1 / 39

County of Simcoe, Waste Management Strategy Special Meeting of County Council

County of Simcoe, Waste Management Strategy Special Meeting of County Council Solid Waste Management Strategy Draft Report. Date: June 29, 2010. Development of the Strategy. About the Strategy. Purpose: To provide direction for the County’s waste management system.

kamin
Download Presentation

County of Simcoe, Waste Management Strategy Special Meeting of County Council

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. County of Simcoe, Waste Management Strategy Special Meeting of County Council Solid Waste Management Strategy Draft Report Date: June 29, 2010

  2. Development of the Strategy

  3. About the Strategy • Purpose: • To provide direction for the County’s waste management system. • To make progress towards zero waste. • To address processing disposal needs for the next twenty years. • Results: • The selection of a long-term waste management system. • A recommended approach to implement the system.

  4. About the Strategy Continued • The Strategy is intended to: • Identify programs and approaches to improve diversion. • Determine if the County should build recycling or composting facilities or ship materials to an outside processor. • Select the best approach to collect and transfer waste to support the waste system. • Address garbage disposal (and/or processing) requirements and approaches for the short and long-term. • The Strategy was not intended to identify specific processing or disposal technologies.

  5. Problem Statement • Lack of secure, cost effective long-term processing capacity for recyclables and organics. • Need to improve effectiveness and efficiency of current diversion programs. • Need for additional strategies to incrementally improve diversion. • Need to maximize use of existing disposal capacity. • Lack of disposal capacity over the long-term.

  6. Guiding Principles Used in the Strategy • General principles of Zero Waste. • Principles for waste management planning (Provincial Policy Statement June 2007). • Triple bottom line/sustainable approach. • Waste management hierarchy.

  7. Current Solid Waste System • Three active landfills for regular garbage • One landfill for inert materials • Four transfer stations / depots • Enhanced blue box program • Drop-off depots • One small Material Recovery Facility • Most recyclables processed outside of County • Green bin organics program • Organic material processed outside of County • Progressive waste policies (one-bag limit) for garbage • Household Hazardous Waste and Waste Electronics Services • Diversion of various materials at depots Achieving diversion success, one of ‘best’ Ontario municipalities

  8. Current Solid Waste System • Curbside Collection: • Garbage, weekly collection, one bag limit. • Blue Box recycling, weekly collection, containers and fibres. • Kitchen Organics, weekly collection, co-collected with garbage. • Leaf and Yard Waste, in some municipalities. • Bulky Waste, in some municipalities. • Scrap Metal, in some municipalities. • Brush / Christmas Trees, in some municipalities.

  9. Current Performance (2009) • Approximately 115,000 tonnes of residential waste handled by the County. • Majority of residential waste handled by County programs with some materials diverted through on property management such as backyard composting, grasscycling, etc. (approximately 7,000 tonnes) • Simcoe managed approximately 12,000 tonnes of IC&I waste through curbside collection and drop-off depots.

  10. Current Performance (2009) Continued • Residential waste generation rate (County System) = 392 kg/person/year. • Residential diversion rate (County System) = 55%. • Residential diversion rate (County plus other programs) = 57%. • Overall County diversion rate for residential and IC&I waste = 52%.

  11. Waste Projections: Status Quo Estimated Tonnes of Waste Diverted and Disposed (2011-2030)

  12. Recommended SWMS The priority: movement of materials generated by residents and the IC&I sector that participate in County programs, through the diversion components of the system.

  13. Recommended SWMS: Diversion • Enhance reduction and re-use programs. • Per capita waste reduction target. • Re-use centres and programs. • Green procurement strategy. • Extended Producer Responsibility and waste minimization. • Enhance waste diversion. • Restrict curbside garbage collection. • Increase recycling container capacity. • Enhance promotion and education. • Public open space recycling. • Special events recycling. • Diversion of IC&I materials (e.g., schools, hospitals, long-term care facilities, etc.). • Mandatory diversion by-law.

  14. Recommended SWMS: Recycling • Processing of up to 50,000 tonnes per year. Long-Term Short-Term • Process recyclables within the County. • Develop a new Material Recovery Facility. • Potential for economies of scale (Barrie and Orillia). • More flexible approach. • Process recyclables outside the County. • Upgrade transfer capabilities. • Flexible option should changes to regulations remove responsibility for managing recyclables from municipalities. • Only option for short-term. • Potential for significant changes to Blue Box recycling based on the proposed changes to the Waste Diversion Act. • Decision to build a new MRF should be made in 2012/2013 when the proposed changes are known.

  15. Recommended SWMS: Organics • Processing of up to 25,000 tonnes per year of household organics. • Potential to add materials to the green bin, which could add approximately 4% to the diversion rate. • Export and secure processing capacity outside the County • Additional capacity may not available if diversion increases occur in the County. • Additional haulage of material. • Less control. Long-Term Short-Term • Develop processing capacity within the County • Development of a new processing facility. • Could reduce transfer/haul costs. • Potential for partnering with Barrie and Orillia. • More flexible approach.

  16. Recommended SWMS: Collection

  17. Recommended SWMS: Transfer • Existing Transfer Capabilities: • Use 40 yd3 bins to haul organics from the three landfills to the City of Hamilton. • Majority of other divertible materials are collected / transferred by private sector contractors. • Recommended Transfer (at least in the short-term): • Continue current transfer approach for organics; • Develop transfer capacity for recyclables; and, • Develop transfer capacity for garbage.

  18. Recommended SWMS: Short-term Garbage Disposal • Modifications to current operating landfills: • Already remediated and effective practices are in place to conserve landfill capacity. • May be some additional measures to enhance operations. • Use of garbage disposal facilities outside the County. • Includes municipal and/or private sector landfills. • Potential to export to existing Energy-from-Waste (incinerator) or other processing facilities

  19. Recommended SWMS: Long-term Garbage Disposal • Continue use of existing operating landfills (Sites 2, 10, 11, and 13). Examine potential for expansion of Sites 10 and 11. • Secure approval of Design and Operations plans for Sites 9 and 12. • Continue to export to facilities outside the County, preferably to processing facilities. • Consider partnerships to implement garbage processing.

  20. Projected SWMS Diversion Performance • A reasonable diversion rate target = 71% by 2020. • A maximum diversion rate = 77% by 2030. Recommended SWMS: Estimated Tonnes of Waste Diverted and Disposed (2011-2030)

  21. SWMS Cost Projections Financing Processing Landfill Capacity

  22. SWMS Cost Projections Continued • Implementation of the SWMS varies from $37/hhld less to $16/hhld more than Status Quo and $22/hhld less to $31/hhld more than Status Quo 2.

  23. Strategy Financing • Considerations regarding the general sources of financing used to recover costs include: • Bag tag revenues (varies based on option for curbside garbage restriction chosen, full user pay has advantages) • Tipping fee revenues (consider uniform tipping fee) • The Waste levy (consider change to uniform levy/unit served) • The County levy (cease to recover costs from County levy) • The waste management reserve (consider development of reserve for new infrastructure financing)

  24. Strategy Financing Continued • Tipping Fees: • Difficult to predict effect of change in minimum charge. • Removal of scrap metals fee reduces revenue by $100,000 or more. • Ban on disposal could generate fines but could also reduce revenues • Revenue reduction of $500,000/year (fee of $155 versus $115 per tonne). • Bag tags: • Fee for tags was not set to cover all waste management costs. • Assumed portion of net costs should continue to be recovered through the levy. • Full-user pay has advantages (lower additional costs, flexibility)

  25. Strategy Financing Continued • Waste Levy: • Recommend use waste levy not county levy • Change methodology, consider move to uniform levy. • Average levy over planning period for SWMS would range from $125 to $266 per unit. • Reserves: • Analyze options and need for reserves in 2011 when deciding on measures for curbside garbage restrictions • Annual contribution to reserves over the planning period equivalent to 10% of annual operating budget (Strategy V1) would increase the annual waste levy by an average of $38/hhld/year and generate $105 million. • Reserve financing for infrastructure has benefits, e.g. reduce cost per tonne for new MRF from $84 to $53/tonne

  26. Implementation Schedule 2010

  27. Overview of Implementation Considerations – Diversion Initiatives • Community-based social marketing approach. • Progressively more stringent restrictions on curbside garbage. • Necessary to increase diversion rates and reduce waste generation rates in the County.

  28. Overview of Implementation Considerations – Recycling • Separate the contractual arrangements for collection and processing. • A separate processing Request for Proposals (RFP) should be developed and issued. • In the short-term, continue to export recyclables. • If the County decides to develop a MRF in 2012/2013, it could be developed for 2017.

  29. Overview of Implementation Considerations – Organics • Composting technologies can support processing of additional tonnage if desired. • Assess the options of siting a composting facility. • Accommodate additional materials (e.g., pet waste and diapers). • If the County decides to proceed with a composting facility in 2012, it could be developed for 2017.

  30. Overview of Implementation Considerations – Collection • Evaluate change in container types with consideration to costs. • Sufficient time must be given for the development and award of a collection contract. • Ensure an adequate fleet size. • Promotion and education campaign for uniform level of collection service in 2012.

  31. Overview of Implementation Considerations – Transfer • Determine if there are suitable areas to develop Transtor units. • Complete procurement processes for recyclables processing and garbage export.

  32. Overview of Implementation Considerations – Garbage Disposal • Assess remaining capacity of current operating landfills. • Implement options to extend life of current operating landfills. • Issue RFQ/RFP seeking pricing and terms for short-term export of garbage outside County. • Review partnership options through a formal process (e.g., REOI). • Implementation of recommended long-term disposal options would generally be scheduled beyond Year 5.

  33. Monitoring and Plan Review • Monitor key system performance indicators, such as costs, recovery and residue rates; and, tonnes of material collected and marketed. • Data collected will be used in reports to ensure the performance of the system and in order to track progress in implementing the SWMS. • Annual report on the Strategy which should: • Provide an overview of the proposed objectives for the year and how the County reached these goals; • Include a list of issues that arose during the year and how these issues were mitigated; and, • Include a section on the plan for implementation in the following year.

  34. Monitoring and Plan Review Continued • As part of the Strategy review, adjustments would be made to: • Per capita waste reduction targets. • Waste diversion targets. • Review should report on trends associated with the consumption of landfill airspace. • The need for pursuing garbage processing and/or development of Landfill Sites 9 or 12 will be determined through the success in minimizing the consumption of landfill airspace. • Recommended schedule for review is:

  35. Public Education Strategy • A range of media types are proposed to engender behaviour change based on adoption of community based social marketing. • Examples of the type of P&E methods proposed:

  36. Communications Plan • Ensures a coordinated approach for the implementation of the reduction, diversion and disposal initiatives. • Effective communications plans contain four primary elements: design, funding, deployment, and monitoring / evaluation. • A dedicated staff resource in the form of a “Promotion and Education Coordinator” will be essential for the successful implementation of the P&E activities.

  37. Public Consultation on the SWMS • Opportunities to obtain information and provide comments included: • Solid Waste Management Strategy Steering Committee. • Posting of information on the County’s website. • Media releases. • Notices in local newspapers, advertisements on local radio stations, and in the Managing Your Waste newsletter. • On-line comment form and workbook to solicit feedback. • Public meetings held in February and May 2010. • Stakeholder meeting held in May 2010. • The feedback from these sessions and meetings have been incorporated into the Strategy and documented in the Records of Consultation.

  38. Summary

  39. Summary Continued

More Related