Solid Waste& RecyclingSolid Waste& RecyclingCanada’s magazine on collection, hauling, processing and disposalFebruary/March 2009 $10.00

CP

MP

No.

400

6924

0

A

n Ec

oLog

Gro

up P

ublic

atio

n

Wealth Without Waste Event Report — page 41

Reverse

Vending Machines

— page 19

PEI Civil Action Offers Lessons — Page 8

Compost Lawsuit

swr feb-mar 09 Cover pg 1.indd 1 11/11/10 9:18 AM

Samuel Strapping SystemsThe Samuel Series Balers & Compactors

www.samuelstrapping.com information@samuelstrapping.com 1-800-607-8727

ProvidingWorry Free Recycling Solutions

Don’t forget that our recycling equipment is complimentedby our complete range of baling wire products and services!

• Single loop, Double loop• Black Annealed Boxed and Stem Wire• Assorted Galvanized Stem Wire• Cut & Straight Wire, Merchant Wire• Custom Packaged, Specialty Wire and much more

Samuel Strapping Systems offers a completerange of products and consumables designed toprovide you efficient and cost effective solutionsto your waste recycling requirements. We providea complete line of vertical balers and compactorsengineered to operate under any conditions andfor a variety of applications.

Our equipment is fully customizable with acomprehensive options selection to ensure yourrequirements are met with complete satisfaction.Our machines are found in all industry segmentsincluding manufacturing, retail, distributioncenters, property management facilities andconstruction sites.

Call us today or visit us online atwww.samuelstrapping.comto learnmore about our recycling equipmentand how our equipment can helpmanage your waste into profitablediscards.

84612 Recycle Today Ad:84612 Recycle Today Ad 12/17/08 1:02 PM Page 1

swr feb-mar 09 pg 2 AD.indd 2 11/11/10 9:19 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 3

C O N T E N T S

Solid Waste & RecyclingCanada’s magazine on collection, hauling, processing & disposal

February/March 2009Volume 14, Number 1

Packaging, pg. 22 Collection, pg. 36GHG Credits, pg. 27

COVER STORY

WCI v. ADI 8The decision in a civil action over a compost plant on Prince Edward Island offers insights to waste managers everywhere about business partnerships and the technical challenges of building a plant.by Guy Crittenden

DEPARTMENTSEditorial 4Up Front 6Packaging 22Waste Investment 24Composting Matters 29Waste Business 32Landfill Technology 34Collection 36Products 37Regulation Roundup 39Event Report 41News 43Ad Index 45Blog 46

NEXT EDITIONSUPPLEMENTS: Balers, Shedders & Conveyors, Electronic Equipment RecyclingWaste pelletization. Collection equipment. In-vessel compost system. Landfill gas collection. Bonus Distribution: Waste Expo 2009Space closing: March 23; Artwork required: March 26. Advertisers, contact Publisher Brad O’Brien at 1-888-702-1111 ext. 2.

Cov

er a

rt b

y C

harle

s Ja

ffé

FEATURES

PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP: TAKE BACKReverse vending machines take root.by Clarissa Morawski 19

BIOMASS: GHG CREDITSObtaining greenhouse credits from composting.by Susan Antler 27

PERSONNEL: LABOUR MARKETSA task force to study waste labour market needs.by Grant Trump 28

WASTE-TO-ENERGY: BC POLICYConsiderations of rebranding waste as fuel.by Monica Kosmak 31

DIVERSION: EUROPEAN SYSTEMThe new EU Directive on waste.by Usman Valiante 33

swr feb-mar 09 Cont pg 3.indd 3 11/11/10 9:20 AM

“Just as we’re starting to think about small litter items, the

problem is about to truly get microscopic.”

by Guy CrittendenE D I T O R I A L

Nano! Nano!

4 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

No, I’m not quoting the Robin Williams character from Mork and Mindy. Instead, I mean nanotechnology and the very small high-tech things that are presently going to invade our homes

and economy in a wide range of products, including food and agricul-ture, cosmetics, coatings, ceramics, pharmaceutical and medical de-vices. Nano robots — tiny “molecular machines” — will one day travel through our arteries for diagnosing or treating ailments. Nano fibres will allow for the manufacture of environmentally adaptable clothing. The list of sci-fi sounding applications is almost endless.

As exciting as it sounds, some people are already starting to think about the implications for human health and the environment. Inevit-ably, some of these materials will end up as waste. It’s time to think small. Very small! Concern already exists about “micro garbage,” which usually refers to ubiquitous litter items like cigarette butts, coffee cups and lids, and chewing gum wrappers. Small plastic items may exist in the natural environment for dec-ades, even centuries, and be ingested by birds and animals to their detriment. Just as we’re starting to think about that challenge, the problem is about to truly get microscop-ic. And, unfortunately, nano particles can be toxic.

The term “nanotechnology” is not the particles themselves but rather an enabling technology that allows us to measure, see, manipulate and manufacture things usually between one and 100 nanometers. A nanom-eter is one billionth of a metre — a human hair is roughly 100,000 nanometers wide. Ac-cording to Austin, Texas-based Nanotech Inc., in 2007 the global market for nanotechnology-based products totaled $147 billion, and research suggests that figure will grow to $3.1 trillion by 2015.

Nanotechnology will transform polymers, electronics, paints, batter-ies, sensors, fuel cells, coatings, and computers, and potentially improve healthcare through development of better medical devices, medications and treatments. More than 600 nanotechnology-enabled consumer prod-ucts are on the market today.

However, nanotechnology is new and concerns include their safe manufacture and use. How can we measure exposure to nanomaterials? Weight and volume are used for conventional materials; with nanomateri-als, surface area may be a better predictor of exposure and risk.

Of course, nanoparticles’ small size could allow them to get into places where we don’t want them. The same smallness that might allow diagnostic machines to travel through arteries also means that particles could go deep within the lungs when inhaled, then pass into the blood-stream and affect various organs. Frighteningly, particles could become air- or waterborne pollutants, spreading and accumulating in places where “normal” pollutants couldn’t go. Nanoparticles in some products could be released into the air and inhaled or end up in food. No one knows how this might happen or what the unintended consequences might be.

Further research will separate speculative risks from real ones. (See www.nanotechproject.org) One would hope that nanotechnology won’t become the next “asbestos scare” in both the sense of real risks and harm, or the excessive removal of asbestos and lawsuits that in some instances cost a fortune with little real benefit (except to lawyers and demolition companies). Key to enjoying the benefits of nanotechnology, keeping people and the environment safe, and avoiding hype and scares will be detailed assessment and strategic actions to manage, reduce or eliminate risks in the development stage.

Governments around the world are beginning to react. In 2008 in the United States, H.R. 5940, the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amend­ments Act of 2008 would have reauthorized and refined the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), strengthening the commitment to en-

vironmental and safety research. The bill passed the US House of Representatives but was not addressed by the Senate. This will likely be re-introduced. In July 2008, the Cambridge, Massachusetts Public Health Department recommended to the city man-ager that Cambridge (home to a lot of nano-technology research) take steps to better understand the nanotechnology-related ac-tivities underway within the city.

In February 2008, the European Com-mission recommended that adoption of an EU code of conduct to govern responsible research in the nanosciences and nanotech-nologies field. Late last year the California

Environmental Protection Agency began col-lecting information from manufacturers on

the transportation and fate of nanotubes once they enter the environ-ment, as well as test methods for assessing the materials’ physical and chemical properties to better understand their biological impacts. Under Assembly Bill 289, nanotube manufacturers statewide will have to pro-vide the information to the state, and deadlines are being established. (A nanotube can be thought of as a sheet of graphite — a hexagonal lattice of carbon — rolled into a cylinder.) In 2006, Berkeley, California passed the first local ordinance in the USA by requiring handlers of nanomateri-als to submit toxicology reports on the materials to the city govern-ment.

Good science policy and appropriate regulation is crucial to ensur-ing public safety and assurance for nanoproduct companies, insurance providers, investment firms, the legal community and governments worldwide. The environmental services and waste management indus-tries need to pay close attention, as well. Soon, thousands of products made from or containing nanoparticles could enter the waste stream, potentially causing problems. This is a business opportunity for those who pay attention, and a possible risk for those who don’t.For more information, visit www.nanotox.com

Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine. Contact Guy at gcrittenden@solidwastemag.com@ARTICLECATEGORY:2243; 800;

Tiny “molecular machines” will travel through our arteries and diagnose or treat ailments.

swr feb-mar 09 Edit pg 4.indd 4 11/11/10 9:20 AM

Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. • 22 Whittier Street, Newton, NH 03858 • © 2009. All rights reserved.

PURPOSE-BUILTStationary & Portable Material-Processing Systems

Grinders. Chippers. Shredders. Custom C&D Processing Systems. You name a

material processing challenge and CBI will show you the solution. With more than two decades

of experience, we’ve seen just about everything and have designed and installed systems all

over the world ... for the industry’s heavy hitters. As a result, our time-tested line of products is

so comprehensive that we simply can’t represent it all in one magazine ad. So, please visit us

online at www.cbi-inc.com or call 603.382.0556 for more information today.

www.cbi-inc.com

CBI Yard-Waste Processing System Solid Waste Authority (SWA) Palm Beach County, FL

CBI Yard-Waste Processing System Solid Waste Authority (SWA) Palm Beach County, FL

CASE STUDY # 41CASE STUDY # 41

swr feb-mar 09 pg 5 AD.indd 5 11/11/10 9:21 AM

6 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

Guy Crittenden Editorgcrittenden@solidwastemag.com

Brad O’Brien Publisherbobrien@solidwastemag.com

Jamie Ross AccountManagerSheila Wilson ArtDirectorKim Collins MarketProductionSelina Rahaman CirculationManagerCarol Bell-Lenoury MgrEcoLogGroupBruce Creighton President

BusinessInformationGroupContributing Editors

MichaelCant,RosalindCooper,MariaKelleher,ClarissaMorawski,UsmanValiante,PaulvanderWerf

Award-winning magazine

Solid Waste & Recycling magazine is published six times a year by EcoLog Information Resources Group, a divi­sion of BIG Magazines L.P., a leading Canadian busi­ness­to­business information services company that also publishes HazMat Management magazine and other infor­mation products. The magazine is printed in Canada.

Solid Waste & Recycling provides strategic informa­tion and perspectives on all aspects of Canadian solid waste collection, hauling, processing and disposal to waste managers, haulers, recycling coordinators, landfill and compost facility operators and other waste industry professionals.

Canadian Publications Mail ProductSales Agreement No. 40069240

Information contained in this publication has been com­piled from sources believed to be reliable, thus Solid Waste & Recycling cannot be responsible for the absolute correctness or sufficiency of articles or editorial contained herein. Articles in this magazine are intended to convey information rather than give legal or other professional ad­vice. Reprint and list rental services are arranged through the Publisher at (416) 510­6798.

Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to:Circulation Department, Solid Waste & Recycling12 Concorde Pl, Ste 800, Toronto, ON M3C 4J2Call: (416) 442­5600 Fax: (416) 510­5148E­mail: mgarufi@bizinfogroup.ca

From time to time we make our subscription list available to select companies and organizations whose product or service may interest you. If you do not wish your contact information to be made available, please contact us via one of the following methods:Phone: 1­800­268­7742 Fax: 416­510­5148E­Mail: jhunter@businessinformationgroup.caMail to: Privacy Officer Business Information Group 12 Concorde Pl, Ste 800 Toronto, ON Canada M3C 4J2

Solid Waste & Recycling, USPS 018­886 is published bimonthly by Business Information Group. US office of publication: 2424 Niagara Falls Blvd, Niagara Falls, NY 14304­0357. Periodicals Postage Paid at Niagara Falls, NY. US postmaster: Send address changes to Solid Waste & Recycling, PO Box 1118, Niagara Falls, NY 14304.

We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Publications Assistance Program towards our mailing costs.

© 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without priorconsent. ISSN­1483­7714

PAP Registration No. 10991

Solid Waste & RecyclingSolid Waste & RecyclingCanada’s magazine on collection, hauling, processing & disposal

OUR TOP LETTERSDear Editor:Re: “Zero waste conference” website news itemQuestion: If a million tons of municipal solid waste can be converted into a high quality artificial soil without any need for source separation programs, thereby providing a base material for the production, distribution and application of 10 million tons of artificial for-estry soils at a competitive cost, then what is the point of promoting the rhetoric of a “zero waste” concept that violates the second law of thermodynamics?

Dik Tennantsterilizers@excite.com

Sounds like you have a product to sell. Good luck! – ed.

Dear Editor,Re: “Greenwash” article, December/January editionCongrats on you’re the “Blog” article “Greenwash: the frustrating and dirty world of propaganda.” Wouldn’t credible Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) be wonderful! Realistically, especially in our current economic melt down scenario, are governments prepared to try to develop or pay for such documents?

Yes, they should be educational. We agree thatPaper, metal and glass — even some composite packaging — is likely to be around for

a long time; and One size does not necessarily fit all.However, to move ahead sustainably, might this be addressed: Would designating

significant applications, phased-in, using true EPR, be worth a try? Not perfect, but it seems to work reasonably well when implemented in BC. I guess in some regions EPR is more just a current buzz word.

I found Guy Crittenden’s editorial “Simple Problems, Complex Solutions” pertinent; I’m not sure where or when these strong markets for recyclables referred to by EPIC are going to appear? Stewarded applications still move (e.g., Recycling Council of Alberta).

RegardsJim CairnsEnvironmental Plastics Advisory Service (EPAS)jimcairns@telus.net

Maple Reinders recognized among top 50Maple Reinders Constructors is pleased to be named among the Top 50 Best Small and Med-

ium Employers in Canada. The study, now in its fifth year, is run by Hewitt Associates through Queens University and was published in the Globe and Mail newspaper. Becoming a Top Best Small and Medium Employer is a very detailed and competitive process. This national awards program recognizes top employers with between 50 and 400 employees and is based on the surveyed responses from employees. This study mirrors the renowned Best Employer in Canada initiative for companies having more than 400 employees.

“Despite the challenging economic times, cre-ating an environment in which employees feel engaged and valued is a top priority,” said Mike Reinders, President of Maple Reinders. “Our top ranking is especially significant given that our em-ployees themselves participated in this survey, with a great response rate of over 90 per cent. The results of the survey generated tremendous energy, pride and a positive atmosphere in the company, as well as an opportunity to identify areas for improvement.”

Maple Reinders’ commitment to promoting a positive work environment for its employees includes work/life balance initiatives designed to assist in integrating the responsibilities of work and the necessities of employees’ personal lives. Other programs and initiatives encompass well-ness, career training and development, staff social events, community service opportunities, and reward programs.

Founded in 1967, Maple Reinders is a full-service design/build, construction management and general contracting group specializing in industrial and commercial facilities, municipal infra-structure and environmental projects across Canada. The company is positioned in the top 20 contractors in Canada in terms of construction revenue.Visit www.maple.ca

(Left to right) John Haanstra (Sr. Vice President), Eric Van Ginkel (CFO & Vice

President) and Mike Reinders (President).

swr feb-mar 09 Upfront pg 6-7.indd 6 11/11/10 9:21 AM

U P F R O N T

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 7

ObituaryMilton, husband of Maryanne Hill, Executive Director of the Muni-

cipal Waste Recycling Network (MWIN), passed away January 9, 2009 at Cambridge Memorial Hospital.

Raised in Sudbury, Ontario, Milton was the oldest of six children. Following the death of both parents he returned to Sudbury to handle the dissolution of his father’s busi-ness and assume the responsibility for the younger children’s care and education.

Milton enjoyed a successful sales and marketing career in the automotive industry where he held progressively responsible positions ending with retirement as Pres-ident of Dupli-Color Canada. Over the years he was a member of the boards of directors for Dupli-Color Canada, American Home Products, Sherwin-Williams Company, Wyeth Laboratories, and Chef Boyardee.

A gentle man with a wonderful sense of humour, a genuine concern for others and the ability to make everyone comfortable regardless of the circumstance, he will be tre-mendously missed by Maryanne, his family and his friends.Donations are encouraged to the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada www.heartandstroke.com.

Waste Reduction Week proved to be a re-warding experience for the Ottawa Val-ley Waste Recovery Centre (OVWRC)

in more ways than one: two of the centre’s programs were recognized. At the Annual Waste Minimization Awards, the OVWRC was awarded a bronze recogni-tion by the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) in the Waste Diversion Program Operator category for the work its done implementing an integrated waste management program with Algonquin Park. The OVWRC worked with park managers to develop and implement a complete integrated waste management program using underground MOLOK containers for the collection of recyclables, organics and regu-lar waste. OVWRC collects and processes all the material as well as assists with the promotion of the program.

“We were very pleased to receive this award which recognizes the partnership we have with Algonquin Provincial Park,” commented Steve Bennett, Ottawa Valley Waste Management Board Chairman. “We were judged in a category that included larger waste management companies. Our bronze recognition shows that municipal and provincial governments working together can implement successful waste reduction pro-grams.”

Also during Waste Reduction Week the OVWRC was recognized by the Municipal Waste Association (MWA) at MWA’s annual Pro-motion and Education Awards. This year, the Centre’s Sustainable

Garden was recognized by MWA as one of the top three in the Promo-tional Tool “Other” category. Hundreds of people visiting the Centre annually now walk by its newly landscaped sustainable garden which incorporates a pathway made from recycled tires, drought tolerant plants, a recycled plastic bench and a garden statue made from re-cycled metal.Visit www.ovwrc.com@ARTICLECATEGORY:798;

Scholarship AwardAt the December board meeting of the Solid Waste Association

of North America (SWANA) Ontario Chapter, the Cliff Chan Memorial Scholarship was presented to Catherine Leighton from Kingston, Ontario. Catherine is doing her Masters in Environmental and Resource Studies at the University of Waterloo. SWANA board members in the picture (on each side of Catherine) are Chapter Pres-ident Beth Goodger (left) and Art Mercer (right), Chair of the Schol-arship Committee. This scholarship is in memory of Cliff Chan, the Director of Solid Waste Management for the Region of Halton and a Director of the Ontario Chapter of SWANA until his untimely death in November 2000. (Note that articles by Catherine appear in this edition on pages 41 and 46.)

OVWRC PROGRAMS RECOGNIZED

Milton Clayton HillApril 8, 1927 – January 9, 2009

swr feb-mar 09 Upfront pg 6-7.indd 7 11/11/10 9:21 AM

“In the end, Justice Campbell found in favour of WCI,

ruling that ADI had indeed violated a lawful contract.”

by Guy Crittenden

A breach of contract lawsuit in Prince Edward Island offers lessons in how to build and operate compost plants, and how not to

On November 27, 2008 in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Justice the Hon. Gordon Campbell released his decision in WCI Waste Conversion v. ADI International Inc., a civil action tested in PEI’s Supreme Court. The ruling and details of the case offer valuable insights for waste management professionals in other

jurisdictions on how to design and operate compost plants, negotiate contracts and maintain viable business partnerships.

The case revolved around whether a legitimate contract had been unreasonably breached when ADI International (“ADI”) terminated its relationship with WCI Waste Conversion (“WCI”) and, if so, what mon-ies ADI owed WCI. The two companies had entered into an agreement to design, build and operate a compost plant on behalf of the local waste management authority. The relationship between the companies quickly became dysfunctional, prohibiting them from solving technical prob-lems at the plant. ADI eventually terminated its relationship with WCI.

At trial Justice Campbell had to sort through complex technical issues and listen to expert opinion on every aspect of composting science and engineering in order to determine whose fault it was that the plant did not perform to expectations. ADI and WCI each blamed the other. He also had to review the contract in view of case law precedents.

In the end, Justice Campbell found in favour of WCI, ruling that ADI

WCI Waste Conversionv.

ADI International Inc.

C O V E R S T O R Y

8 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

had indeed violated a lawful contract, and that ADI had interfered with WCI’s honest attempts to overcome technical challenges at the plant — attempts that could have succeeded (the judge believes) if fully imple-mented. He ruled that ADI pay $4.3 million to WCI, plus costs. (ADI is appealing the decision.)

BackgroundIn 1994, PEI implemented an organics source-separation system in the western part of the province to limit the amount of waste sent to landfill. The principle facility receiving source-separated wastes was the East Prince Waste Management Facility (sometimes called the Wellington site). In June 2000 the Island Waste Management Corporation (IWMC) decided that by the end of 2002 it would expand source-separation throughout the whole of PEI. A Request for Proposals was issued for delivery of a turnkey enclosed compost facility capable of processing 30,000 tonnes of organic material into Category A compost (the CCME term for compost that can be used in any application).

Joseph Kennedy and Philip Kerrigan, the principal shareholders of WCI Waste Conversion — an Ottawa-based company that builds waste and organics processing plants — wanted to respond to the RFP. Lacking sufficient funds to obtain the required bonding, they invited ADI Inter-

swr feb-mar 09 Cvr sty pg 8-18.indd 8 11/11/10 9:22 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 9

The Central Compost Facility (CCF) at Brookfield, PEI.

“Says Kennedy, ‘Major problems can

occur when there is a lack of proper oversight

and procurement expertise maintained throughout

the entire term of the contract.’”

national — a structural, electrical and mechanical engineering firm — to participate. On July 9, 2001 the companies were awarded the $17.5 mil-lion IWMC contract to design-build-operate a Central Compost Facility (CCF) at Brookfield, PEI. ADI entered into a separate five-year con-tract with WCI to operate the plant. As it was responsible for the project bonding, ADI was named the principal in the contract with IWMC, and WCI became a subcontractor to ADI. Essentially, WCI would use its composting expertise to specify the technology and design the plant, and ADI, in addition to bonding, would execute the actual construction of the facility.

After some delays the facility was constructed and started accept-ing organic material in mid-July 2002. Less than five months later, ADI

terminated its operating agreement with WCI and took over operation of the facility itself, and also terminated the design-build contract with WCI. This triggered a suit in which WCI sought a total of $5.1 million plus interest and costs from ADI, and a countersuit in which ADI sought $5.6 million plus interest and costs from WCI. At trial, just fewer than 4,000 exhibits were presented in 71 volumes of material.

Issues at trialAs part of the agreement between WCI and ADI, all communications with IWMC were to be undertaken solely by ADI. To that end, ADI was the signatory to the contract with IWMC. WCI understood the re-lationship to be a joint venture partnership in which ADI’s being the

swr feb-mar 09 Cvr sty pg 8-18.indd 9 11/11/10 9:22 AM

10 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

C O V E R S T O R Y

Screens

Complete C&D Systems

Mobile Screens

Compost Reactors

Glass Cleanup

Water-Bath Separator

LUBO Recover More, Landfill Less

NORTH AMERICAN & CANADIAN DISTRIBUTOR OF LUBO & TITECH RECYCLING EQUIPMENT 78 HALLOWEEN BLVD., STAMFORD, CT 06902

CORPORATE (203) 967 1140WEST (310) 378 5433MID WEST (630) 778 9780

CANADA (519) 940 4601SOUTH WEST (281) 489 3700EMAIL info@lubousa.com Pantone 485 (RED)

CMYK Format:C 0M 100Y 100K 0

Pantone 653 (BLUE)CMYK Format:C 100M 60Y 0K 18

A sister company of Van Dyk Baler Corp.

www.lubousa.com

Willimantic, CT USA C&D System Non-fines recovery rate reaching 90%

500 exhibitors showcasing the latest equipment and technologies the industry has to offer. With so many suppliers under one roof, WasteExpo is your one-stop shop for gathering information, viewing products up close and comparing different products and services. Here’s your best opportunity to meet with themost innovative manufacturing and service companies. Every Day.

Conference: June 8-10, 2009 Exhibits: June 9-11, 2009Las Vegas Convention Center, South Halls, Las Vegas, NV

Register by May 8, 2009 and Save!

www.wasteexpo.comThe largest event in North America serving the $52 billion solid waste and recycling industry.

In Association with: Sponsors:

Co-located with:

June 9 -10, 2009 www.wastetraininginstitute.com

June 10 -11, 2009www.medwasteconference.com

June 9 -10, 2009www.fluidpowerexpo.com

www.landfillconference.com www.wastesymposium.com

Global WasteManagement Symposium

Environmentalists. Every Day. Americas’ Solid Waste Industry is a service mark of the Environmental Industry Associations.

View new products and services.

Every Day.

FREE Exhibit Hall Admission! Use Code VP32

lead communicator was a technicality, simply because ADI put up the bond. WCI assumed it would be treated fairly, and that ADI would not use its position as lead communicator to its own advantage.

At trial, Justice Campbell determined that ADI used its position as lead communicator to characterize problems with plant operations as WCI’s fault, and to bill IWMC additional mon-ies that were neither disclosed to nor shared with WCI. Withholding funds created hardship for WCI and benefitted ADI, the judge deter-mined.

WCI was responsible for site and facility design and installation related to composting and biofilters. WCI subcontracted with Green Mountain Technologies (GMT), Engineered Compost Services (ECS) and Ambio Biofil-tration (ABL) for the supply of (respectively) containers into which feedstock was placed for

composting, the aeration system, and the bio-filter (for odour).

WCI has extensive experience designing and working with these kinds of systems. A similar system to the one in PEI is in place in Pembroke, Ontario. The Pembroke facility (which has 11 containers compared to 48 at the PEI facility) is successful, has a similar feed-stock to that of PEI, but is operated by staff trained by WCI.

A failed relationshipJustice Campbell writes, “WCI and ADI had a difficult relationship almost from the moment WCI invited ADI to participate in the project with them. It quickly became clear from the evidence presented at trial that the interperson-al skills and business practices of the two par-ties differed significantly. Their relationship was soon marked by uncertainty, frustration,

mistrust and animosity. Their problems began well before the contract was ever awarded by IWMC.

“WCI maintains that it was in a joint ven-ture partnership with ADI in the design/build contract with IWMC. ADI, on the other hand, denies there was any joint venture or partner-ship involved and maintains that it was the ‘contractor’ and WCI was merely its ‘subcon-tractor.’”

Considerable letters and email exchanges underscore that ADI treated WCI as a sub-contractor, and that it alone could determine remuneration and key details related to the plant and equipment. However, the judge later determined that the relationship was, in fact, a joint venture partnership, even though the two parties agreed to present ADI as the primary contractor and WCI as a subcontractor.

Conflict between the parties and problems

swr feb-mar 09 Cvr sty pg 8-18.indd 10 11/11/10 9:23 AM

500 exhibitors showcasing the latest equipment and technologies the industry has to offer. With so many suppliers under one roof, WasteExpo is your one-stop shop for gathering information, viewing products up close and comparing different products and services. Here’s your best opportunity to meet with themost innovative manufacturing and service companies. Every Day.

Conference: June 8-10, 2009 Exhibits: June 9-11, 2009Las Vegas Convention Center, South Halls, Las Vegas, NV

Register by May 8, 2009 and Save!

www.wasteexpo.comThe largest event in North America serving the $52 billion solid waste and recycling industry.

In Association with: Sponsors:

Co-located with:

June 9 -10, 2009 www.wastetraininginstitute.com

June 10 -11, 2009www.medwasteconference.com

June 9 -10, 2009www.fluidpowerexpo.com

www.landfillconference.com www.wastesymposium.com

Global WasteManagement Symposium

Environmentalists. Every Day. Americas’ Solid Waste Industry is a service mark of the Environmental Industry Associations.

View new products and services.

Every Day.

FREE Exhibit Hall Admission! Use Code VP32

swr feb-mar 09 Cvr sty pg 8-18.indd 11 11/11/10 9:23 AM

12 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

Total VersatilityTotal Automation

From solid waste to recycling, an automated vehicle from Labrie is the right solution for all your collection needs. Labrie helps you reduce costs, increase safety and productivity, and beautify your city. Give us a call at 1-800-463-6638 or drop us a line at www.labriegroup.com and we’ll be glad to send you more information.

Greener, more efficient, smarter, safer.

LABR-764,AdTotalAutomation_halfpage.indd 1 2/3/09 11:17:02 AM

Delivery of composting container from

Green Mountain Technology.

C O V E R S T O R Y

swr feb-mar 09 Cvr sty pg 8-18.indd 12 11/11/10 9:23 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 13

C O V E R S T O R Y

Head office:R.R. #5 GuelphON Canada N1H 6J2Tel (519) 824-8520Fax (519) 824-5651

70 3 Ave. N.E. Box 1790Carman, ManitobaCanada R0G 0J0Tel (204) 745-2951Fax (204) 745-6309

rd 6960 Hammond Ave. S.E.Caledonia, MI.USA 49316Tel (800) 466-1197Fax (616) 656-9550

N O W O N L I N E !

Recycler

Recycl ing and renderingaround the world!

www.walinga.com

Walinga VC2336 6/11/07 2:36 PM Page 1

at the plant emerged when ADI, in the judge’s characterization, attempted to impose conven-tional engineering solutions on challenges that arose from composting science and technol-ogy.

The compost plant is a “high rate com-posting” system, an engineered or controlled process accelerated by the use of technology, that uses 48 containers which are divided into two groups of 24 containers each. WCI speci-fied technical elements that were crucial for success; they were the “science guys” who understood composting as a biological process that could not simply be turned on or off by physical or mechanical means.

It was WCI’s position at trial that ADI unilaterally altered or ignored several design criteria or specifications stipulated by WCI, including matters relating to “the width and variability of speed of conveyor belts, the lack of nonstick coating on conveyor belts, the fail-

ure to supply a density separator, the failure to heat the floor in the receiving area, the failure to insulate ductwork carrying warm air from various buildings, and other concerns.” WCI also complained of unfair invoices directed to WCI and unfair holdbacks.

The plant operations were chaotic from the get-go.

WCI claimed that construction delays deprived them of sufficient time to set up equipment and perform necessary “dry run” testing on equipment. On startup they were given a quantity of materials far in excess of the amount specified in the contract. Without sufficient commissioning time for the facil-ity, WCI was immediately running into oper-ational issues such as insufficiently trained staff, ineffective loaders, jamming of conveyor belts and improper operation of other equip-ment which required adjustments, all of which was further complicated by the fact they were

dealing with an unsympathetic, uncooperative partner in ADI. WCI told ADI they were get-ting, “too much, too fast.”

In August, problems arose with respect to the leachate tank and collection system. The system was designed to consume all of the leachate in the compost process and the con-tract required that there be no excess leachate. However, large quantities of leachate were produced that had to be trucked off of PEI. Eventually it was determined that there was a crack in the leachate holding tank which WCI maintained occurred during ADI’s construc-tion. (ADI disputes this.) WCI maintained that a significant portion of the excess leachate was actually condensate flowing into the leachate tank as a result of ADI changing WCI’s speci-fications and deciding not to insulate exterior ductwork (carrying warm exhaust air from various sectors of the compost facility).

WCI experienced problems with its con-

swr feb-mar 09 Cvr sty pg 8-18.indd 13 11/11/10 9:23 AM

14 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

tainer loadout system during this startup per-iod which only exacerbated other problems. The container loadout system includes a series of conveyor belts that take biowaste from the mixer and load it into the containers. Within the first few weeks of operation, WCI real-ized the containers weren’t heating up in the intended manner. They knew “the microbes weren’t happy” but they didn’t know why. They considered a number of potential causes such as carbon-to-nitrogen ratios, density and porosity, moisture levels, etc. After eliminat-ing those factors, the only thing left was pH level.

WCI approached outside experts whose suggestions included altering the quantity of air supply to the containers and adding “amendments” such as lime or wood ash to

the biowaste in order to adjust the pH level. This problem was of serious concern to WCI, which experimented with various adjustments and different regimes.

By October, the project was granted sub-stantial performance, which had the effect of causing the operating agreement to commence. Notwithstanding the existence of what WCI considered to be a binding operating agree-ment between the WCI and ADI, ADI was denying there was any such contract. That writ-ten agreement called for ADI to direct IWMC to pay the monthly operating fees directly to WCI. ADI did not provide any such direc-tion to IWMC, resulting in what WCI claims to have been a significant delay or a complete failure to pay WCI for its operations.

WCI contends that, coupled with unpaid

monies due on the design-build contract, this added further financial strain and stress to WCI. Kerrigan stated that during this time WCI was continuing to “work furiously” with various composting experts towards resolving the pH issue.

By mid to late October, the parties had exchanged “saber-rattling” correspondence. In addition to concerns about the lack of an appropriate startup period, receiving too much biowaste too fast, and other unaddressed defi-ciencies, WCI felt that it was not being paid in a timely manner and did not have funds to pay its various subcontractors. It was, therefore, contemplating filing a mechanics lien against IWMC and ADI prior to the expiration of the lien period at the end of November.

On the other side, ADI expressed concerns

C O V E R S T O R Y

swr feb-mar 09 Cvr sty pg 8-18.indd 14 11/11/10 9:23 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 15

800.373.9131770.631.7290

www.harrisequip.com

Harris’ superior horizontal & two-ram baler designs provide an innovative, lower maintenance, high-efficiency baling system. Harris prides itself on a tradition of designing equipment with performance and power in mind.

B A L E R S

SWR_twoRam_SolidWaste_Feb2009.indd 1 1/6/09 4:01:00 PM

about performance issues and the ability of WCI to operate the facility in a manner that would allow them to meet throughput capacity. These issues increased the tension and level of confrontation between the parties.

On November 26, 2002, ADI sent WCI a Notice of Default that gave WCI five work-ing days to address performance issues at the plant. On December 4, 2002, immediately after the expiration of the fifth working day, ADI terminated WCI’s design-build contract and its operating agreement.

The judge writes, “ADI viewed itself as be-ing unfettered in its budgetary control. Hollis Cole said it was his job to get as much money as possible into ADI’s pockets. With the con-tract award for $17,575,000 in place, ADI cut corners in supplying equipment and cut costs wherever possible, all with the view of enhan-cing ADI’s bottom line. If WCI had specified a piece of equipment with certain features and ADI supplied a piece of equipment with less expensive features, it was ADI’s intention to pocket the extra cash. If ADI failed to supply some equipment altogether, it had the benefit of not spending the money allocated for that equipment.

“WCI prepared its budgets and added its contingencies, margins, and PST, and gave that budget to ADI. Unknown to WCI, ADI added further extra sums (which it called “general conditions”) and a further 10 per cent mark-up to WCI’s amounts before incorporating WCI’s budget into its own. The final budget total was rounded to $17,575,000. Notwithstanding that ADI had budgeted extra or unallocated funds to address unexpected costs in respect of WCI’s scope of work, where extra costs were incurred or designs modified, ADI claimed ex-tra charges.”

“I am satisfied,” the Justice Campbell writes, “that ADI’s conduct was motivated by its philosophy of maximizing its gain without respect for the impact that would have on its joint venture partner or the project.”

JudgmentJustice Campbell’s decision is 130 pages long. His explanation of the composting process and the equipment and technology designed by WCI represent a kind of blue-print for how to build a compost plant and avoid problems. The

C O V E R S T O R Y

swr feb-mar 09 Cvr sty pg 8-18.indd 15 11/11/10 9:23 AM

16 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009 AD VERSION 4

MAKE THE PLANET AND YOUR BOSS HAPPY

WWW.SCHUYLERRUBBER.COM

The Schuyler Rubber cutting edge not only outperforms the competition, it’s also

planet-friendly. Each standard-sized cutting edge we make diverts 16 truck tires

from the landfill. That saves 220 gallons of imported oil and keeps 5,250 pounds

of carbon-dioxide emissions out of the atmosphere.

Call 1-800-426-3917to find out how you can save money with our cutting edge.

OUR CUTTING EDGE USES 100% RECYCLED RUBBER

AD SIZE : 4" X 5"

Phone: 888-763-8725 www.soft-pak.com

sales@soft-pak.com

The NUMBER 1 SoftwareSolution for WASTE HAULERS

A proven company & solution

Preferred choice of top 100

Affordable for any size hauler

One system for your hauling and scale operations

• Billing & Receivables• Routing & Dispatching• Scales & Landfills• Material Tracking• Complete Collections

• Mapping• Flexible Reporting• On Board computers• Accepts credit cards• Fleet maintenance

Soft-Pak/SWR 10/15/08 11:47 AM Page 1

C O V E R S T O R Y

written judgment reviews expert testimony on all aspects of equipment fabrication and instal-lation; the details are too complex to recount here, but readers interested in viewing the whole document can download it in pdf for-mat by clicking on Posted Documents at www.solidwastemag.com

One of the most serious problems, for instance, was the aeration system that WCI viewed as part of a composting system, but accuses ADI of viewing as more of an air handling system. (Unable to get anticipated performance, WCI’s aeration subcontractor found the fans had been installed backwards, propelling air in the wrong direction.) Another area of dispute was the quality of feedstock, the pH level of which presented unique chal-lenges (WCI maintained) to the composting

process. Yet WCI had been told the feedstock would be similar to the more-typical material received at another PEI facility.

Despite all the problems, the judge agreed that WCI was making substantial progress to-ward achieving the anticipated performance at the plant at the time ADI terminated the contract. “Based on this evidence,” he writes, “it is my conclusion that WCI was achieving throughput capacity by the time they were ter-minated. The termination was, therefore, not valid.”

In writing about the conduct and cir-cumstances of the parties as a whole, Justice Campbell states: “ADI never respected WCI’s expertise in dealing with the biological pro-cesses of composting.”

He concludes that, “WCI was not the in-

competent party. Greed, impatience and ar-rogance led ADI to terminate WCI. With that termination, IWMC lost its best chance of hav-ing the facility process the required volume of feedstock and produce Category A compost in accordance with the terms and time frames of the contract.”

In the end, Justice Campbell chose to ac-cept almost all of WCI’s position and awarded total damages of $4,306,339 and costs (almost evenly split between monies owed for design/build and operating the plant). The judge also writes, “the proceeding commenced against Joseph Kennedy in his personal capacity was, in my view, improper, vexatious and vindic-tive” and awarded him costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The judge was also annoyed at the disor-

swr feb-mar 09 Cvr sty pg 8-18.indd 16 11/11/10 9:23 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 17

Cleantech Funding Available

If you have an innovative clean soil technology, we want to hear from you.

The SD Tech Fund is open for Statements of Interest from February 25 to April 22, 2009

Supporting the development and demonstration of clean technologies by Canadian companies.

www.sdtc.ca

Prince Edward Island’s Province House, in Charlottetown.

C O V E R S T O R Y

swr feb-mar 09 Cvr sty pg 8-18.indd 17 11/11/10 9:23 AM

18 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

FULL STREAM

AHEAD.

Switching from a Dual to Single Stream operation?

BHS developed the first Single Stream processing system

in the U.S., and we’ve been setting the standard

for performance and reliability ever since.

See what the global leader can do for you at

www.bulkhandlingsystems.com

Bulk Handling Systems 1040 Arrowsmith, Eugene, OR 97402 USA

Tel: 541.485.0999 • 866.688.2066 What’s next.

C O V E R S T O R Y

ganized presentation of documents by ADI, for which he assigned costs, and did not accept the testimony of an expert tech-nical witness for ADI, whose conclusions he determined were neither independent nor cred-ible.

Conclusion“We are pleased with the Supreme Court judgment and feel it recognizes and fairly represents the facts of this case,” says WCI’s Joe Kennedy. “The key lesson for other mu-nicipalities is that major problems can occur when there is a lack of proper oversight and procurement expertise maintained throughout the entire term of the contract.”

Kennedy maintains that the full service contract to design, build and operate for five

years is an excel-

lent form of contract to

mitigate risks for municipalities when

the design-build contractor is at risk to operate the facility according to specification.

“Also,” he says, “appropriately structured management oversight, supported by procure-ment experts, is essential for success. This form of contract was utilized successfully when PEI developed its waste-to-energy plant in 1982 that’s still in operation today.”

ADI’s Hollis Cole says his company has filed an appeal. “We disagree most emphat-ically with Justice Campbell’s interpretation of the law and the facts,” he says, adding, “A

number of things from this case could negative-ly impact any compost facility in this country.

“The judge ruled that the facility is not producing Category A compost, but we have consistently done so, as is proven by more than 75 tests. And this despite the fact that the incoming biowaste is different from what was expected.”

Cole adds that when the contract to oper-ate the plant went to tender ADI was selected. More than three years remain in the current contract, with an option to renew for another three years.

Guy Crittenden is editor of thus magazine. Contact Guy at gcrittenden@solidwastemag.com@ARTICLECATEGORY:784;

swr feb-mar 09 Cvr sty pg 8-18.indd 18 11/11/10 9:23 AM

“The RVM has a UPC code recognition system to accept

valid containers and then spits out a voucher to the

customer for their refund.”

by Clarissa MorawskiP R O D U C T S T E W A R D S H I P

RVMReverse vending machines arrive … at last!

“The age of automation is going to be the age of ‘do it yourself,” wrote Marshall McLuhan.

Today we don’t think twice about using a bank machine, automated parking attendant, airport check-in, and self check-out at re-tail stores. So, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that machines designed for empty bottle return should become part of our everyday lives as well.

Considering that Ontario’s Beer Store has been taking back over two billion empty beverage containers for reuse or recycling each year, it’s amazing that there have been no machines to help them — until now.

Last fall The Beer Store (TBS) launched a pilot program aimed at assisting with two issues associated with the new Ontario Deposit Re-turn Program (ODRP) for alcohol containers sold by the LCBO. First, TBS wanted to improve convenience for people waiting to return their empties, and second, they wanted to offer an opportunity for customers to return empties during off hours.

The answer is the reverse vending machine or “RVM.” RVMs are commonplace in many grocery stores in Europe and United States (and the province of Quebec) where deposit return programs exist.

TBS’ pilot involves placing these machines at three store locations, all in the Toronto, Ontario area. One machine accepts all beverage al-cohol cans and the other accepts all wine and spirit glass bottles. The RVM has a UPC code recognition system to accept valid containers and then spits out a voucher to the customer for their refund which can be redeemed in the store.

So far, store managers are reporting that there are few operational issues and that customers seem “excited” about the additional conven-ience options. TBS employees welcome their new automation counter-parts, as they ease the flow of customers during busy times.

In addition to helping on the convenience side of things, the auto-mation has also improved efficiencies by breaking the non-refillable

Li’l FELLA

Waste Container Delivery UnitFina

llyThe Weight is Over ... the rear axle!

For delivery and retrieval of standard

side-pocket bins up to 8 cubic yards in size and 6,000 pounds in

weight.

1-888-262-4076

www.Lil-Fella.comFebruary/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 19

swr feb-mar 09 PStew pg 19-21.indd 19 11/11/10 9:24 AM

20 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

AET Consultants forged a merger with EcoServices, Eco2 Systems and

Integrated Green Building Concepts (IGBC) to form the AET Group. The

merger completes the first step towards a collaborative effort to establish

a solutions-based multi-discipilinary environmental consulting company

and professional team recognized as a leading-expert in waste, ecology,

building sciences, energy, and environmental management.

This partnership allows the AET Group of companies to provide a diverse

range of sustainable environmental solutions that will greatly enhance the

resources and technical expertise available to our clients while maintaining

the high quality service that they have come to expect from each of the

member companies.

.

More information about AET Consultants and the member companies (under

the Affiliates web link) can be found at This website will

be updated in the near future to reflect the newly formed AET Group

www.aet-group.com.

Eco erv cess i

IGBCINTEGRATED GREEN BUILDING CONCEPTS

ECO2

SYSTEMS INC.

Sustainable Environmental Solutions

Expertise converge

glass into plastic bins and increasing their compaction rate by two times. The bins also fit three times the aluminum from the compaction feature in the can machines. More containers in bins mean greater efficiencies in terms of saving in-store space and reduced shipping costs.

Because the RVMs are located outside the stores, the winter weather serves as a deterrent for some users. As such, the pilot will be ex-tended into the warmer months, after which, if successful, TBS plans to roll out more ma-chines at other stores.

The systemThe RVMs are built by Tomra, the world’s leading RVM manufacturer. Tomra’s RVM models are diverse in an effort to address the various needs of retailers all over the world.

P R O D U C T S T E W A R D S H I P

The RVMs generate receipts for in-store redemption.

swr feb-mar 09 PStew pg 19-21.indd 20 11/11/10 9:24 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 21

See our websites for more info:www.brightbeltpress.com

www.xtractorvideo.comwww.densifiervideo.com

At 16 to 20 lbs. per cubic foot, a truckload of

densified foam can weigh 40,000 lbs.

Reduce harmful emissions processing 300 to 1,200 lbs.

of EPS or EPP per hour

269-793-7183 Phone 269-793-8793 Fax

Recycle full containers, PET, Aluminum, Aseptik and more

Recycle your foam and turn waste into profits!

The RVMs at The Beer Stores are pretty basic in terms of available technology today. RVM technology can also collect refillables in cases, multiple beverage container packages in one machine, as well as mul-tiple packaging and fibre mediums together or separated. The attrac-tions to automation for deposit bearing containers are many, includ-ing: Reducing labour costs, ensuring accurate accounting, eliminating fraud, automated accounting, improving efficiencies, increasing storage capacity, providing additional revenue, and (perhaps most important) increasing traffic.

As more and more jurisdictions enact producer responsibility pro-grams with expensive fees associated with joining stewardship col-lectives, the list of possible benefits may include a retailer’s ability to set-up its own collection system in an effort to by-pass the high costs of collective stewardship, while increasing traffic at the same time. This is probably what motivated Tesco, one of the largest grocers in the UK (and in the world) when faced with the costs associated with the UK’s national producer responsibility scheme.

Tesco is currently operating a Tomra automated recycling centre (ARC), which attracts consumers to recycle by incentivizing them with Tesco Club Card points for each package recycled. The system then processes the material onsite to reduce storage and transportation costs, while increasing the value of materials like PET by processing bottles into flake (18:1 compaction). By collecting packaging materials onsite, Tesco by-passes the need to finance collection through third-party enti-ties, all the while offering customers a greater service profile. Within two months after the first six centres were installed, recycling at the locations increased by 50 percent.

There are those who believe that using labour for container take-back is better than using a machine. Whichever side one might take on this issue, the reality is that RVMs offer cost efficiencies unattainable with labour. And it’s these efficiencies that may finally convince retail-ers that take-back is a viable part of their business model.

Clarissa Morawski is principal of CM Consulting based in Peterbor-ough, Ontario. Contact Clarissa at morawski@ca.inter.net@ARTICLECATEGORY:2243;

P R O D U C T S T E W A R D S H I P

Tesco is currently operating this Tomra-automated recycling centre.

swr feb-mar 09 PStew pg 19-21.indd 21 11/11/10 9:24 AM

22 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

UpcyclingKraft and TerraCycle partner on revolutionary program

Kraft Foods, a leading food and beverage company in North Amer-ica, has announced a new partnership with TerraCycle, an upstart upcycling company that takes packages and materials that are

challenging to recycle and turns them into affordable, high qual-ity goods. The partnership will greatly expand the number of collection sites TerraCycle has available and will help prevent a significant amount of packaging waste from going into land-fills.

Kraft will become the first major multi-category corpora-tion to fund the collection of used packaging associated with its products. Several Kraft brands, including Balance bars and South Beach Living bars, Capri Sun beverages, and Chips Ahoy! and Oreo cookies, are now the lead sponsors of TerraCycle Brigades. These nationwide recycling programs make a donation for every piece of packaging a location collects.

“Sustainability is about looking out for fu-ture generations. Kraft is proud to partner with TerraCycle, an innovative company who has made it their mission to reduce the impact on landfills and to educate consumers on the importance of recycling,” says Jeff Chahley, Senior Director, Sustainability, Kraft Foods. “TerraCycle’s model of rewarding ‘brigade hosts’ is a novel way of collecting packaging waste that would otherwise have been sent to landfills. It’s so cool to see trash turned into merchandise that’s unlike anything else on the market.”

There are currently three TerraCycle programs for which Kraft is now the largest sponsor. To encourage more recycling, each program is free to individuals and organizations looking to participate and all shipping costs are paid. Once the used packaging items are collected, TerraCycle upcycles each material into

an eco-friendly product because it’s made from waste. • The Energy Bar Wrapper Brigade collects used bar wrappers and

donates two cents for each wrapper collected. TerraCycle has found a unique way to braid these wrappers into colourful, durable purses and

backpacks. The wrappers also can be fused, making the wrappers very dynamic for upcycling.• The Cookie Wrapper Brigade collects used Nabisco

cookie wrappers and donates two cents for each wrapper col-lected. TerraCycle will use proprietary technology to fuse the wrappers together into sheets of waterproof fabric, which then can be made into umbrellas, shower curtains, back-packs, placemats and much more. It is expected that 4,000

brigades will be established in the first year.• The Drink Pouch Brigade collects used drink

pouches and donates to participating school or community group two cents for every pouch col-lected. The used pouches are then sewn into tote bags, handbags and other durable items that will be available as early as April 1st at several major retailers. Over 800 brigades have already been set up!

Each of these Brigade programs is diverting pack-aging waste from landfills and helping to raise con-sumer awareness about recycling. By encouraging people to rethink “what is waste” TerraCycle is making it simple for consumers to have a positive impact on the environment. And with a monetary reward as incentive to recycle, the programs help

schools, community groups, and non-profits across the country earn funds to support local activities.

To learn more about the partnership or to request complimentary sam-ples of the finished products, please contact Albe Zakes at 609-393-4252 x233. You can also sign up at www.terracycle.net/brigades

P A C K A G I N G

About Kraft Foods

Kraft Foods (NYSE: KFT) is one of the world’s largest food and beverage companies, with 2007 revenues of more than

$37 billion. For more than 100 years, Kraft has offered con-sumers delicious and wholesome foods that fit the way they live. Kraft markets a broad portfolio of iconic brands in more than 150 countries, including nine brands with revenues exceeding $1 billion: Kraft cheeses, dinners and dressings; Oscar Mayer meats; Philadelphia cream cheese; Maxwell House coffee; Na-bisco cookies and crackers and its Oreo brand; Jacobs coffees, Milka chocolates and LU biscuits. Kraft is listed in the Standard & Poor’s 100 and 500 indexes. The company is a member of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and the Ethical Sustain-ability Index.Visit www.kraft.com

About TerraCycle

In 2001, Tom Szaky, a Princeton University Freshman, founded TerraCycle in hopes of building an eco-capitalist company

built on waste. After winning countless business plan contests, Tom dropped out of Princeton to pursue his dream of found-ing the world’s most environmentally friendly company. Seven years later, TerraCycle’s eco-friendly products have received a myriad of social and environmental accolades and are sold at major retailers like The Home Depot, Target, Wal-Mart and Whole Foods Markets. TerraCycle’s business plan and products made from waste received a Zerofootprint Seal of Approval, won The Home Depot’s Environmental Stewardship Award twice and recently won the 2007 Social Venture Network In-novation Award.Visit www.terracycle.net@ARTICLECATEGORY:793;

swr feb-mar 09 Packaging pg 22-23.indd 22 11/11/10 9:25 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 23

Call 1-877-MY ARMORor visit hexarmor.com

Don’t letyour employee be one of them.Through many interactions with some of the top U.S. waste hand-

ling and recycling companies, HexArmor has come up with yet another innovation for protection from needles and sharps, that

often come up in various waste handling and recycling operations. The Sharpsmaster™ II 9014 is the latest and greatest from the Grand Rapids, Michigan manufacturer, providing industry leading needlestick and cut

resistance in a single-glove solution.With initial needle exposure costs ranging

from $3,000 - $5,000 per event for post exposure testing and treatment, there is no room for faulty

protective equipment. Not to mention other factors that will weigh on employers and

employees alike:• Rising insurance premiums

and medical costs • Lost time on the job • OSHA inspections

and possible citations • Emotional stress

and strain on employees HexArmor reached out

to its partners in waste handling and recycling to develop a single-glove needlestick solution that would not only provide peak per-formance, but also allow users maximum comfort and dexterity. The SharpsMaster™ II 9014 is the product of years of constant development, feedback, and field-tested approval from industry leaders.

Protect your employees with the latest single-glove sorting solution from HexArmor: the SharpsMaster II 9014.

www.hexarmor.com

The Latest Innovation in Needle Protection for Waste Handlers

M R F S A F E T Y

Product ReleasesWe prefer email. Please send your product

releases to Editor Guy Crittenden at gcrittenden@solidwastemag.com

swr feb-mar 09 Packaging pg 22-23.indd 23 11/11/10 9:25 AM

24 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

“PEGs have become a major force in the acquisition arena.”

by Mark Borkowski

W A S T E I N V E S T M E N T

PEGs for SuccessA strategy to sell or buy a solid waste business

Private Equity Groups have not been hard-hit by the credit crunch or the stock market decline. They have capital to in-

vest and are looking for business acquisitions. One of the major market shifts for the acquisi-tion of privately held companies has been the growth in the number of Private Equity Groups (PEGs) over the last decade. These organ-izations number in the thousands in both the United States and Canada. Private Equity firms generally manage money for insurance funds, pension funds, charitable trusts and sophisti-cated investment groups. They have money to invest. Despite the downturn in the Canadian economy, the buyout market for solid waste and recycling businesses are hot. Even early stage businesses are sought.

PEGs have become key players in business acquisitions. They offer flexibility as a liquid-ity source, giving entrepreneurs the ability to take some cash off the table, recapitalize their company or simply sell and move on. Private equity refers to buyout groups that seek to ac-quire ongoing, profitable businesses that dem-onstrate growth potential.

The private equity market had traditionally been restricted to acquiring larger compan-ies. But increased competition for those lar-ger operations, the greater growth potential of smaller firms, and an easier path to exiting the investment of smaller firms in the future have played a role in attracting PEGs to smaller companies. PEGs are typically organized as limited partnerships controlled and managed by the private equity firm that acts as the gen-eral partner. The fund invests in privately held companies to generate above-market financial returns for investors.

The strategy and focus of these groups vary widely in investment philosophies and transaction structure preferences. Some prefer complete ownership, while others are happy with a majority or minority interest in acquired companies. Some limit themselves geographic-ally while others have a global strategy. PEGs also tend to have certain things in common. They typically target companies with rela-tively stable product life cycles and a strategy to overcome foreign competition. They avoid leading-edge technology (this is what venture

Call Timothy England : 416-804-9636e-mail : time@emfcontainers.com

www.emfcontainers.com

Durable

Fibreglass

Lightweight

Long-Lasting

EnvironmentallyFriendly

Compared to Steel, EMF Containers will ...Last Twice as long and Cut Total Cost of Ownership in Half!

Call EMF Containers and Start Saving Today!

EMF a 12/12/08 10:48 AM Page 1

swr feb-mar 09 Waste Invest pg 24-25.indd 24 11/11/10 9:25 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 25

or a related area that addresses the same cus-tomer base. These buyers may be in a position to pay more than an industry or strategic buyer that does not have this financial backing.

W A S T E I N V E S T M E N T

capitalist want) and have a preference for su-perior profit margins, a unique business model with a sustainable and defensible market niche and position.

Other traits that appeal to PEGs are strong growth opportunities, a compelling track rec-ord, low customer concentrations, and a deep management team. Most prefer a qualified man-agement team that will continue to run the day-to-day operations while the group’s principals closely support them on the Board of Director level.

Private equity buyouts take many forms, in-cluding:

Outright Sale: This is common when the owner wants to sell his ownership interest and retire. Either existing management will be ele-vated to run the company or management will be brought in. A transition period may be required to train replacement management and provide for a smooth transition of key relationships.

Employee Buyout: PEGs can partner with key employees in the acquisition of a company in which they play a key role. Key employees receive a generous equity stake in the conserva-tively capitalized company while retaining daily operating control.

Family Succession: This type of transaction often involves backing certain members of fam-ily management in acquiring ownership from the senior generation. By working with a PEG in a family succession transaction, active family members secure operating control and signifi-cant equity ownership, while gaining a financial partner for growth.

Recapitalization: This is an option for an owner who wants to sell a portion of the com-pany for liquidity while retaining equity owner-ship to participate in the company’s future up-side potential. This structure allows the owner to achieve personal liquidity, retain significant operational input and responsibility and gain a financial partner to help capitalize on strategic expansion opportunities.

Growth Capital: Growing a business often strains cash flow and requires significant access to additional working capital. A growth capital investment permits management to focus on running the business without constantly having to be concerned with cash flow matters.

PEGs have become a major force in the ac-quisition arena. They can also be thought of as strategic acquirers in certain instances, when they own portfolio companies in your industry

Mark Borkowski is president of Mercantile Mergers & Acquisitions Corp. in Toronto, Ontario. Contact Mark at mark@mercantilema.com@ARTICLECATEGORY:798;

swr feb-mar 09 Waste Invest pg 24-25.indd 25 11/11/10 9:25 AM

26 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

Canada’s BEST source of environmental risk information for real estate

ERIS reports include and identify:• Waste disposal sites• PCB storage sites• Spills• Contaminated sites• Fuel storage sites• Nearby industrial facilities

Information Services include: Aerial Photographs • City Directory Search • Database Reports • Fire Insurance Maps • Property Title Search • Topographic Maps

Call toll free: 1-877-512-5204Email: info@eris.ca

Visit www.eris.ca

Compost ArtGraham Clarke is a British artist whose

work is collected by admirers around the world. Found in both Royal and

public collections, including the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Tate Gallery, the Library of Congress in Washington, DC and the Brit-ish Museum, Graham has recently released “Ramblers’ Road Apples” in part to help The Compost Council of Canada “spread the com-post” message.

The image was created in memory of Clarke’s grandparents who, according to the artist, “would have thoroughly approved of today’s enthusiasm to recycle. Grandpa had his allotment to grow vegetables and, of course, a compost heap to illus-trate his ‘waste not, want not’ approach to life.

“Why the name ‘Ramblers’ Road Apples?’ Look carefully and find the small boy with bucket and coal shovel; it’s me, on duty to recycle the commodity so conveniently pro-vided by the carrier’s horse. One of my North American collectors taught me this charming expression and it has slipped into our family vocabulary for us to recycle,” said Clarke.For those interested in obtaining one of the only 250 prints available of this image, please contact The Compost Council of Canada at 1-877-571-GROW(4769) or email santler@compost.org

swr feb-mar 09 Compost Art pg 26.indd 26 11/11/10 9:26 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 27

B I O M A S S

Composting for GHG creditsUp until now, the sustainability of centralized compost initiatives

has been based on two revenue streams: tip fees and compost product sales. For the vast majority of compost facilities, the tip

fees received from incoming organic residuals have been the “bread & butter” with bag and/or bulk compost sales being the “jam.”

While this “recipe” must form the basis for facility viability, a future opportunity to expand this monetary diet comes in the form of green-house gas emission (GHG) offset credits.

Measured in tonnes of CO2 emis-

sions, the positive GHG reduction im pact from composting reflects the avoidance of methane production (that would otherwise be created through the landfilling of organic residuals).

Quantifying this impact based on verifiable data and measurement — as well as acknowledging the ineligibility of any waste streams whose diversion is required through regulation — are key steps in the process of eventually having GHG offset credits translate into dollars in the bank for individual composting programs.

To collectively move this process forward, The Compost Council of Can-ada (CCC), with support from Blue Source Canada, has embarked on the development of a GHG protocol to quantify composting’s impact on emis-sion reductions.

Through the donation of a model developed by the City of Edmonton and with funding support from All Treat Farms, the Regional Municipal-ity of Niagara and the cities of Calgary and Hamilton, a nation-wide set of experts has been assembled to review existing data, scope emission impacts for both baseline activity (landfilling) and diversion efforts.

The work done to-date is based on an existing protocol, Alberta Quantification Protocol for Aerobic Composting Projects, approv-ed under the Alberta Offset System.

To fast track the way leading to the federal review process, the CCC’s draft protocol has been bundled into the Industry Provincial Off-set Group’s (IPOG) initiative, a process involving a cross-section of or-ganizations focused on developing technical elements of greenhouse gas (GHG) offset systems within the Canadian context. The Aerobic Com-posting Protocol is part of an IPOG Working Group focused on several waste diversion/landfill gas protocols.

Recently, the group has devoted considerable focus on how to calcu-late baseline emissions for activities that divert waste from landfill. At this point, the thinking leans towards a “normalized baseline approach” which will not require individual composting initiatives to document

which landfill(s) their source material is being diverted from and what level of landfill gas capture was occurring at each source landfill. In-stead, all projects will receive a certain offset discount to allow full par-ticipation.

Although there will be some overall assumptions, the specific GHG offset claims will need to be determined by each individual composting facility, necessitating record-keeping and data tracking to report on the following processing details:

1) Amount (by weight) of material diverted from landfill. Measurement of waste composition should include an assessment of the fraction of:

• Paper / textiles waste;• Garden / park waste; • Food waste; and• Wood / straw waste,noting any changes in source or

composition that may materially influ-ence waste stream composition;

2) Amount (by weight) of residue organic material disposed in landfill post composting;

3) Volume of fossil fuels consumed for facility operation and material pro-cessing (fuel purchasing records may be used);

4) Electricity imported to the pro-cessing site (determined by direct in-line metering or based on monthly in-

voices from the supplier/utility company).While not yet approved, for composting initiatives that started prior to 2002, the start-date year for which the first offset credits could be eli-gible would be 2007 (the year in which the Alberta GHG regulations took effect). For projects that have a start-date after 2002, the start-date year for first offset credits eligibility would be anytime after the start-date of the project (ie post 2002).

As part of the completion of this protocol initiative, the CCC en-visions the creation of a GHG offset calculator which can be used by individual composting facilities to determine their reduction impact, helping in their assessment of potential financial gains from offset trad-ing. The possibility of bundling offsets from various initiatives to attain trading efficiencies is also under discussion.

Susan Antler is Executive Director of the Compost Council of Canada in Toronto, Ontario. Written with notes from the CCC’s GHG Protocol Development committee minutes and the “Draft Base Protocol for Aerobic Composting Projects” (prepared for submission to Environ-ment Canada by Blue Source Canada). Contact Susan at santler@compost.org@ARTICLECATEGORY:784;

“GHG offset credits are ineligible if

diversion is required through regulation.”

by Susan Antler

Compost Council staff and Toronto-area members have been transforming some unused parkland near CCC’s office to a wildflower garden. With compost donated by Miller Compost and financial support from Toronto Parks and Trees Foundation and Visions of Utopia, the garden has taken root in the community.

swr feb-mar 09 Biomass pg 27.indd 27 11/11/10 9:26 AM

P E R S O N N E L

Since 1992, the Environmental Careers Organization (ECO Canada) has pro-vided relevant and up-to-date labour

market information to the environmental sec-

tor and related stakeholders. Based on this intelligence, ECO Canada, in partnership with environmental executives, professionals, gov-ernments and academia, identifies emerging

“A comprehensive report will be available

in May 2010.”

by Grant Trump

Labour Market StudyECO Canada launches study of the solid waste sector

business opportunities for the rapidly grow-ing sector, defines skill and knowledge areas required to respond to these opportunities, and designs employment and human resour-ces strategies that link skilled environmental professionals with companies to increase their competitiveness. All of this offers a benefit in turbulent economic times and as Canada ad-vances in infrastructure.

In response to requests from the solid waste management sector, ECO Canada has launched a study of the Canadian solid waste management labour market that will give in-sight into this critical and evolving area.

The study will investigate human resour-ces issues facing solid waste companies, the emerging skill and knowledge requirements of solid waste occupations in light of advancing technology, as well as overall expected growth trends for solid waste management work and implications for companies and practitioners in the sector.

A comprehensive report, communicating a clear picture of labour market issues, and of-fering recommendations for identified challen-ges, will be available in May 2010.

How will the study benefit solid waste management companies? According to Kon-rad Fichtner, Senior Environmental Director at AECOM, “This study is important if Can-ada wants to retain and expand its leadership position in solid waste management.” John Ogryzlo, Dean of Environmental Science at Niagara College, expects that the study “will help employers identify the skills and train-ing practitioners need to utilize in innovations in technology. Ultimately, this will result in a safer, more sustainable and profitable waste management industry.”

How to get involvedIn the coming months, watch for invitations from ECO Canada to solid waste organiza-tions to participate in surveys, interviews and focus group that are designed to identify spe-cific human resources issues and needs facing the solid waste industry. If you would like to participate in the study, or would like more information, please contact Marsha Mahabir, by email at mmahabir@eco.ca, or by phone at 403-476-1937.

Grant Trump is President and CEO, ECO Canada, in Calgary, Alberta. Contact Grant at gtrump@eco.ca@ARTICLECATEGORY:787;

28 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

swr feb-mar 09 Personnel pg 28.indd 28 11/11/10 9:27 AM

The movie Logan’s Run (1976) takes place in a post-apocalyptic world that may have been ruined by an ecological disaster. A domed city is all that remains. The population numbers and consumption in

the city are closely controlled. At age 30 a person’s life clock, installed in their hand at birth, flashes red signaling that they must submit to a renewal ceremony, which in fact turns out to be their demise. Some try to escape but these runners are pursued by policeman called sandmen.

Pathologically, the word consumption refers to progressive wasting of the body. The irony of course is that we are pathological consumers and what is wasting away is the world we are consuming.

Despite our best efforts Statistics Canada tells that our waste genera-tion rate continues to increase (eight per cent between 2004 and 2006). The increase in waste generation on a per capita basis is not incon-sequential at 6 per cent. This data is troubling.

We don’t seem to be making a tangible dent in the amount of waste going to landfill. While we may have made that connection between con-sumption and waste in a residential context — mostly because we have to personally handle the wastes — we clearly do not have that connec-tion in our working lives. On the business side, which is responsible for more than 60 per cent of waste generation, it is always about the bottom line, which of course makes sense, although there appears to be an ongoing reluctance to take steps to reduce over consumption that is manifest as waste. Ultimately we are all the same people whether we are at home or at work — but we do not make the same connection with the environment.

I’ve been hearing for at least the last twenty years hear that we are a consumer society and that this needs to change. We have not changed over the last 20 years and if anything we have gotten a lot worse. We talk a lot and act a little, but not nearly enough.

Our lives are defined by convenience and the next thing we are going to buy, which is synonymous with having access to everything we want at the exact time we want it. This has led to hyper-consumerism and an addiction in comparison with which our oil addiction pales.

A great example of this and a nexus of this issue is our holiday season, in December. It’s quite instructional when we see so much emphasis placed on retail sales, with statistics sliced and diced to a fine porridge. Are people spending? How much

“It was food composition labeling that gave us clear

information and allows us to make better choices.”

by Paul van der Werf

Enter SandmanConsumed by consumption

more did they spend relative to last year? The pundits have their crystal balls in hand telling us our future based on and gauged by the success of our economy in terms of many Christmas presents we bought.

As a society we’re too many years removed from truly bad times when consumption was based on what we really need rather than what we want. My parents would argue that my generation is too wasteful and it’s pretty clear that the younger generation is not doing any better. Terms like childhood obesity and gastric bypass surgery paint a clear picture. Living through a war, as my parents did, gives you a more pro-found appreciation of consumption. When consumption is geared to meeting life’s basic needs and not always successfully, your outlook on life moving forward helps you to temper your consumption. This kind of ethos has to filter down into how we build buildings, move about, and sell or buy goods.

SolutionsI can think of two things we can do to move forward — one for today and one for tomorrow. We need to engage in what I like to call “smart consumption.” This is a thought process where we think about the en-vironmental impacts of our purchases in three distinct stages:

C O M P O S T I N G M A T T E R S

The life clock

swr feb-mar 09 CMat pg 29-30.indd 29 11/11/10 9:27 AM

30 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

C O M P O S T I N G M A T T E R S

CompuWeigh™

LandfillsTransfer Stations

RecyclingMRF

RoutingContainer Tracking

DispatchingCall us for a FREE internet demo at (410) 329 1300 or download it

from our website at:ParadigmSoftware.com

Setting the standardin Solid WasteSoftware...

THE

SYSTEMoffers Superior Software

and Service for:

SWRNov07KC1028Vulcan.pdf 1SWRNov07KC1028Vulcan.pdf 1 9/25/07 9:05:21 AM9/25/07 9:05:21 AM

1. What is the environmental impact of making this product?

2. What is the environmental impact of using this product? and

3. What is the environmental impact after this product has lost its usefulness?

The smart consumption approach is an intui-tive and qualitative thought process to monitor and refine our consumption. It’s meant to force us to step back and really think about what we’re doing.

One of the challenges is that people do not always understand the environmental impact of their consumption because it’s complicated. It’s for this reason that well intentioned people cling to icons of consumption like plastic bags, and now plastic water bottles. And while they may not be quite as environmentally problem-atic as some make them out to be, I believe this

thinking can be leveraged to tackle consump-tion in general. They signal a fundamental change in attitude that has and will continue to result in changes just like similar changes in attitudes about pesticides has shifted behav-ior.

Ultimately we will need to have a more quantitative approach to help guide our con-sumption. We need to be able to distill the out-comes of life-cycle assessments — the process that helps us measure environmental impacts.

We know intuitively that certain foods are bad for us but it was food composition labeling (e.g., per-cent fat, etc.) that gave us clear infor-mation and allows us to make better choices. Eventually some kind of environmental la-beling of products will be necessary to help consumers make sound decisions about the goods they purchase and consume at work and

at home. I have no idea what it will look like but ultimately it’ll have to be something easily discernable.

Not that movies are the harbinger of any-thing, but it’s interesting to note that the recent movie The Happening has the earth rebelling against its inhabitants by releasing fatal neuro-toxins from trees. The remake of Logans Run, slated for 2010, has a person’s life clock flash at age 21 rather than 30. We clearly have be-come gloomier about our long-term prospects on earth. We can’t run from this. Rather we need to redefine and refocus our efforts to more smartly consume.

Paul van der Werf is president of 2cg Inc. in London, Ontario. Contact Paul at www.2cg.ca@ARTICLECATEGORY:2243;

swr feb-mar 09 CMat pg 29-30.indd 30 11/11/10 9:28 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 31

W A S T E - T O - E N E R G Y“No mention is made that as you reduce the

organic fraction the carbon credit falls with it.”

by Monica Kosmack

Of Beetles and BioenergyA look at how BC is rebranding garbage as a clean, green energy source

Two summers ago, at our family cabin on Green Lake – a five hour drive north of Vancouver – I saw, for the first time, the effects of the mountain pine beetle. Warm winters and fire-suppressed summers

had fanned the beetle population to an epidemic. Now, paddling in our canoe, I could see that all the beetle-killed pines along the shoreline, and all those rolling over the hills and valleys beyond, had turned a rusty red. I was, according to most experts, witnessing climate change.

Like maples in October, the pines looked like they had simply turned red for fall. But the trees were dead, and this meant big changes for the forestry industry. The red forest also foreshadowed something else: a change of season for solid waste.

British Columbia’s vision for solid waste is best described in its Bio-energy Strategy. The plan connects logging trucks to garbage trucks by rebranding the dying forest and municipal solid waste as clean, green, carbon-neutral sources of energy.

“The BC Bioenergy Strategy lays the framework for us to convert more waste into clean energy,” Premier Gordon Camp-bell said in a press release in January 2008. And that has some worried that BC is head-ing away from Zero Waste.

The strategy officially classifies muni-cipal solid waste as a bioenergy resource, both as a biofuel (landfill gas) and as a source of biomass, which can be combusted or otherwise converted to produce heat and electricity. The biomass fraction of munici-pal waste is considered carbon neutral on the assumption that it releases no more carbon into the atmosphere than it absorbed through photosynthesis during its lifetime. Concerns related to carbon dioxide and other air emissions from the fossil carbon com-ponent (mostly from plastics) are wiped away in a related document, the province’s Clean and Renewable Energy Guidelines, which classifies municipal solid waste as “clean” strictly on the basis of landfill avoid-ance.

“Turning municipal waste into green energy offers endless poten-tial,” says the strategy, which goes as far as calling such waste one of BC’s “abundant natural resources.” In this light, landfills, incinerators, gasifiers and any other conversion technology approved by the energy minister are no longer problems to be eliminated. They are now called “bioenergy facilities.”

To expand this “bioenergy network,” the strategy establishes a $25 million fund to commercialize emerging technologies. It also directs BC Hydro to purchase power from bioenergy plants.

The Bioenergy Strategy could bring about some positive changes. A new regulation comes into effect this January that sets the criteria for capturing landfill gas. One could argue the benefits of building disposal facilities that won’t solely rely on municipal waste as part of the fuel blend. And if funds are allocated to developing anaerobic digesters, it will expand BC’s much-needed composting capacity.

But within the strategy, there are no preventative measures. No talk of organics disposal bans to put diversion ahead of conversion. No re-cycled content regulations to drive up paper recycling rates. No match-ing subsidies to expand BC’s recycling infrastructure. No mention of the irony that, as you reduce the organic fraction – which drops significantly with organics diversion, paper recycling and wood waste collection pro-grams – the carbon credit falls with it.

Surprisingly, for a document that’s sup-posed to help BC meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020, there’s no dis-cussion of the fact that source reduction and recycling save more energy and CO

2

than landfilling and incineration, as shown in a study done by Environment Canada. Nor does the strategy mention the emer-ging debate that perhaps biogenic carbon should be included in emissions calcula-tions in order to factor in the element of time. (Emissions are released in an instant, whereas trees grow for decades.)

All of which worries long-time Zero Waste advocates like Ann Johnston of the

Mayne Island Recycling Society, who fears BC will start counting waste-to-energy as diversion.

“We are facing co-option of the term Zero Waste by those who pro-mote incineration, gasification and plasma technology and claim they can produce ‘green energy’ from ‘renewable resources,’” she says.

Her concern is well-founded. In a move that shot some eyebrows higher than smokestacks, the province recently changed the language in the Environmental Management Act, inverting the pollution prevention hierarchy by putting recovery on the same level as reuse.

As Ontario contemplates a Zero Waste future based on extended pro-ducer responsibility and municipal organics programs, British Colum-bia, with its focus on end-of-pipe energy, is still missing the forest for the trees.

Monica Kosmak is an environmental journalist based in Port Moody, BC. Contact Monica at monica.kosmak@shaw.ca@ARTICLECATEGORY:2242;

swr feb-mar 09 W-to-E pg 31.indd 31 11/11/10 9:28 AM

32 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

“The WTE facility is in keeping with the city’s vision of being

the alternative energy capital of North America.

by John Nicholson, M.Sc.,P.Eng.

Simply Elementa(l)Sault Ste. Marie’s co-venture into waste-to-energy

One of the main challenges for any new environmental technol-ogy company is finding that first customer willing to test it at full scale. The success of a start-up company often hinges on

the success of its first full-scale demonstration. In Canada, finding that first customer is often a challenge given the cautious nature of Canad-ian culture. Compared to other societies, Canadians are not known risk takers.

The Municipality of Sault St. Marie in Northern Ontario has broken the mold of conservatism and ventured with a waste-to-energy (WTE) company in a project that may result in a payoff for residents.

Elementa GroupElementa Group, formerly Enquest Power, was incorporated in 2003 by its founder Jayson Zwierschke. The Canadian based company is lo-cated in St. Catharines, Ontario. The WTE technology developed by Elementa is a combination of patented and proprietary technologies. Municipal solid waste is gasified into synthetic gas (“syngas”) in an oxygen-deprived environment within a sealed, indirectly heated rotary kiln.

The advantage of gasifica-tion-type technologies is that there are no combusted-related genera-tion of dioxins and furans. Also, NO

x and SO

2 pollution associated with

incineration does not occur. Elementa differentiates its technology from conventional gasification because its process is actually steam reforma-tion — a technology used for other purposes that Elementa adapted to break waste into its molecular components.

Sault Ste. MarieAffectionately referred to as “the Soo”, the northern Ontario City of Sault Ste. Marie has a population of 75,000 people. Its core industries include steel making (Essar Steel Algoma) and forestry (St. Mary’s Paper).

Unbeknown to most, the Soo calls itself the “Alternative Energy Capital of North America.” It’s a mantle adopted by city council at the request of Ward 1 Councillor Steve Butland. The city’s claim to the title is justified by its 126-turbine wind farm, 16 MW solar farm (to be com-missioned shortly), use of cogeneration at the local steel mill, and use of biodiesel in municipal transportation fleet.

Approximately four years ago, Elementa Group approached Sault St. Marie to discuss its technology. At the time the city was undergoing an environmental assessment for disposal of municipal solid waste. City officials agreed to provide Elementa Group a portion of land at the mu-

nicipal landfill to build a pilot facility. With $3.4 million in funding from Sustainability Development Technology Canada, the company built a three-tonne-per-day pilot facility on city land to process municipal solid waste.

The city sees the relationship with Elementa as a progressive move that could add to its commitment to alternative energy while solving a waste problem. The Elementa process results in the production of 1.7 megawatt hours of electricity for every tonne of waste processed.

The city carefully weighed the risks associated with working with a start-up company including some internal skepticism of WTE technolo-gies in general and initial opposition of local environmentalists.

There are a number of potential payoffs for the Soo if the pilot facil-ity is a success. The city has benefited from some promotion and mar-keting simply because groups from Australia, Europe, and the U.S. have

visited to see the facility. Also, the city will receive royalties on future sales as a “thank you” from the company its first big break.

Discussions are already being held between Elementa Group and the city about the construction of a 25,000 tpy facility to handle all of the municipality’s residual solid

waste. If the commercial facility is built, it’ll be owned and operated by Elementa Group and the city will pay a $60 per tonne tipping fee.

“We’ve received great help from the city of Sault Ste. Marie to get a start on promoting and demonstrating our technology to the world”, says Kate Schappert, spokesperson for Elementa Group.

Steve Brutland, the councilor who pushed for the pilot facility, says, “The WTE facility is in keeping with our vision of being the alternative energy capital of North America. We understood the risks associated with project and have worked hard at communicating with the city’s residents and ensuring transparency on the decisions we’ve made.”

John F. Kennedy once said that there are risks and costs to a pro-gram of action, but they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction. The mayor, council, and city staff of Sault St. Marie are to be commended for working with Elementa Group in find-ing innovative solutions to allow for the demonstration of promising technology.Editor’s Note: We will report detailed technical results from Elementa Group’s system in a future edition of this magazine.

John Nicholson, M.Sc., P.Eng., is a consultant based in Toronto, Ontario. Contact John at john.nicholson@ebccanada.com

W A S T E B U S I N E S S

“Discussions are already being held between Elementa Group and the city about the construction of a

25,000 tpy facility.”

swr feb-mar 09 Waste Bus pg 32.indd 32 11/11/10 9:29 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 33

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes for things such as waste electronics and electrical equipment (WEEE) under the EU’s WEEE Directive.

However, the waste framework directive introduces (but does not mandate) EPR as a tool for general application on a broader basis. The directive states: “The introduction of extended producer responsibility in this Directive is one of the means to support the design and produc-tion of goods which take into full account and facilitate the efficient use of resources during their whole life-cycle including their repair, re-use, disassembly and recycling without compromising the free circulation of goods on the internal market.”

Of note, Article 15 of the directive assigns the responsibility of waste to the “original waste producer” but allows the member state to transfer partly or wholly that responsibility to the producer of the product.

Where EU Member States have adopted EPR schemes (i.e., WEEE) they’ve primarily done so in a manner that does little more than transfer

some or all waste management costs from municipal-ities to consumers via producers. Whether newer EU member states will want to tackle the politically chal-lenging task of having product producers develop and implement EPR programs for materials — not the subject of other material specific EU EPR dir-ectives (e.g., WEEE) — remains to be seen.

An interesting requirement of the directive is the development of state waste management

plans, which sets out the national baseline for waste gen-eration and the policy measures that the member state will undertake in meeting the requirements of the framework directive. Precipitating from the waste management plans are state-level waste prevention programs that must be in place by December 12, 2013 (that will allow them to deliver the waste management plans).

Unlike the EU, Canada’s federal government has little ability to set a national waste policy platform for Canada’s provinces. Notionally a fed-eral mandate that provinces develop waste management plans and waste prevention programs might be a good thing. However, centralizing the development of provincial EPR policy is not — at the Canadian federal level political fights are intense and change is hard to come by. A result-ing one-size-fits-all approach to EPR likely set at the lowest common denominator would serve no one’s interests. Certain provinces (e.g., On-tario and Quebec) are developing new EPR regulation and this appears to be the next evolutionary stage of waste policy in Canada.

Stay tuned.

Editor’s Note: See pages 41 and 46 for related articles.

Usman Valiante is principal of Corporate Policy Group in Orangeville, Ontario. Contact Usman at valiante@corporatepolicygroup.com

Euro-TrashThe European Unions’s new waste directive

On November 19, 2008 the European Parliament and Council rati-fied Directive 2008/98/EC on waste. Referred to as the “frame-work directive on waste,” the legislation sets out common def-

initions (i.e., what constitutes a waste and what is a reusable industrial by-product) and waste policy approaches for the entire European Union. The provisions in the directive must now be “transposed” into national legislation by EU member states. Thus, like other EU directives, the implementation of this directive will vary from state to state.

The revision of the framework directive was initiated in 2002 and is the result of a negotiated process between the European Parliament and the member states’ Council of Ministers.

Among the more interesting provisions is that the directive formalizes a definition of a waste management hierarchy that consists of prevention, preparing for re-use, recycling, other recovery (e.g., energy recovery) and disposal. Additionally, the directive includes a provision for, “… depart-ing from the hierarchy where this is justified by life-cycle thinking on the overall impacts of the generation and management of such waste.”

The inclusion of waste to energy (WTE) in the hier-archy allows member states to count incineration as waste diversion distinct from disposal — a result that was the subject of intense negotiation and isn’t surprising given the reliance of a number of member states on WTE to achieve their “waste diversion” per-formance.

Another controversial issue was the inclusion and recasting of the original provisions of the Waste Oil Dir-ective which mandated that member states institute ef-forts to re-refine motor oil. The Waste Oil Directive was hotly contested by Europe’s major oil companies producing lubricants from crude oil and re-refiners that produce lubricants from collected used oils. Mem-ber states took positions roughly aligned with the proportional political strength of the contesting commercial parties in their jurisdiction.

While the mandatory re-refining provisions on member states have been lifted, the framework directive continues to encourage re-refining by stating that member states “shall take the necessary measures to en-sure that ... waste oils are treated in accordance with Articles 4 (the waste hierarchy described above). The directive further allows member states to “restrict the transboundary shipment of waste oils from their territory to incineration or co-incineration facilities in order to give priority to the regeneration (reuse through re-refining) of waste oils.”

With regard to solid waste, the directive identifies a 50 per cent reuse and recycling target for common recyclables and a 70 per cent target for construction and demolition waste. The directive also calls for source separation of common household recyclable materials by all member states by 2015. European environmental organizations claimed that the targets are too low, noting that some Western European member states had already achieved or surpassed those targets.

Many EU member states have to one extent or another implemented

“State-level waste prevention programs

must be in place by December 12,

2013.”

by Usman ValianteD I V E R S I O N

swr feb-mar 09 Diver pg 33.indd 33 11/11/10 9:30 AM

34 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

L A N D F I L L T E C H N O L O G Y“An SSRA approach weighs all

the risks, costs and opportunities in support of decisions favouring the

best possible outcome.”

by Rein Jaagumagi

Full of FillA sustainable policy for excess fill management

“Running out of room” seems to be a common theme regarding municipal landfills, particularly in the more densely-settled parts of the country. Even in less-dense areas there’s a short-

age of permitted space and long delays in obtaining further permits. In addition to growing volumes of municipal solid waste, another material stream is adding unnecessarily to the landfill burden.

This is “excess fill” — generally meaning soil removed from con struc-tion sites. As governments seek to limit urban sprawl by encouraging “infill” developments, there’s greater potential for some of the soil to have been impacted by previous industrial use. Regulators naturally want to be sure that the potential environmental and health risks of this material are managed.

Another type of increasing excess fill is sediment dredged from storm-water management ponds. These ponds are growing in number as municipalities seek to manage the flow of precipitation off hard surfaces such as roofs, roadways and parking lots and into their storm sewer systems. Sediment that accumulates in these ponds must be removed periodically to maintain the retention capacity of the ponds, and may contain road salt, antifreeze, hydrocarbons and other materials washed off the paved surfaces, and pesticides and herbicides from lawns and gardens.

Much of the cost from excess fill is seen in landfill fees. For example, if tip fees are, say, $50 per cubic metre, for a pond 100 metres square dredged to the depth of one metre, the disposal costs alone would be $500,000. Add to this the cost of trucking the fill to the landfill, multiplied over several ponds which are emptied regularly, and the costs mount substantially. As well as these costs, unnecessary trucking of soil to landfills has air-quality and noise impacts from trucks.

Regulations and risk solutionsProvincial regulations have the laudable goal of protecting public health and the environment from the improper disposal of materials that may

pose a danger. However, current regulations are in some cases behind the times with regards to science. While these issues concern virtually all jurisdictions in Canada, we focus here on Ontario as it has the most complete regulations regarding excess fill.

In Ontario all wastes must be disposed of at a site operating under a Certificate of Approval. The challenge lies in defining “waste.” Under the provincial Environmental Protection Act and O.Reg. 347, virtually any soils removed from a site are considered waste by the environment ministry. While the Regulation does exempt inert fill, its definition as “earth or rock fill or waste of a similar nature that contains no putres-cible materials or soluble or decomposable chemical substances” is un-workable. This has led the ministry to adopt a working definition of inert fill as all fill materials in which the concentrations of the measured par-ameters are below the Guideline’s Table 1 values. Under this definition, material that exceeds even a single parameter by only a minor amount must be considered “waste” and sent to a landfill.

Since the Table 1values are based on background concentrations, not measured effects, this regulation ignores the fact that some contamin-easured effects, this regulation ignores the fact that some contamin-ants are much more dangerous than others. Similar legislation in other provinces can result in excess fill being sent to landfill more than is necessary.

One alternative is a Site-Specific Risk Assessment (SSRA) approach. This is probably most appropriate for soils whose contaminants are not considered highly toxic, but which have some parameters in excess of legislated contaminant criteria, if it has been determined that there will be no adverse effects on humans or non-human biota.

SSRA points to the heart of the issue; it’s not the simple presence of the compound or element of concern, but rather the possibility of its causing an adverse effect. It makes more sense to discuss contaminants in terms of their potential for toxicity, leaving out those where toxicity is only a minor concern or is a concern only at levels higher than usually encountered.

487, rue Principale, Ste-Dorothée, Laval Qc (Canada) H7X 1C4Tel: 450•689•1962 Fax: 450•689•2527

240 MacDonald Blvd. Alexandria, On (Canada) K0C 1A0Tel: 613•525•1627 Fax: 613•525•4385

The Canadian Leader in the Manufacturingand Design of Environmental Equipment

Laurin VC2350 2/6/03 10:09 AM Page 1

swr feb-mar 09 Landfill pg 34-35.indd 34 11/11/10 9:30 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 35

Bio-accumulation is a major consideration for this suggested tiered approach. The form of the compound is a major consideration, and in the soil environment, most chemicals are not freely available. Bio-avail-ability depends on several site-specific factors. For example, metals are typically most reactive in free ionic form, but the presence of free ions is usually controlled by the pH of the system, Most metals are only avail-able at a pH below that of most soils, which is generally pH 6 to 8.

The SSRA approach being proposed has already been honed through a similar process for brownfields redevelopment, basing decisions on the actual effects of the contaminants. It would likely be most applic-able on large sites, and where the degree of “contamination” is low, as these would likely provide the best return on the money invested in the additional testing and evaluation. These assessments might be best done through a phased approach that focuses initially on compounds of con-

cern and how they are distributed, to see if a risk assessment approach is warranted.

The SSRA approach would address the issue of toxicity, and deter-mine the level of risk, recommending appropriate disposal. It would be based on testing to determine the level of effects, which in turn would be determined partly on the bio-availability of the compound. In place of the restrictive and rather arbitrary definition of “contamination” an SSRA approach would weigh all the risks, costs and opportunities in support of decisions favouring the best possible outcome.

Rein Jaagumagi is a Senior Environmental Specialist with Golder Associates in Mississauga, Ontario. Contact Rein at rjaagumagi@golder.com@ARTICLECATEGORY:790;

groundworks/MC7564/SWR 12/5/08 10:23 AM Page 1

Stormwater management pond under construction at a retail development in Belleville, Ontario and soil removed form construction sites

are major sources of excess fill.

swr feb-mar 09 Landfill pg 34-35.indd 35 11/11/10 9:31 AM

36 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

C O L L E C T I O N

A Sure CloseOttawa awards kitchen foodscrap collection container to new design

The City of Ottawa recently awarded its RFP for 240,000 Kitchen Foodscrap Col-lection Containers (KFCC) to a new design by DW Design and manufactured by Ottawa Mould Craft, both of Ottawa, Ontario.

The “Sure-Close” (Patent Pending) incorporates numerous design features, the result of primary research into the use of KFCCs by nearly 100 residents, as well as secondary research, which included a careful analysis of the survey of KFCC use conducted by Stop Waste, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority which co-ordinates waste di-version in that California county of 1.5 million.

The Sure-Close gets its name from its double-seal technology, one of which is an interlocking seal and a superior lid clasp that ensures house- and fruit flies stay outside the container. With the interlocking seal, a channel in the lid of the container brings the lid into perfect alignment with the top rim on the body of the container, ensuring the lid clasp always closes properly, thus ensuring a proper seal. Secondly, there is a bore-type seal, whereby a flexible rib in the lid presses against the inside bore of the body of the container.

Other unique features include: moulded-in stop points which act to hold the lid open at 90 degrees, multiple grip areas, letterbox shape and quick release lid — all of which ensure that the container is easy to use, carry, empty and clean. This makes it easy to integrate into the daily lives of residents.

The photos include a side shot of the Sure-Close with the lid at 90 degrees and another that shows both the grip area on the bottom of the Sure-Close as well as the grip area on the back of the lid. The letterbox shape helps facilitate foodscrap material deposited into the container being more likely to contact the back of the container rather the hinge and lid area. The trapzoidal shape also helps to facilaite plate scraping. The “under the lip grip” makes it particularly convenient when moving the container from one location to another (for example to and from under the sink and onto the kitchen counter).

The Sure-Close is available in two styles with a solid lid and with ventilated lid (shown). The integral venting and innovative interior fluting ensure that the foodscraps will remain aerated and odour free. Furthermore, the integrated venting system in means residents have no filters to replace. But a solid lid is also available. Not to be overlooked are the environmental features, as the Sure-Close contains the highest possible amount of recycled material and is itself fully recyclable. Finally, tested to CSA 1010 safety stan-dards, which involves loading of 13.2 kgs or 29 lbs., ensures container longevity.

Rod Muir is Waste Diversion Campaigner for Sierra Club Canada and founder of Waste Diversion Toronto in Toronto, Ontario. To learn more about Sure-Close, contact Rod at rodmuir@sympatico.ca@ARTICLECATEGORY:784;

“The integral venting and innovative interior fluting

ensure that the foodscraps will remain aerated and

odour free.”

by Rod Muir

The Sure-Close is available in two styles with a solid lid and with ventilated lid (shown).

swr feb-mar 09 Collect pg 36.indd 36 11/11/10 9:31 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 37

Waste interactive health and safety CDsWith workplace accidents in the waste management industry around five times the national average, a new initiative has been an-nounced to reduce accidents and save lives. Energy & Utility Skills (EU Skills) and Veolia Environmental Services have joined forces to design the latest module of a free training program featuring Streetsafe Sam to equip employees with better health and safety know-how.

Streetsafe Sam is a series of interactive CDs that aim to raise awareness of health and safety practices in the waste management industry. Developed in partnership with Veolia Environmental Services, Module 3 — Commercial & Industrial Dry Waste Collection,

P R O D U C T S

METRO redefines the word ‘waste’

METRO Waste Paper Recovery Inc. is Canada’s largest collector, processor and marketer of recyclable materials.

Serving Industrial, Commercial, Municipal and Graphics markets across Canada and the US for over 30 years.

Toronto Office: (416) 231.2525 • Toll Free: 1.877.226.6608www.metrowaste.com

• Byfocusingontherecoveryofrecyclablematerialsbeforereachingthewastestream

• Maximizingthevalueoftherecyclablematerials• Identifyingefficiencies• Developingnewmarketsfornewmaterials

Together,wecanredefinetheword‘waste’andbecomeGreen…by Nature.

Who’s standingup for YourBusiness?

Ontario Waste Management AssociationOntario Waste Management Association

If you own or manage aprivate sector wastemanagement companyinvolved in any facet ofsolid or hazardous wastemanagement – let us standup for you …join OWMAtoday!

OWMA has a primarymission to support a strongand viable waste serviceindustry and to ensure thatOWMA member companiesare recognized as industryleaders.

If you own or manage aprivate sector wastemanagement companyinvolved in any facet ofsolid or hazardous wastemanagement – let us standup for you …join OWMAtoday!

OWMA has a primarymission to support a strongand viable waste serviceindustry and to ensure thatOWMA member companiesare recognized as industryleaders.

Contact: Michele Goulding(905) 791-9500 www.owma.org

OWMA AD 6/5/07 7:33 AM Page 1

follows the incredible success of the first two CDs which looked at domestic waste collec-

tion and civic amenity sites. All three mod-ules are designed to complement existing

in-house training and are now ready for industry use.

Streetsafe Sam is based on a “day in the life” of a waste management operative and includes exercises on

hazard spotting, waste sorting, manual handling and dealing with the public. At the end of

the program, a certificate is awarded and a report indi-cates any areas for improve-ment. The first two mod-ules have been developed

by Energy & Utility Skills in partnership with industry employ-ers and the Environmental Services Association.

To obtain a free copy, email streetsafesam@euskills.co.uk or visit www.euskills.co.uk

Lil-Fella container delivery unitSims Cab Depot has solved the problem of how to safely and efficiently transport front-end load waste containers to the customers’ site and remove them when the project or contract is complete. The product is called Lil-Fella not only for its compact size; it also complements the operation of the larger front-end packer. Traditional container delivery units (CDUs) simply lift the container off the ground then rotate it about 45 degrees. That design presents several problems: poor weight distribution,

swr feb-mar 09 W&RP pg 37-38.indd 37 11/11/10 9:32 AM

38 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

P R O D U C T S

obstruction of rear lights on the truck, poor steering response.

Lil-Fella overcomes these problems with its double pivot arm. The patented design will lift an empty or loaded waste container up to 6,000 lbs and position it in such a way that the weight is reasonably distributed between the front and rear axles of the truck chassis. With this improved weight distribution, a smaller GVWR truck chassis can be used thereby re-ducing initial cost. The smaller chassis also makes the CDU more maneuverable in tight quarters. The operator performs the load and off load operation within the comfort and safety of the truck cab. The controls are pneu-matic joystick. No special commercial driver’s license is required.

As haulers know, narrow alleys, low wires and tight corners can make accessing some containers almost impossible. Lil Fella makes a perfect companion unit to the large front-end truck. The unit can retrieve inaccessible front-end containers, deliver them to the packer for emptying and return them to the site.Visit www.lil-fella.com

Recycling cart tooling cuts costsRecycling cart manufacturer Meese Orbit-ron Dunne Co. of Ashtabula, Ohio, (www.recycleosaurus.com), has invested in multiple tools for its best-selling 50P-16 recycling col-lection cart and spread them across the con-tinent at its West Coast, Midwest and East Coast facilities. Permitting manufacturing to be performed as close to the customer’s facil-ity as possible, the triplicate tooling ensures the ever-present utility trucks are produced quickly and delivered at the lowest possible freight cost. Savings on a recycle cart deliv-ery to a Midwest public works department

tops 50 per cent by manufacturing the trucks in the company’s Madison, Ind. facility rather than in New Jersey or California, according to a review of freight rates conducted by the company.

“We’ve controlled our manufacturing costs and kept our pricing stable but in some cases, freight has increased on a per unit basis by 30 to 50 percent on top of declines in paper and scrap metal prices,” says Bob Dunne president of MOD. “We understand the pressure on the recycling companies and program coordin-ators and have committed to maintaining the affordability of our carts, trucks and containers to help keep recycling programs operating.”

The MOD multiple tooling program cov-ers the 50P-16 collection cart and several optional accessories as well as the 50P-16S Scrapasaurus, a clever variation fitted with fork tubes for secure lifting, rotating and dumping by forklift. Secure covers, locks, paper grade dividers and custom colours and graphics are among the custom selections and accessories available.Visit www.recycleosaurus.com@ARTICLECATEGORY:793;

swr feb-mar 09 W&RP pg 37-38.indd 38 11/11/10 9:32 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 39

“An owner who commits a fault may be held liable for damages, even if the damages don’t reach

the level of abnormal or excessive annoyances.”

by Rosalind CooperR E G U L A T I O N R O U N D U P

No-Fault LiabilitySupreme Court ruling holds implications for facilities

The Supreme Court of Canada released a decision near the end of last year in a case involving a class action commenced by neighbours surrounding a cement plant in Quebec. In doing so, the court con-

firmed the existence of a no-fault liability scheme in Quebec in respect of neighbourhood disturbances. The decision has created significant concern for companies whose operations are located in close proxim-ity to residential neighbourhoods. Previously, many of these companies may not have been concerned about exposure to potential liability be-cause they were in compliance with regulatory requirements. However, this ruling establishes that, if the annoyances suffered by neighbours are significant enough, the company’s legal compliance may be irrelevant to the imposition of significant damages in favour of those neighbours.

St. Lawrence Cement (SLC) constructed a cement plant in Quebec pursuant to a special statute passed by the Quebec Legislature in 1952 that authorized SLC to build the plant, which began operating in 1955. Shortly thereafter, neighbours around the plant began complaining about dust, odours and noise emissions from the plant. Quebec’s Ministry of the Environment made efforts to address the residents’ complaints.

In 1993, two of SLC’s neighbours filed a motion in the Quebec Su-perior Court for authorization on behalf of the residents to institute a class action based on the neighbourhood disturbances. The motion was granted in 1994 and the action was filed a few months later. The action alleged that the neighbourhood disturbances caused by the cement plant were abnormal and excessive.

Quebec court decisionsThe Superior Court held that SLC was liable to the residents because the annoyances suffered by the members of the class action were exces-sive. Although the court acknowledged SLC’s efforts to comply with applicable standards in the operation of the cement plant, the emissions nevertheless constituted abnormal annoyances.

In the trial decision, the court did not find that SLC was at fault, but rather that the Civil Code of Quebec contained a provision that allowed damages to be awarded even in circumstances where there was no fault. In terms of damages, the court held that the evidence showed there was a common injury, but that it varied in intensity from zone to zone and from

Your cart service challenges are complex; our people can simplify the process.Today’s roll-out cart programs not only require durable carts with proven warranties, but efficientand economical cart services as well. Our community-focused programs include a choice of servicesfor the life of the cart. Whether it’s utilizing our experienced in-house assembly and distribution

team, contracting our cart maintenance services, or implementing your RFID asset tracking program, Rehrig Pacific wants to be your comprehensive

solutions partner. Call us today at (800) 826-9453 to learn more.

PARTNERSHIP

A FA M I LY T R A D I T I O N O F G R O W T H , S E R V I C E , A N D I N N O V A T I O N

Email: cartservice@rehrigpacific.com • Phone: (800) 826-9453 www.rehrigpacific.com

27109 ENV Capabilities SW&R FEB 10/16/07 2:26 PM Page 1

swr feb-mar 09 RegRdup pg 39-40.indd 39 11/11/10 9:33 AM

40 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

Safety is our

#1 Priority

REMEDIATION SERVICEMicroenfractionatorTM

Twister Buckets

• Lease Site Construction• Bio-Cell & Pond Construction• Composting Services

• Demolition• Contaminated Soil Treatment• Soil Hauling Services

1-800-801-3740 • Acadia Valley, AB • www.iwkuhn.ab.ca

3R’sRECLAMATIONLease Site & Pipeline

RESTORATIONOil, Gas & Mining

ENVIRONMENTAL LTD.“Solutions for all your equipment needs.”

IW_Kuhn_sum_fall04.indd 1 3/16/05 4:12:25 PM

IW_Kuhn_WinSpr06.pdf 1IW_Kuhn_WinSpr06.pdf 1 8/19/06 7:16:33 PM8/19/06 7:16:33 PM

R E G U L A T I O N R O U N D U P

year to year. As such, the court awarded dam-ages that varied depending on distance from the cement plant.

SLC appealed the decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeal, which rejected the theory of no-fault liability in respect of neighbourhood disturbances. The Court of Appeal nevertheless found SLC liable on the basis of proven fault. The court came to this conclusion based on SLC’s failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. The Court of Appeal also reduced the amount of the damages awarded by the lower court.

Supreme Court of Canada appealSLC appealed the Court of Appeal’s decision that SLC was liable on the basis of fault and, also, in respect of the method adopted by the Court of Appeal for determining the quantum of damages. The representative plaintiffs in the class action cross-appealed, seeking recogni-tion of a no-fault liability scheme applicable to excessive neighbourhood annoyances.

The plaintiffs also sought to restore the trial court’s findings on the appropriate quan-tum of damages.

In its decision, the Supreme Court of Can-ada dismissed the principal appeal by SLC and allowed the cross appeal by the representative plaintiffs. The court recognized two separate regimes of civil liability in respect of neigh-bourhood disturbances under Quebec law. The first regime is based on the wrongful conduct of the entity that causes the disturbances. The second regime is based on a no-fault liability scheme related to the annoyances suffered.

The court held that, in the case of fault-based liability, a fault may relate either to the abusive exercise of a right of ownership, or to violation of standards of conduct found in regulatory provisions related to the use of property. In the case of fault-based liability, an owner who commits a fault may be held li-able for damages, even if the damages do not reach the level of abnormal or excessive an-noyances.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that, in addition to the general rules applicable to fault-based civil liability, a scheme of no-fault liability had to be recognized in respect of neighbourhood annoyances under Article 976 of the Civil Code of Quebec. In a no-fault re-

gime, conduct is not a relevant factor. Liability is based on the annoyances caused to the vic-tim rather than the conduct of the person who caused them. In other words, Article 976 does not require evidence of wrongful conduct to establish liability of an owner who has caused excessive neighbourhood annoyances. On this basis, SLC was ordered to pay millions of dol-lars in damages to its former neighbours, for-mer because SLC actually stopped operating the plant in 1997.

Of significance to other common law juris-dictions across Canada is the Supreme Court’s acknowledgement that a scheme of civil lia-bility based on the existence of abnormal neighbourhood disturbances, and that does not require fault, is consistent with the approaches taken in Canadian common law provinces.

Rosalind Cooper, LL.B., is a partner with Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, with offices across Canada. Ms. Cooper is based in Toronto, Ontario. Contact Rosalind at rcooper@tor.fasken.com@ARTICLECATEGORY:800;

swr feb-mar 09 RegRdup pg 39-40.indd 40 11/11/10 9:33 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 41

“The forum ended on a positive note, describing EPR programs that have

been implemented successfully.”

by Catherine LeightonE V E N T R E P O R T

Wealth without Waste forumOn February 2-3, 2009 a group of 150 waste management stake-

holders convened in Toronto to discuss the future of Ontario’s waste management policy, at a two-day Wealth Without Waste

forum. The forum was lead by a partnership between the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) and Corporate Policy Group with funding support from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Other partners included the University of Toronto Departments of Economics’ Faculty of Law and the Centre for the Environment, Blakes Lawyers, the On-tario Waste Management Association (OWMA), Nestle Purelife and Solid Waste & Recycling magazine.

The timing of the forum appropriately coincided with the review of the Waste Diversion Act (WDA) and the comment period for John Gerretsen’s Toward a Zero Waste Future: Review of Ontario’s Waste Diversion Act, 2002 Discussion Paper for Public Consultation that ends on April 1, 2009. The forum examined and discussed Gerretsen’s WDA proposal to achieve zero waste. Before the forum, extended producer responsibility (EPR) was identified as a key mechanism to achieve this goal. EPR ensures that producers take responsibility for the final dis-posal of their wastes.

The two-day forum was held at Hart House at the University of Toronto’s St. George Campus. The first day provided a theoretical ex-planation of EPR as a policy mechanism and provided the Canadian context for examining these issues. The second day examined EPR from a European perspective; speakers discussed the successes and failures of their country’s experiences with EPR, and made recommendations for Ontario. The forum concluded by discussing successful North American EPR case studies. The forum was presentation-based, with a question answer period for each speaker. It was not designed to allow for much back and forth debate and discussion among all participants, which oc-curred during breaks.

Dr. Dewees, a professor at the University of Toronto, emphasized how economic policy instruments can influence environmentally-friendly practices. He suggested that if producers are responsible for the entire costs associated with their products’ impact on the environment (on a make and model basis) this will provide producers with incentives to lower disposal costs and environmental harm.

A large proportion of the forum compared EPR systems that man-age waste collectively with those that manage waste individually (by each producer). It’s clear that there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems, both of which have been implemented in Europe. Joa-chim Quoden, General Manager of the Packaging Recovery Organiza-tion Europe, explained that Germany’s experience with a competitive individual EPR system has not been successful and diversion rates have decreased from when Germany used a collective EPR system. However, Dr. Chris van Rossem, professor at Lund University, cautioned that a non-competitive collective EPR system would disadvantage industries that want to develop their own innovative waste diversion methods.

A number of other issues were raised at the forum. Navin Joneja, a lawyer at Blakes, and Chris Busuttil, Director of Advocacy Coordina-tion at the Competition Bureau of Canada, both raised the issue that a collective EPR system could conflict with section 45 of The Compe-tition Act. There seemed to be consensus that a revised WDA should carefully address freeloading, historically-produced products and or-phan products. In addition, there was discussion about who should be responsible for performing the waste collection services — industry or municipalities?

The forum was open to the public; there was a registration fee of $250 dollars for RCO members and $300 dollars for non-members. Participants included municipal, provincial, and federal government officials, non-governmental organizations, community groups, interest

The forum discussed how EPR could be implemented successfully in Ontario; other systems that could promote zero waste were not examined.

Pascal Leroy, WEEE Forum, said that, “By bringing together all major WEEE collection and recovery organizations in Europe, by developing benchmarking tools and by com-paring like with like, the WEEE Forum contributes to a more efficient market.”

swr feb-mar 09 Event pg 41-42.indd 41 11/11/10 9:34 AM

42 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

Baycon Environmental offers personalized, responsiveservice, budget sensitive project solutions and years ofinvaluable project management experience.

www.Baycon.caTelephone: 416.405.8880 • Fax: 416.405.8830

BAYCON ENVIRONMENTALCONSULTING

• Site Remediation• Site Services & Site Clearing• Mold Abatement• Asbestos Abatement

• Disposal Service• Demolition• Licensed under M.O.E.E• Licensed under T.S.S.A

Baycon/AB1334/SWR 10/15/08 12:03 PM Page 1

Continuous Clean Energy Power Plant

Greey EnWasteunit of Greey CTS Inc.

David Greey, P.Eng

EMail:greey.enwaste@rogers.com

416-595-0535

GREEYENWASTE/MC7562/SWR.indd 1 12/2/08 9:32:53 AM

Ph: 613-538-2776 www.laflecheenvironmental.com

Reduce - Reuse - ReplenishReduce - Reuse - ReplenishPutting waste to work!

BIO REACTOR AD 8/2/06 3:25 PM Page 1

The forum ended on a positive note, de-scribing EPR programs that have been imple-mented successfully. Jeff West, Director of Environmental Affairs for Shaw Industries, described his company’s cradle-to-cradle flooring program that recycles and reuses old flooring. Jo-Anne St. Godard, Executive Direc-tor of RCO, discussed the success of the Take Back the Light program, a system that recycles florescent lamps. These programs developed innovative systems to take back products, and represent private-sector-driven EPR. Hopefully, all jurisdictions in Canada will learn from these programs and those implemented in Europe, to develop a effective EPR in this country.

Catherine Leighton is doing her Masters in Environmental and Resource Studies at the University of Waterloo and recently received the SWANA Cliff Chan Memorial Scholarship. Contact Catherine at c2leight@envmail.uwaterloo.ca@ARTICLECATEGORY:796;

Joachim Quoden, from the Packaging Recovery Organiz-ation, explained that Germany’s experience suggests that a competitive individual EPR system had not been suc-cessful for Germany and diversion rates have decreased from when Germany used a collective EPR system.

Professor Michael Trebilcock, Law and Economics Profes-sor at the University of Toronto, providing the final words of the conference.

groups, and representation from various in-dustry sectors. The majority of the participants were Canadian; international representation included the United States, the United King-

dom, Belgium, Germany, and Sweden. The remarkable diversity of stakeholders promoted interesting and controversial responses to the speakers’ presentations.

E V E N T R E P O R T

swr feb-mar 09 Event pg 41-42.indd 42 11/11/10 9:34 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 43

Project1 11/13/06 10:28 AM Page 1

N E W S

SWANA applied research reports The Solid Waste Association of North Amer-ica’s (SWANA) Applied Research Foundation (ARF) recently released five new research re-ports from 2008:• Curbside Collection of Residential Food Waste • Benchmarking of Solid Waste Collection

Services: FY 2008 • Waste-to-Energy and the Solid Waste Man-

agement Hierarchy• Benchmarking the Performance and Costs of

MSW Landfills• Long Term Environmental Risks of Subtitle

D Landfills“The publication of these timely reports is made possible by the support and involvement of the 34 member organizations of the SWANA Applied Research Foundation. The solid waste managers who represent these organizations are experienced, knowledgeable and vision-ary leaders who identified the research topics, guided the research and reviewed these re-ports prior to their publication,” said Jeremy O’Brien, P.E., Director of Applied Research.

Four of the five reports are currently avail-able for purchase at www.SWANAstore.com. The research memorandum on the Curbside Collection of Residential Food Waste is avail-able free of charge to SWANA members at www.swana.org

Ontario MHSW program introducedStewardship Ontario, the industry organiza-tion responsible for the Blue Box program and the Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste (MHSW) program, is making it easier for On-tarians to recycle old batteries, paint, solvents and other “household hazardous waste” with a new initiative under the MHSW program called Do What You Can.

The MHSW program aims to more than double the amount of hazardous or special waste diverted from landfill over the next five years. Materials targeted under the program include paint, solvents, non-rechargeable bat-teries, antifreeze, propane cylinders and other items commonly found in Ontario homes but which need special care when there are left-overs and used containers.

Do What You Can encourages residents to take household hazardous waste and other special care items and their containers to one of a growing network of special collection locations. Well known retail building supply stores, RONA and The Home Depot, are now registered with Stewardship Ontario to collect paint and The Home Depot also will collect used single-use (non-rechargeable) batteries. Other retail partners include the Jiffy Lube auto centres which, starting today, are accept-

ing used oil filters, empty auto oil bottles, and antifreeze and containers from do-it-yourself-ers who change the oil and antifreeze in their own vehicles. Pro Oil Change is piloting the program in two London locations.Visit www.dowhatyoucan.ca

Clean technology companies reportOCETA and The Russell-Mitchell Group, in collaboration with Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) and the Ontario government, have announced the upcoming re-lease of a groundbreaking report on Ontario’s

clean technology industry. The report, entitled The 2009 OCETA SDTC Cleantech Growth & Go-to-Market Report analyzes Ontario’s clean technology industry, and identifies best practices to help clean technology companies improve their go-to-market strategies.

SDTC is the Title Sponsor for report. Vicky Sharpe, President and CEO of SDTC states, “The success of Canada’s present and future clean technology companies depends in large part on our ability to build robust man-agement capacity to leverage the value of our world-class technologies. We believe that this

swr feb-mar 09 News pg 43-44.indd 43 11/11/10 9:34 AM

44 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

Bizcard ad HMMsept08gm1264 Cunningham.qxd 9/12/08 3:57 PM Page 1

N E W S

report will play an important role in highlight-ing the necessary elements that lead to world-class go-to-market execution.”

The report presents the findings of an extensive study undertaken in the autumn of 2008, where over 60 leading clean technology companies were surveyed, and 32 CEOs were interviewed about their strategies for growth and their companies’ commercialization ca-pabilities.Visit www.cleantechnologyreport.ca

Cosun and Avantium announce collaborationRoyal Cosun and Avantium have announced the start of their collaboration. The companies join forces to develop a specific process for the production of a new generation of bioplas-tics and biofuels from selected organic waste streams. Avantium is developing these bio-plastics and biofuels under the name ‘Furan-ics’.

Within the collaboration, Cosun will focus on the selection, isolation and purification of suitable components from agricultural waste streams. Avantium will continue to focus on the development of an efficient, chemically catalyzed production process. The duration of the first phase of the collaboration will be ap-proximately two years. With positive results, the companies intend to scale-up the produc-tion technology and implement it on commer-cial scale.Visit www.avantium.com

Yukon recycling centre gets fundingThe Yukon government is hoping to pick up where global commodity prices have dropped off. It will provide up to $23,000 a month to help Raven Recycling, the territory’s recycling centre and society, meet operational costs. The centre used to be able to cover its expenses by selling recycled materials like milk jugs and plastic containers to processors in southern Canada. Now, there is no market for the prod-ucts. The government plans to assist the centre for January, February and March of 2009, giv-ing the board time to develop a new business plan for the 2009-2010 fiscal year.

The government will work with the board and the City of Whitehorse towards a long-term solution in the coming months. The city will use the Diversion Credit Fund to provide $3,000 a month to the centre. It will also con-tribute $22,000 from the Environmental Grant Fund for a new electric forklift that is expected to help reduce monthly costs.This news item first appeared in our affiliate news service EcoLog.com For more news items like this, subscribe to EcoLog.com

⇒ Operations⇒ Strategic Planning ⇒ Procurement ⇒ Project Management

⇒ RFP & Bid Evaluations ⇒ Cost Control ⇒ Maintenance Programs ⇒ Design & Layout

CONSULTANT

HMI Management Solutions2460 Concession 6, Greenwood, ON L0H 1H0 Tel: 416-388-1133 email: bobmarshall@rogers.com

Helping Manage Industry

For more information, contact: James AyresCertified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a Specialist in Municipal and Environmental Law

416 869 5967 or jayres@casselsbrock.com

Leaders in Municipal, Planning & Environmental Law

www.casselsbrock.com

CASSELS BROCK/MC7575/HMM.indd 1 1/22/09 11:30:21 AM

swr feb-mar 09 News pg 43-44.indd 44 11/11/10 9:34 AM

February/March 2009 www.solidwastemag.com 45

Advertisers’ Index February/March 2009

Company Page # Company Page #

ADL Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

AET Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

AMRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Battery Broker Environmental Services Inc . The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Baycon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Borden Ladner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

BMW Conveyors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Bulk Handling Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Carrier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Cassels Brock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Continental Biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Cunningham Gillespie LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

EMF Containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Environmental Business Consultants (J . Nicholson) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Eriez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Fast Pace Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Greey EnWaste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Groundworx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

HexArmor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

HMI Mgmt Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

I .W . Kuhn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Labrie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Lafleche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Laurin Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Mack Truck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Metro Waste Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Molok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Norseman Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

OWMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Paradigm Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Paul Van der Werf (2CG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Protainer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Rehrig Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Rotobec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Samuel Strapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Schuyler Rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Sebright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Sims Cab Depot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Softpak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

SDTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Trux Route Management Systems Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Van Dyk Baler Corp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Voghel EnviroQuip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Vulcan on Board Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Walinga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Waste Expo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

FREE Brochure

& DVDWatch it operate!

Online at

www.eriez.com

Take the AIR out of your metal sorting,Call 888-300-3743or visit www.eriez.com

THE AIRLESS METAL RECOVERY SYSTEMIdeal for the scrap metals market, the patent-pending ProSort airless metal recovery system uses high sensitivity metal sensors aligned with low energy electro-magnetically drivenpaddles to separate valuable metals from waste material.

®

ProSort_SolidWaste10_07.qxd 9/25/07 11:02 AM Page 1

swr feb-mar 09 Ad idx pg 45.indd 45 11/11/10 9:35 AM

46 www.solidwastemag.com February/March 2009

“Diversion only manages waste after it has been

produced, thus using reactionary management

techniques.”

by Catherine LeightonB L O G

Defining Waste Minimization

A new year and a time for new ideas, resolutions, and a time of reflection — it’s certainly an exciting time in Ontario with re-spect to waste management policy. The Waste Diversion Act is

currently under review. (See Cover Story and related sidebars in the De-cember/January edition.). Perhaps not only the focus, but also the title of the act should be changed. Let’s consider the Waste Minimization Act. The use of the term “diversion” has contributed to an overemphasis on recycling while waste reduction (the intent of the ministry’s current review) has been ignored.

Ontario municipalities failed to achieve the 60 per cent diversion target set out in the 2004 discussion paper “Ontario’s 60 per cent Waste Diversion Goal.” The goal was supposed to be accomplished by the end of 2008. The most recent prov-incial statistics, gathered by Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) in 2007 for its annual report, reveal that the average Ontario municipality diverted only 39.2 per cent of its waste.

This rate is 20 per cent below the 60 per cent diversion target, and indicates that further action is required. Simply pressing people to recycle more is not enough; some kind of wall has been hit. Between January and December of 2006, the diversion rate rose by 1.4 per cent. It is unlikely that di-version rate will rise by the re-quired 20 per cent without the introduction of multiple new initiatives across the province.

In October 2008, with the re-lease of John Gerretsen’s discus-sion paper Toward a Zero Waste Future: Review of Ontario’s Waste Diversion Act, 2002, much-needed action may be pos-sible. Gerretsen’s report re-evaluates the Waste Diversion Act and sug-gests bolder remedies than many observers had anticipated. Compared with the 2004 discussion paper and the Waste Diversion Act, Gerretsen’s paper is the only report that emphasizes the waste management hier-archy: reduce, reuse and finally recycle.

Historically, no Ontario legislation has emphasized waste reduction over recycling. WDO’s annual provincial reports on waste diversion de-tail the amount of waste recycled and reused in each municipality; these reports don’t even address reduction. The new waste act should reflect the hierarchy and waste minimization.

DefinitionsThe Oxford English Dictionary defines “waste” as “material or manufactured articles so damaged as to be useless or unsalable.” The OED defines “diversion” as “the turning aside (of anything) from its due or ordinary course or direction.”

If one puts these two terms together, “waste diversion” refers to altering the current path of a useless material or product, so that it does not go to dis-posal. This accurately describes waste recycling. Recycling uses products that are no longer useful (for example, an empty plastic water bottles), and alters their path to the landfill by making a new product. Whereas, waste re-duction prevents waste from being created in the first place; thus there’s no

waste to divert. Consequently, waste reduc-tion is not a subcategory of waste diversion.

The OED defines minimization as “the action or process of minimizing something.”

Waste minimization refers to the process of minimizing useless materials or prod-ucts. Waste reduction, reuse and recyc-ling all fall under this description. For

example, if one reduces packaging, one minimizes potential waste. If one uses a refillable bottle, one is reusing

a product and minimizing waste. If one recycles a disposable plastic water bottle,

again one is recycling and thus minimiz-ing the amoung of waste entering a land-fill or other disposal system.

Waste minimization, therefore, is an inclusive term that represents

the entire hierarchy. As waste mini-mization includes waste reduction, it takes a proactive stance to waste management.

Comparatively, waste diversion only man-ages waste after it has been produced, thus using reactionary manage-ment techniques.

The Waste Diversion Act should be renamed the Waste Minimization Act. Minimization would best represent the entire waste hierarchy: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. If the term waste diversion is not changed, it will likely con-tinue to contribute to an overemphasis on recycling and ignore reduction.

Catherine Leighton is doing her Masters in Environmental and Resource Studies at the University of Waterloo and recently received the SWANA Cliff Chan Memorial Scholarship. Contact Catherine at c2leight@envmail.uwaterloo.ca@ARTICLECATEGORY:2243;

swr feb-mar 09 Blog pg 46.indd 46 11/11/10 9:36 AM

STOP AND GO – ON YOUR OWN TERMS

Never having to stop to clean your Diesel Particulate Filter is the competitive advantage you get with the new Mack® TerraPro™ Cabover.

Our solution automatically initiates thermal regeneration while you work, cleaning the soot that collects in the DPF. This saves you time and

money, and improves the efficiency of your workforce. And with its powerful, fuel-efficient MP7 engine – it’s clear the TerraPro is engineered

to keep you moving forward.

MACKTRUCKS.COM©2008 Mack Trucks, Inc. All rights reserved.

MCKTRK_4599_TProMRPg_SWR.indd 1 10/13/08 10:50:24 AM

swr feb-mar 09 pg 47 AD.indd 47 11/11/10 9:37 AM

October 28 - 29, 2009 Vancouver Convention & Exhibition CentreVancouver, BC Canada

Canada’s ONLY tradeshow serving the waste, recycling and public works markets

www.cwre.ca

For more detailsArnie Gess, Show ManagerCall: 403.638.4410 Toll-free 877.534.7285Email: arnie.gess@cwre.ca

Fresh Ideas. InnOvatIve sOlutIOns.

Reserve Your Exhibit Space Today!

swr feb-mar 09 pg 48 AD.indd 48 11/11/10 9:37 AM