Waste Management Strategy Feedback



Background

The County assumed responsibility for waste from the member municipalities in 1990, along with existing approved landfill and waste disposal facilities and a number of proposed disposal facilities that were in various stages of Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Protection Act approvals.

Since that time, the County has established a number of programs that have significantly increased waste diversion. In summary as of 2009, these programs consist of:

  • Progressive steps to provide disincentives to disposal, including a reduction in allowable curbside collected residential waste to one bag per week as of late September 2008 and a mixed waste policy to encourage sorting of divertible materials at waste management facilities;
  • An enhanced Blue Box program that accepts the majority of recyclable material that can be recovered and marketed in Ontario, including recent expansions in September 2008.
  • Implementation of a Green Bin program in late September 2008, to divert food waste materials;
  • A Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste (MHSW) Program;
  • A Waste Electronics and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) Program;
  • Various initiatives to divert the following materials at certain landfill and/or depot facilities:
    • Wood Waste
    • Shingles
    • Drywall
    • Leaf and Yard Waste (including Brush)
    • Scrap Metal
    • Tires
    • Waste Electronics
    • Hazardous Wastes
    • Blue Box Recyclables.

While the County has made significant progress in diversion system improvements and has achieved 54% diversion as of 2009, it has been some time (more than 10 years) since a comprehensive review and planning exercise has been undertaken for the entire solid waste management system.

The Solid Waste Management Strategy (SWMS)

To address the long-term needs to increase diversion and provide for garbage disposal, the County is currently developing a Solid Waste Management Strategy (SWMS)

The purpose of the Strategy is:

  • To provide direction for the County’s waste management system
  • To make progress towards zero waste
  • To address processing and garbage disposal needs for the next 20 years

The desired result is:

  • The selection of a long-term waste management system
  • A recommended approach to implement the system

The Strategy is intended to identify:

  1. Programs and approaches to improve diversion
  2. If the County should build recycling or composting facilities or ship materials to an outside processor
  3. The best approach to collect and transfer waste to support the waste system
  4. Garbage disposal (and potentially processing) requirements and approaches for the short and long-term

The Strategy is not intended to identify specific processing or disposal technologies.

Purpose of this Workbook

We need your input. Your feedback will be included in the Record of Consultation which will be provided to County Council.

This workbook has been designed to serve as a guide for commenting on the information presented at this consultation session. As you move through the workbook and have questions, you can ask the Project Team for assistance and additional information.

Please review the diversion and disposal options and indicate if you would like the options included for consideration. We also are interested in any comments that you may have in regards to the options. If there are additional options that you would like to have considered, please identify them.

Deadline for workbooks to be received is Friday February 12, 2010

Note: due to the project schedule, late returns may not be included in this round of documentation for the Strategy.

Personal information is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 and will be used for the purpose of garnering public input into the development of the County of Simcoe Solid Waste Management Strategy and to respond to inquiries regarding this process. Comments and opinions provided may become part of the public record through the Council agenda process. Questions about the collection of personal information should be directed to the County’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator:

Mr. Glen R. Knox
County Clerk
County of Simcoe Administration Centre
1110 Highway 26, Midhurst, ON L0L 1X0
 
*Name:
 
Street:
 
City:
 
Postal Code:
 
*Email:
 
*Are you a resident of Simcoe County?
 
*Would you like to be added to the project mailing list?
 
Section 1 – Reduction and Reuse Options

Simcoe County already has a number of waste reduction initiatives underway, including promotion and education of backyard composting, promotion of grasscycling and lawn care with the use of compost Christmas waste reduction tips are also provided in the calendar, as is the promotion of plastic waste reduction through the use of re-usable bags. Additional reduction and reuse options have been identified that could further reduce waste generation and/or increase waste diversion.
 
1. Enhance existing reduction and reuse programs.

For this option, it is proposed that existing promotion and education programs are improved in an effort to modify consumer attitudes, behaviours and set-out practices. Additional efforts to promote the current programs and perhaps increased enforcement of current curbside limits for garbage could increase diversion by an additional 1 to 2 %. Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
Policy changes like full-user pay, where residents would be required to purchase tags or special bags for all garbage collected, are intended to encourage diversion and to discourage disposal of garbage. If a full-user pay program were selected, the diversion rate could increase by an additional 3 to 5%. Do you agree or disagree with the concept of full-user pay for garbage collection?
 
Comments
 
2. Establish a per-capita waste reduction target.

This option would involve promotion of waste reduction by the County to encourage residents to change their behaviours, such as avoiding the purchase of single use or disposable items. A specific, measurable waste reduction target would be set, monitored and supported. It is anticipated that for every 5% decrease in residential waste generation, approximately 5,000 tonnes of waste would be removed from the system.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
3. Develop re-use centres, programs and partnering initiatives.

Re-use options already exist in the County, such as Habitat for Humanity, the Salvation Army, etc. This option would involve the identification of specific organizations, potential partnerships, tools (e.g., web-based waste exchange site(s) and links) and re-use program initiatives that may be specifically suited to the County. The change in diversion would be less than 1%, as reusable items comprise a relatively small portion of the waste stream, but such programs have value to the community and encourage people to find a better purpose for items rather than disposal.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
4. Implement a green procurement policy for County operations.

Consistent with a zero waste philosophy, green purchasing decisions typically focus on buying products with sustainable or recycled materials and that have a limited amount of packaging. A green procurement program implemented by the County and linked with increased diversion in County facilities is one way to clearly indicate that the priority is waste diversion. However, a relatively small change in diversion would be expected since the garbage from County operations is a small portion of the total waste managed.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
5. Endorse Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and waste minimization legislation.

The County can continue to support Federal and Provincial efforts to prevent and minimize waste. Extended Producer Responsibility is intended to make the producers of packages and products responsible for how those materials are managed. The overall intent of EPR is to encourage industry change to reduce waste generation. EPR should reduce residential and IC&I waste generation, however the impact to the overall diversion rate is not known as targets have not yet been set by the Province.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
6. Other reduction and reuse options.

Discussions with the Waste Management Strategy Steering Committee and County Council resulted in an additional diversion option being identified which is to make diversion of recyclables and organics at the curb "mandatory" through a municipal by-law.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
Are there other reduction and reuse options that you think should be included?
 
Comments
 
Section 2 - General Diversion Options

Simcoe County has already implemented a number of successful waste diversion programs. As a result of these initiatives, it is estimated that the County has achieved an overall residential diversion rate of 54% in 2009. The options presented below could achieve increases in diversion through individual program changes and behavioural shifts.
 
1. Enhance existing depot programs.

The County’s depots accept and divert a broad range of waste materials. The facilities are designed in a manner that strongly encourages diversion of materials from landfill. However, there may be some room for improvement with the addition of new centralized depot locations, expansion of existing facilities, and the addition of re-use areas. The depots could be expanded to allow for diversion of bulky goods such as furniture and textiles. With these changes the County’s diversion rate could potentially increase by about 1 to 2%.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
Do you think new depot locations should be developed?
 
Comments
 
The current bulky goods collection offered in some municipalities within the County does not encourage waste diversion as materials cannot be economically or efficiently separated from materials disposed of in landfill. Do you support the elimination of bulky goods collection?
 
Comments
 
2. Clear garbage bag program.

Clear bag programs allow for the curbside enforcement of bans on recyclables or organics being disposed. These types of programs are generally compliance based, which means if materials that should be diverted are found within the bag, the bag is left at the curb. Privacy is often raised as a concern regarding clear bag programs, and some programs have been modified to allow for a smaller “privacy” bag to be included inside the clear bag. In terms of diversion, clear bag programs typically increase the diversion rate by an additional 3 to 5%.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
3. Increase recycling container capacity.

Recyclables that overflow blue box containers are often disposed of in the garbage stream. The County could consider the use of either larger blue box containers, carts or the use of blue transparent bags to increase the space that residents have for curbside recyclables. Diversion rates have increased in municipalities that have provided residents with options to store and set out larger quantities of recyclables.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
4. Bi-weekly garbage collection.

Reducing the frequency of garbage collection and/or increasing the frequency of blue box and organics collection have been demonstrated to have a positive effect on diversion. Bi-weekly collection of garbage could increase the diversion rate by 3 to 5%.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
5. Enhanced advertising, promotion, and education.

The best promotion and education programs are the result of a current and regularly updated communications plan with identifiable goals and measures. A fully enhanced promotion and education program would focus on all waste management initiatives and would be used to maintain public participation. Enhanced promotion and education campaigns could increase the diversion rate by 1%.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
6. Public open space recycling.

Open space recycling programs seek to capture recyclable materials from Parks or recreation facilities.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
7. Special event recycling.

This type of program targets vendors or organizations, typically using municipal facilities like parks for festivals or special events. Permits to hold a special event could require organizers to coordinate a recycling and composting program.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
8. Examine diversion of IC&I materials.

Although the majority of industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) waste is not managed by the County, as the County does not have authority for this material, an opportunity exists to harmonize the County’s waste management approaches and plans with those in other sectors. Many workplaces and institutions choose not to use existing private services for garbage, recycling and organics. Options to be examined include expanding diversion services to various commercial sectors and institutions, provision of processing capacity for IC&I materials at any County-owned composting or recycling plant, and/or bans on IC&I garbage disposal at County waste facilities.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
9. Other general diversion options?

Are there other diversion options that you think should be included?
 
Comments
 
Section 3 - Blue Box Recycling Options

Currently, recyclables are processed under contract by the collection service providers with materials being transferred and processed at various facilities outside of the County. There are two primary processing options to be investigated: processing recyclables outside of Simcoe County and developing recyclables processing capacity within the County. Both options could allow for some additional recyclable materials to be added to the program.
 
1. Process recyclables outside of the County.

Stable long-term contracts with out-of-County recycling plants may lead to reduced net processing costs. Facilities with available recyclables processing capacity outside of the County and within a reasonable haul distance will be considered for this option.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
2. Process recyclables within the County.

Currently, approximately 25,000 tonnes per year of blue box recyclables are managed by the County’s program. This quantity may increase to 40,000 tonnes over the next 20 years. There is also potential to partner with neighbouring municipalities to manage their recyclables. Therefore, it is reasonable to examine development of processing capacity within the County. This option could reduce transfer/haul costs and allow the County better control of processing costs.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
3. Other recycling options.

Are there other recycling options that you think should be included?
 
Comments
 
Section 4 - Organics Processing Options

Currently the County’s organics are processed at the City of Hamilton’s Central Composting Facility. There are two primary organics processing options to be investigated: processing organics outside of Simcoe County and developing organics processing capacity within the County. Both options could allow for some additional organic materials to be added to the program.
 
1. Process organics outside of the County.

Stable long-term contracts with out-of-County composting facilities may lead to reduced net processing costs. Facilities with available composting capacity outside of the County and within a reasonable haul distance will be considered for this option.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
2. Process organics within the County.

Currently, approximately 10,000 to 15,000 tonnes per year of household organics and approximately 10,000 tonnes per year of yard waste are managed by the County’s program. This quantity may increase over the next 20 years. There is also potential to partner with neighbouring municipalities to manage their materials. Therefore, it is reasonable to examine development of organics processing capacity within the County. The feasibility of constructing a new composting facility in Simcoe County will be examined in this option.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
3. Other organics options.

Are there other organic processing options that you think should be included?
 
Comments
 
Section 5 - Collection and Transfer Options

Collection of wastes from curbside and transfer of wastes to the processing or disposal location are linked. Transfer is a way of improving collection efficiency within the County and is necessary to move waste outside the County.
 
Collection Options
 
1. Review of collection contracts.

The County is presently divided into four collection zones for curbside collection. The structure of these contracts will be reviewed to identify potential improvements that may lead to more cost effective collection of all materials. This would include removing the processing requirements from the recycling collection contracts and the option of moving to amalgamated collection contract(s). The County could also consider moving to a County operated collection service.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
2. Alternative collection options.
 
The County already has collection programs in place for household garbage, recyclables and kitchen organics for all municipalities, as well as leaf and yard waste and metal and bulky items in some municipalities. Waste diversion improvements can be anticipated through modification and improvements to these program components. The following questions address various alternative collection options that will be examined.
 
2a) Single stream recycling can increase efficiency as there is no requirement for residents to separate their paper fibres and containers for collection. Single stream recycling programs are known to increase the diversion of recyclables, potentially adding up to 3% to the County’s diversion rate.

Would you support single-stream recycling?
 
Comments
 
2b) The current waste collection system is not uniform for all municipalities. For example, in regards to ‘special’ collection services, there are differences in bulky waste and yard waste collection services that are provided. Moving to a uniform level of collection services across the County is recommended.

Would you support a uniform level of collection service for all areas within the County?
 
Comments
 
2c) Currently, seasonal areas with central collection points for waste do not have access to the green bin program and have a less stringent bag limit for garbage. Would you support standardizing collection services in these areas?
 
Comments
 
3. Other Collection Options

Are there other collection options that you think should be included?
 
Comments
 
Transfer Options

The County currently operates four dedicated transfer facilities that accept a wide variety of waste materials, including garbage, recyclables, leaf and yard, wood, electronics, drywall, shingles and tires. A review of existing transfer capabilities and the identification of new transfer operations will be undertaken. Additional transfer capabilities may be needed if garbage and/or recyclables and/or organics were to be transferred out of the County in the long-term.
 
1. Review of existing transfer capabilities.

The County hauls organics materials from three landfills within the County to the City of Hamilton for processing. The County currently operates a fleet of trucks to haul the organic bins for processing, and other wastes within the County. Present operations will be assessed in order to identify any opportunities to improve efficiencies and/or reduce costs. This could include moving to a mechanical system to allow for transferred materials to be compacted and hauled more efficiently from current sites.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
2. Identification of new transfer operations.

New transfer stations may be required to transport organic, recyclable or garbage materials to potential out-of-County facilities.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
3. Other transfer options.

Are there other transfer options that you think should be included?
 
Comments
 
Section 6 - Disposal Options

As we work towards zero waste, we need to plan for garbage disposal for both the short-term and long-term. Long-term options will take time and effort to implement, with approvals/development taking at least five years or more. Each set of disposal options that has been identified has advantages and disadvantages that need to be considered very carefully.

Site 41 is not an option for landfill disposal, based on the Council resolution passed last September.
 
Short-Term Garbage Disposal Options

Only two options are regarded as viable to address short-term garbage disposal needs, as other options require more time and resources to implement.
 
1. Modifications to current operating landfills.

Review of the County’s landfill sites indicates that they are being operated in an efficient and effective manner. County staff have put into place operational procedures which maximize and preserve the use of landfill capacity. The active landfills will be further examined to determine if there are any other reasonable means of prolonging landfill capacity by modifying existing landfill operating practices. This could include the grinding of bulky wastes prior to disposal and consideration of a potential ban of commercial garbage from disposal at County waste facilities.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
Would you support a ban on commercial waste disposal at County waste facilities?
 
Comments
 
2. Use of garbage disposal facilities outside of the County.

Other municipal and/or private disposal facilities may offer capacity for disposal or processing of the County’s garbage. This option would require reversal of the current County position regarding no importing or exporting of waste for disposal.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
Would you support export of garbage from the County to a landfill located elsewhere in Ontario or in the U.S.?
 
Comments
 
Would you support export of garbage to an energy-from-waste (incinerator) facility located elsewhere in Ontario or in the U.S.?
 
Comments
 
3. Other short-term garbage disposal options.

Are there other short-term disposal options that you think should be included?
 
Comments
 
Long-Term Garbage Disposal Options

Over the 20-year planning period, it is expected that there would continue to be a portion of the waste stream that would require disposal despite increased diversion efforts. The County could contract to use existing long-term disposal capacity available within and outside Ontario or it could develop new disposal or garbage processing capacity either on its own or in partnership with the private sector.
 
1. In-County garbage disposal capacity includes various landfilling options potentially available in the County such as:
  • development of partially permitted sites (Sites 9, 12, and 42);
  • expansion of current operating sites (Sites 10, 11, and 13);
  • landfill mining to gain capacity (only applicable to the development of Sites 9 and/or 12); and,
  • development of a new landfill.
 
1a) Would you support the development of Site 42?
 
Comments
 
1b) Would you support the expansion of one or more of the current operating landfill sites?
 
Comments
 
1c) Would you support the remediation and development of Sites 9 and/or 12 to gain long-term capacity (requires landfill mining)?
 
Comments
 
1d) Would you support the development of a new landfill within the County?
 
Comments
 
2. Disposal capacity outside of the County.

Exporting garbage to municipal or privately owned disposal facilities (landfills or processing facilities) within or outside of Ontario would be examined under this option. Some facilities might become available in the long-term that are not currently available.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
3. Garbage processing facilities either inside or outside of the County.

Under this option, the County would develop or use a new waste processing facility. Developing such a facility may require that the County enter into a ‘partnership’ or other type of long-term contract. A range of potential technologies, such as “dirty MRFs” (recycling plants that process mixed waste), mechanical/biological treatment, and energy-from-waste (incineration) approaches, could be applicable. Some of these technologies may allow for increased recovery of materials that can be diverted.

Should this option be included?
 
Comments
 
Do you support consideration of any of the identified long-term processing technologies by the County?
 
If no, which technologies would you not support?


 
Comments
 
4. Other long-term disposal options.

Are there other long-term disposal options that you think should be included?
 
Comments
 
Section 7 - Evaluation Criteria

This section of the workbook presents the proposed evaluation criteria that would be used to select the preferred solid waste management system for the County. The criteria are listed below for your review.

Please indicate whether or not each criterion should be used to compare the options for processing recyclables and organics and for garbage disposal, in order to select the preferred system for the County.
 
1. Potential increase in residential and commercial diversion rates, and ability to meet County (and Provincial) diversion targets.

Should this criterion be included?
 
Comments
 
2. Potential decrease in landfill capacity requirements.

Should this criterion be included?
 
Comments
 
3. Potential environmental impacts (air and water).

Should this criterion be included?
 
Comments
 
4. Potential to enhance/improve levels of service offered for waste management.

Should this criterion be included?
 
Comments
 
5. Potential range of capital and operating costs.

Should this criterion be included?
 
Comments
 
6. Provincial approvals and permitting requirements.

Should this criterion be included?
 
Comments
 
7. Degree of risk to the County.

Should this criterion be included?
 
Comments
 
8. Other criteria.

Do you think that there are other criteria that should be included?
 
Comments
 
Additional Comments

Based on information provided and/or discussed this evening, can you think of any other issues which need to be considered or do you have any other comments related to the Solid Waste Management Strategy in general?
 
  

Powered by CHECKBOX® Survey Software - ©2007 Prezza Technologies, Inc.