most residents do not understand how much an integrated
waste management program costs or what portion of their tax bill pays for waste
management services. The cost of the
average Ontario single-family household waste management system is between $10
and $16 per month ($125 and $175 per year) for integrated waste management
services. Compared with other services
(for example, electricity, gas, and telephone services), waste management is
relatively inexpensive, especially when the level of service and number of
diversion programs offered are taken into consideration
Over the past decade, there has
been a push by municipalities to reduce expenditures and transfer service costs
to the user in the form of user fees.
Until relatively recently, the Ontario Municipal Act prohibited
municipalities from charging user fees for waste management services. In 1993, the Ontario provincial government
gave municipalities the authority to charge variable rate fees based on waste
volume or weight under the Municipal Statute Law Amendments (see below). This change opened the door for
municipalities to explore innovative ways to charge for waste management
services. The amended Municipal Act, which was enacted
01 January 2003, provides greater flexibility to municipalities to
develop fees for different services.
Communities have reported that
establishing a separate waste management utility fund and identifying it as a
separate flat fee makes them more accountable to the public for their
expenditures, and ensures that the money is more carefully spent.
The Long Range Financial Plan: First Steps
indicates that property taxes are an ineffective method to fund the bulk of
services that municipalities provide.
In that only a portion of the IC&I sector currently receives
services, and it is being suggested that that service be discontinued, this
would make the portion of the non-residential property tax allocated to solid
waste not only ineffective, but unfair.
The Long Range Financial Plan (LRFP) also suggests that a new user-fee
policy should be considered. The fiscal
options with respect to waste management need to be reviewed. This would also provide an opportunity for
residents to get a clear view of their waste management costs.
NEXT STEPS
Following
confirmation of the above strategic directions, the next steps in the Waste Management Master Plan are
outlined below and are being proposed as project categories for Phase Two.
As
collection contracts need to be designed, written and tendered by end of year
2003, solid waste collection contracts, therefore, become a driving factor in
the timing of the Phase Two workload
for the Waste Management Master Plan. The attached timeline, Annex B, is being proposed for the following plan categories:
Collection Program Design – Completion June 2003
It is
proposed that staff proceed with provide program design options for single and
multi-family residential units that would, at minimum, optimize the current
program to achieve greater diversion and provide options to move towards a
target of 50 and 70 percent waste diversion.
These options would include program details, technology review, process
facility requirements, diversion potential, estimated costs, and implementation
schedules for consideration and selection of the preferred option and diversion
goal. Decisions by Committee and Council in June 2003 will form the basis of the detailed contract design for collection service until the
year 2010, and perhaps beyond.
Efforts
in this work element will reflect and/or develop strategic directions 1, 3a and
5.
Public
Consultation/Involvement and Education – Two Phases
1. Phase
One - Public Consultation– Program Design – June 2003
It is proposed that staff prepare a public consultation strategy
to keep the public involved and informed, ranging from the program design and
selection phase through implementation of the next generation service delivery
contracts. This will ensure public
discussion and input on Phase Two
options, and provide input for Committee/Council decision on Collection Program
Design in June 2003.
Public consultation will also address the options of higher
householder participation versus increased processing costs. Efforts in this work element will reflect
and/or develop strategic directions 1, 2 and 3a.
2. Long-Term
Public Education Plan – First Quarter
2004
A long-term public education program must be developed to support
the residential service delivery, as well as outline the effort and investment
to support other sectors, including businesses and schools.
Efforts in this work element will reflect and/or develop
directions 1, 2, 3a and 3b.
Facility/Technology
Strategy – Fall 2003
If
new facilities required for the processing of non-waste materials are
identified, and public-private partnerships are considered as a means of
establishing future waste diversion infrastructure, once the Waste Collection
Program design is established, the strategy with respect to public-private
options, including siting requirements, can be developed.
Efforts
in this work element will reflect and/or develop strategic directions 1 and 5.
3Rs and Other Issues – Fall 2003
The 3Rs Study (1995) identified many
different options for reducing, reusing and recycling solid waste. This study helped define the waste
management programs that have since been conducted. The preparation of the Waste
Management Master Plan provides an ideal opportunity to update the City of
Ottawa’s strategy regarding two of the 3Rs, that is reduce and reuse. The Environmental
Advisory Committee indicated that this aspect of waste management should be
addressed in the plan.
In
addition, there are new components of the residential waste stream that must be
considered in the Waste Management Master
Plan. In particular, the quantity
of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is expected to double over
the next ten years. It is proposed that
staff continue to monitor related product stewardship programs and recovery
efforts with a view towards the development of a local WEEE collection
strategy. This element would also
include a review of the current Household Hazardous Waste program.
Efforts
in this work element will reflect and/or develop strategic directions 1 and 5.
Landfill Strategy – First Quarter 2004
It is
proposed that staff develop a landfill capacity use and business plan for each
of the City’s landfill sites, the Trail Waste Facility site and the Springhill
Landfill site. The business plan would
include, but not be limited to, goals for the operation of the sites, including
the landfill fill area, the composting site, the household hazardous waste facility,
as well as options for use of other lands at the site.
Efforts
in this work element will reflect and/or develop strategic direction 4.
Funding Options – First Quarter 2004
It is
proposed that staff develop a range of detailed funding options and
implementation strategies for consideration in Phase Two, for the Waste
Management System that would address the commercial cross-subsidization of
the residential system, and promote an awareness of the full costs of waste
management. This phase would also
involve a review of landfill tipping fees.
Efforts
in this work element will reflect and/or develop strategic direction 6.
Ongoing/Short Term Initiatives
·
Continue to monitor and analyze public participation and
acceptance of solid waste programs;
·
Implement ongoing waste characterization studies (waste
audits) to assess the effectiveness of the blue and back box programs and to
identify further recovery opportunities;
·
Continue to monitor the Compost Plus pilot, and
move to replace household collection containers that do not work well with ones
that do;
·
Identify means of improving collection efficiencies and
reducing costs by testing state-of-the-art co-collection equipment;
·
Optimize
current diversion
programs related to household hazardous waste, the “Take it Back! “program, and leaf and yard waste diversion;
·
Investigate
opportunities to increase awareness of the true costs of waste management and
the benefits of waste diversion; and
·
Best practices review of municipal support to
non-residential sector as it relates to waste diversion.
Strategic
direction 6 is reflected in this work.
All
of the proposed strategic directions would be completed over the next fourteen
months. While Phase Two of the master plan will initially focus primarily on Program Design and Public
Consultation/Awareness, the other endeavors, including Facility Strategy, and Funding Options, would be conducted as
separate or parallel assignments. It is
the intention of staff that each of these planning components would be combined
to create a single integrated Waste Management
Master Plan that will take
the City forward through the next twenty years.
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPLICATIONS
The
development of an Integrated Waste Management Master Plan will be a key
element in minimizing the impact on the environment and ensuring a sustainable
approach in the management of solid waste within our community.
The
development of an Integrated Waste Management Master Plan is an integral
sub-plan of the Environmental Strategy, which is one of the five growth plans
of the Ottawa 20/20 planning process.
The Environmental Strategy is a strategic plan to guide
programs, initiatives and decision-making towards responsible management of the
environment within the City and community, over the next 20 years.
RURAL
IMPLICATIONS
An Integrated
Waste Management Master Plan will review all levels of services from a
systems perspective. Depending on the
results of this assessment process, there may be rural (and urban) implications
regarding service delivery.
CONSULTATION
The
public consultation component of the Integrated Waste Management Master Plan
project, Phase One, was conducted
under very tight timelines.
Nevertheless, a number of activities were undertaken by staff to bring
the project into the public realm and to get feedback from stakeholders.
In
September, a Multi-stakeholder Advisory
Committee was created, and participated in a series of three workshops in
which twelve issues were addressed.
Preference for the workshop format was based on the belief that the
twelve strategic issues would be too complex for the general public to respond
to in the very short amount of time available.
This
Committee was comprised of representatives from the Environmental Advisory
Committee (EAC), Landfill Optimization Liaison Committee, Ontario Waste
Management Association (OWMA), Business Improvement Areas (BIAs), Building
Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce and an
environmental advocacy group (Sierra Club).
Three-hour workshops with the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Committee
were conducted in 2002 on 16 and 30 October, 13 November, and 03 December.
In
October 2002, Solid Waste Services Division staff presented a summary of the Waste Management Master Plan project
to the EAC. The EAC created a
sub-committee to coordinate their response to the master plan initiative.
One
of the recommendations coming out of the first workshop with the Multi-stakeholder
Advisory Committee was to include
waste management questions in the November omnibus survey conducted by Decima
Research Inc. for the City. This was
completed and the results of the survey are attached in Annex C.
To
garner broader public input on the twelve key issues, the summary papers were
posted on the City of Ottawa Web site, and 1000 copies of the twelve-issues
document were distributed to the City’s libraries and Client Service
Centres. To publicize this project and
invite feedback, two letters were sent to 250 community groups informing them
of the Waste Management Master Plan
and where to access the information.
Finally, a small advertisement was displayed in the City’s Activity Guide to identify the project,
its schedule, and how to get involved.
The
Environmental Management section of the Development Services Department has
also reviewed this report.
As has been evident in the Official Plan consultations, the
community places great value on the environment in which they live. Throughout
the Phase One
consultation, various forums repeatedly told us that the public needs more
information on waste management issues before it can provide input. Depending
on the issue, the development of the
strategic directions may
include significant public consultation to assist Committee and Council in
making their final decision.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
Phase
One of the Waste Management Master Plan projected budget cost is
$99,050, including GST. It is now
proposed that Phase Two will be divided into a number of elements. The first grouping will combine the
Collection Program Design and the 3Rs and Other Issues, with a budget estimated
cost of $300,000. The remaining
elements are budgeted to cost $400,000.
Funds for all elements of this work were approved by Council in Capital
Budget Project No. 900352, Solid Waste Planning.
Based
on Current Provincial direction as outlined in Bill 90 (Waste Diversion Act)
and efforts of the groups such as Waste Diversion Ontario and Stewardship
Ontario, it appears increased waste diversion efforts will see financial
support from the Province of Ontario in the short term. The City’s 2003 Operating Budget includes an
estimated recovery of $1,600,000 based on the performance of the Black/Blue Box
recycling system. As the Province
considers its support for future waste diversion initiatives such as organics,
it will likely tie funding to program performance as in the case of
recycling. Hopefully, the future holds
sustainable support for the municipalities and their waste diversion programs.
ATTACHMENTS
Annex A 12 Key
Issues - Policy Recommendations and Comments
Annex B Timeline
DISPOSITION
The Originating Department will
proceed with Phase Two of the Integrated Waste Management Master
Plan, guided by the strategic directions and next steps as outlined in this
report.
planning and contract timeline ANNEX B
ANNEX C
Summary
Presentation of Market Pulse Survey
made to the Waste Management Master Plan Advisory Committee workshop #4
(3-Dec-2002).
Decima’s Ottawa Market Pulse - November 2002
Topline Results for the City of Ottawa
Waste Management Plan
|
|
Field Dates: November 21 – 27, 2002
Sample: 402 Ottawa Residents
Sampling Error: +/- 4.9%, 95% confidence
|
|
12C. Which of the following best describes your
current home [OMP Sept 2002]
READ – CODE ONE ONLY
%
58 Single
family home
30 Town
home or low-rise building
9 High-rise apartment
building SKIP TO Q.26C
2 Farm or rural lot
VOLUNTEERED
2 Other
- Don’t know/No
answer/Refuse SKIP TO Q.26C
13C. Do you currently own or rent your home?
N=366
%
77 Own
22 Rent
1 Don’t know/No
answer/Refuse
14C. Does your household currently participate in
any of the City’s solid waste recycling programs, such as those involving the
blue or black box?
N=366
%
95 Yes
5 No SKIP
TO Q.16C
- Don’t know/No answer SKIP TO
Q.16C
15C. (IF YES) Which household waste materials do
your household currently recycle on a regular basis?
DO NOT READ – CODE ALL THAT APPLY;
PROBE: Anything else?
N=347
%
71 Plastic
containers
65 Other
paper
64 Metal
cans
61 Bottles/glass
61 Newspaper
48 Cardboard
14 Compost
organic waste (kitchen, garden)
13 Leaf/yard
waste
7 Hazardous waste
(batteries, paints, oils)
9 Other TO BE CODED
1 Don’t know/No answer
16C. (IF COMPOST NOT
MENTIONED IN Q.15C or NO/DK/NA IN Q14C) Does your household currently
compost kitchen and/or garden waste?
[OMP December 2001]
SPECIFY WHAT
TYPE OF COMPOSTING
N=316
%
5 Yes, kitchen waste
only
5 Yes, garden waste
only
20 Yes,
kitchen and garden waste
69 No
1 Don’t know/No answer
17C. Much of the
household garbage not currently being recycled consists of kitchen and garden
waste. Based on programs in other
cities, the City of Ottawa is considering a new composting program in which
each household would be provided with a separate container for storing kitchen
and garden waste, which would be picked up on a regular basis. This program would reduce the amount of
waste going to landfill, which will extend its life and generate large amounts
of beneficial compost product.
How likely
would you be to participate in this type of program if given the opportunity to
do so? Would you: [OMP Sept 2001]
N=366
%
49 Definitely
participate
29 Likely
participate
9 Likely not
participate
6 Definitely not
participate
VOLUNTEERED
3 Depends
3 Don’t know/No answer
18C. How likely do
you think that your neighbors would participate in this type of
household organic waste collection
program? Do you think they would:
N=366
%
20 Definitely
participate
47 Likely
participate
9 Likely not
participate
4 Definitely not
participate
VOLUNTEERED
3 Depends
18 Don’t
know/No answer
19C.(IF DEFINITELY/LIKELY PARTICIPATE/DEPENDS IN Q.17]
This type of composting program will save the City and taxpayers money in the
long run but will cost a bit more to operate in the short term. Would you be prepared to pay an additional 1
to 2 dollars per month extra to help pay for this household organic waste
collection program?
N=299
%
77 Yes
19 No
VOLUNTEERED
3 Depends
2 Don’t know/No answer
20C. The current
City recycling program requires households to separate their materials into
three streams: The blue box for glass, plastic and metal containers, the
black box for paper, and everything else into garbage bags or cans. As an alternative, would you prefer a
program in which you would not have to do any separation of materials that go
to the curb, but instead would pay a premium of $4 to $6 per month to help pay
for this separation to be done by the City after it was collected?
N=366
%
8 Yes, would prefer
this alternative
89 No,
would not prefer alternative
VOLUNTEERED
1 Depends
2 Don’t know/No answer
21C. Currently,
residential property owners pay an average of about $60 per year to help pay
for City waste collection, disposal and recycling services. This is considerably less than the average
of $150 per household it costs to provide these services. The City makes up the difference through
other taxes and fees, including some charged to businesses that do not
currently receive any waste collection service.
Do you think
residents should be responsible for paying the full cost of the waste
collection, disposal and recycling services they receive from the City, or do
you think these services should continue to be subsidized through other revenue
sources?
N=366
%
16 Residents
should pay full cost ASK
Q.22aC
75 Services
should continue to be subsidized ASK
Q.22bC
VOLUNTEERED
4 Depends SKIP
TO Q.23C
5 Don’t know/No answer SKIP TO Q.23C
22C. Why do you say that?
DO NOT READ – CODE ALL THAT APPLY
a. Why Residents Should Pay Full Cost
N=58
%
72 People should pay for services they
use
16 Will
promote recycling/waste reduction
12 Fair
approach
7 Should not be using
other taxes to pay for service
17 Other
TO BE CODED
- Don’t
know/No answer
b. Why Services Should be Subsidized
N=275
%
32 Already
paying enough for services
10 Cannot
afford to pay more
8 Businesses can afford
to help pay for services
4 Should promote
recycling instead
2 Should reduce program
costs/too expensive
56 Other
TO BE CODED
3 Don’t know/No answer
23C. Currently,
residents pay for waste services through their property taxes, and this cost is
not identified separately on their tax bill.
Would you favour or oppose removing this charge from the tax bill and
receiving a separate bill for the waste services you are receiving, like
you currently receive for water and sewer services?
N=366
%
18 Favour
separate waste bill
72 Oppose
separate waste bill
VOLUNTEERED
4 Depends
7 Don’t know/No answer
24C. Approximately
how many bags or cans of non-recyclable garbage does your household put out at
the curb on a typical week?
ENTER NUMBER
N=366
%
4 0 bags
66 1
bag
21 2
bags
4 3 bags
1 4 bags
2 5 or more bags
2 Don’t know/No answer
25C. The City
currently has a limit of five bags that will be picked up in a given week, but
some cities have introduced a lower limit in order to encourage recycling and
control landfill costs. In those
communities households pay an additional fee for each bag they put out that
exceeds this weekly limit.
If the City of
Ottawa were to introduce new limits on the number of garbage bags that households
can place on the curb each week without incurring an additional charge, what do
you believe this limit should be?
READ
CATEGORIES IF NECESSARY – CODE ONE ONLY
N=366
%
16 5
bags
12 4
bags
32 3
bags
14 2
bags
3 1 bag
VOLUNTEERED
1 More
than 5
8 Should
not be any limits
9 Depends
6 Don’t
know/No answer
26C. Ottawa
currently diverts one-third of its waste from landfills, through the various
recycling programs operated by the City.
Some Canadian cities, such as Halifax, are more active in this area,
recycling or composting more than half of the waste they generate. Do you think Ottawa’s current rate of
one-third being recycled is:
%
65 Too low
23 About right SKIP TO Q.28T
1 Too
high
VOLUNTEERED
10 Don’t know/No answer SKIP TO Q.28T
27C. (IF TOO
HIGH/LOW) What percentage of Ottawa’s
garbage do you think should be recycled or otherwise diverted from landfill
disposal, as a long term goal?
RECORD PERCENT
OR OTHER RESPONSE
N=267
%
3 Under fifty percent
49 Fifty
percent
18 Fifty
one to seventy four percent
16 Seventy
five percent or higher
- Do not need recycling
target
- Recycling is not a
priority
8 Other TO BE CODED
6 Don’t know/No answer
